IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/15713.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fostering the Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies: Evidence from the Licensing of the Transistor Patents

Author

Listed:
  • Schnitzer, Monika
  • Nagler, Markus
  • Watzinger, Martin

Abstract

How do patents influence the spread of General Purpose Technologies? To answer this question, we analyze the diffusion of the transistor, one of the most important technologies of our time. We show that the transistor diffusion and cross-technology spillovers increased dramatically after AT&T began licensing its transistor patents on standardized terms in 1952. This suggests that standardized licensing of the transistor patents helped jumpstart the positive feedback loop between innovations upstream and in applications. A subsequent reduction in royalties did not lead to a further increase, suggesting that standardized licensing in itself is more important than the specific royalty rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Schnitzer, Monika & Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin, 2021. "Fostering the Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies: Evidence from the Licensing of the Transistor Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 15713, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:15713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP15713
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    3. Josh Lerner & Marcin Strojwas & Jean Tirole, 2007. "The design of patent pools: the determinants of licensing rules," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 610-625, September.
    4. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    5. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
    6. Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    7. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    8. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2023. "What Happened to US Business Dynamism?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(8), pages 2059-2124.
    9. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, November.
    10. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2021. "Ten Facts on Declining Business Dynamism and Lessons from Endogenous Growth Theory," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 257-298, January.
    11. Heidi L. Williams, 2017. "How Do Patents Affect Research Investments?," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 441-469, September.
    12. Martin Watzinger & Thomas A. Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2020. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 328-359, November.
    13. Iacus, Stefano & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2009. "cem: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 30(i09).
    14. Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Ron D. Katznelson & John Howells, 2015. "The myth of the early aviation patent hold-up—how a US government monopsony commandeered pioneer airplane patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 1-64.
    16. Alberto Galasso, 2012. "Broad Cross‐License Negotiations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 873-911, December.
    17. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2015. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61614, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Leonid Kogan & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Noah Stoffman, 2017. "Technological Innovation, Resource Allocation, and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(2), pages 665-712.
    19. Jeffrey L. Furman & Markus Nagler & Martin Watzinger, 2021. "Disclosure and Subsequent Innovation: Evidence from the Patent Depository Library Program," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 239-270, November.
    20. Petra Moser & Alessandra Voena, 2012. "Compulsory Licensing: Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 396-427, February.
    21. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    22. Jovanovic, Boyan & Rousseau, Peter L., 2005. "General Purpose Technologies," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1181-1224, Elsevier.
    23. Daniel Holbrook & Wesley M. Cohen & David A. Hounshell & Steven Klepper, 2000. "The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1017-1041, October.
    24. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    25. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. George Selgin & John L. Turner, 2011. "Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or the Myth of Watt's Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 841-861.
    27. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    28. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    29. David C. Mowery, 2011. "Federal Policy and the Development of Semiconductors, Computer Hardware, and Computer Software: A Policy Model for Climate Change R&D?," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 159-188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    30. Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167.
    31. William R. Kerr, 2008. "Ethnic Scientific Communities and International Technology Diffusion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 518-537, August.
    32. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    33. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    34. Bresnahan, Timothy, 2010. "General Purpose Technologies," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 761-791, Elsevier.
    35. Dan Andrews & Chiara Criscuolo & Peter N. Gal, 2016. "The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers 5, OECD Publishing.
    36. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    37. Richard Nelson, 1962. "Introduction to "The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors"," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 1-16, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    38. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    39. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 317-369.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2022. "The Breakup of the Bell System and its Impact on US Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 341, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Diane Coyle, 2021. "The idea of productivity," Working Papers 003, The Productivity Institute.

    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. Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer & Martin Watzinger, 2022. "Fostering the Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies: Evidence from the Licensing of the Transistor Patents," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 838-866, December.
    2. Martin Watzinger & Thomas A. Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2020. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 328-359, November.
    3. Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas A. & Nagler, Markus, 2017. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 4, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    5. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2024. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 494, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Robin Mamrak, 2023. "Antitrust and (Foreign) Innovation: Evidence from the Xerox Case," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 396, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    8. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patent Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," NBER Working Papers 21769, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas & Schnitzer, Monika, 2016. "Antitrust, Patents, and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Bell Labs," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145580, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2015. "Patents Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," CEPR Discussion Papers 10968, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patents Rights and Innovation by Small and Large Firms," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 54, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    12. Aydogmus, Ozgur, 2022. "Increasing returns and path dependence in knowledge creation and their effects on the dynamics of patent pools," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 467-477.
    13. Yin, Nina, 2023. "Pharmaceuticals, incremental innovation and market exclusivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    15. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    16. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Gambardella, Alfonso, 2023. "Private and social functions of patents: Innovation, markets, and new firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    18. Daniel P. Gross, 2023. "The Hidden Costs of Securing Innovation: The Manifold Impacts of Compulsory Invention Secrecy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2318-2338, April.
    19. Kwon, Seokbeom & Marco, Alan C., 2021. "Can antitrust law enforcement spur innovation? Antitrust regulation of patent consolidation and its impact on follow-on innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    20. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Intellectual property; Standardized licensing; General purpose technololgies; Transistor;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:15713. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.