IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ijecbs/v12y2005i3p389-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Unifying Theory of Copyrights and Patents

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Watt

Abstract

Over the recent past, technological advances (among other effects) have opened a grey area of intellectual property that cannot be properly covered by either of the two existing legal regimes, patent and copyright. Some innovations do not fall easily into either regime, while others seem to fall into both. In this paper it is argued that it may be possible to define a single body of law that can be molded to fit all types of intellectual product. This idea is not new - it was suggested in the legal literature some 12 years ago - but it seems to have been ignored. In the current paper, the argument goes beyond the simple suggestion that the two existing regimes could be unified, and suggests that the degree of protection that is granted could usefully be made a choice variable for creators, at a price. This is nothing more than the imposition of a Pigouvian tax system to cater for the externality that legal protection implies for society.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Watt, 2005. "A Unifying Theory of Copyrights and Patents," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 389-402.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:12:y:2005:i:3:p:389-402
    DOI: 10.1080/13571510500300611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13571510500300611
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13571510500300611?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Laat, Paul B., 2000. "Patenting mathematical algorithms: What's the harm?: A thought experiment in algebra," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 187-204, June.
    2. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1999. "On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 181-196, Summer.
    3. David D. Friedman & William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1991. "Some Economics of Trade Secret Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 61-72, Winter.
    4. Francesca Cornelli & Mark Schankerman, 1999. "Patent Renewals and R&D Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 197-213, Summer.
    5. Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1994. "Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 190-209, March.
    6. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    3. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    4. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    6. Scott Baker & Pak Yee Lee & Claudio Mezzetti, 2011. "Intellectual property disclosure as threat," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 7(1), pages 21-38, March.
    7. Caillaud, Bernard & Duchêne, Anne, 2011. "Patent office in innovation policy: Nobody's perfect," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 242-252, March.
    8. Mark Schankerman & Florian Schuett, 2022. "Patent Screening, Innovation, and Welfare," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(4), pages 2101-2148.
    9. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    10. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    11. Schankerman, Mark & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality : Examination, Fees, and the Courts," Other publications TiSEM fa319822-6e68-4e05-8547-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    13. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    14. Danguy Jérôme & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie Bruno, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-43, April.
    15. Jinyoung Kim, 2015. "Patent Portfolio Management of Sequential Inventions: Evidence from US Patent Renewal Data," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(2), pages 195-218, September.
    16. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Caillaud, Bernard & Tirole, Jean, 2004. "Essential facility financing and market structure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 667-694, March.
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8gjo2i2i is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Emeric Henry, 2010. "Runner‐up Patents: Is Monopoly Inevitable?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(2), pages 417-440, June.
    20. Kim Weonseek & Koo Bonwoo, 2012. "A Patent System with a Contingent Delegation Fee under Asymmetric Information," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, May.
    21. Hugo Hopenhayn & Gerard Llobet & Matthew Mitchell, 2006. "Rewarding Sequential Innovators: Prizes, Patents, and Buyouts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(6), pages 1041-1068, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:12:y:2005:i:3:p:389-402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.