IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/1205.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Leading Patent Breadth, Endogenous Quality Choice, and Economic Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Keishun Suzuki
  • Shin Kishimoto

Abstract

O'donoghue and Zweimuller (2004, J. of Econ. Growth), a seminal work, showed that broadening leading breadth in patent protection can stimulate innovation. However, the empirical literature has consistently found skeptical results on the positive effect. To fill the gap, we build another framework where the quality improvement size is derived as an interior solution. In our model, broadening leading breadth can negatively affect innovation because each innovator is incentivized to free-ride the other innovators' quality improvements. As a further analysis, we quantitatively investigate the growth effect of intervention in patent licensing negotiation using two different profit division rules derived from a cooperative game. We find that intervention in patent licensing negotiation increases the growth rate and stabilizes the economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Keishun Suzuki & Shin Kishimoto, 2023. "Leading Patent Breadth, Endogenous Quality Choice, and Economic Growth," ISER Discussion Paper 1205, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2023/DP1205.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norrbin, Stefan C, 1993. "The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry: A Contradiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 1149-1164, December.
    2. Mariko Sakakibara, 2010. "An empirical analysis of pricing in patent licensing contracts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 927-945, June.
    3. Susanto Basu, 1996. "Procyclical Productivity: Increasing Returns or Cyclical Utilization?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(3), pages 719-751.
    4. Suzuki, Keishun, 2020. "Patent Protection, Optimal Licensing, And Innovation With Endogenous Entry," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(8), pages 2033-2059, December.
    5. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    6. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir, 2017. "Patent thickets, defensive patenting, and induced R&D: an empirical analysis of the costs and potential benefits of fragmentation in patent ownership," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 599-634, March.
    7. Sakakibara, Mariko & Branstetter, Lee, 2001. "Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 77-100, Spring.
    8. Yair Tauman & Naoki Watanabe, 2007. "The Shapley Value of a Patent Licensing Game: the Asymptotic Equivalence to Non-cooperative Results," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(1), pages 135-149, January.
    9. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, June.
    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. Michael Klein & Yibai Yang, 2024. "Blocking Patents, Rent Protection and Economic Growth"," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 52, pages 1-20, April.

    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. Lerner, Josh & Zhu, Feng, 2007. "What is the impact of software patent shifts? Evidence from Lotus v. Borland," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 511-529, June.
    2. Kishimoto, Shin & Suzuki, Keishun, 2021. "Growth and Welfare Effects of Interventions in Patent Licensing Negotiations," MPRA Paper 108009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Yun Hou & I.P.L. Png & Xi Xiong, 2023. "When stronger patent law reduces patenting: Empirical evidence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 977-1012, April.
    5. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500129 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Diego Comin, 2004. "R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 391-421, December.
    7. Morricone, Serena & Munari, Federico & Oriani, Raffaele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan, 2017. "Commercialization Strategy and IPO Underpricing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1133-1141.
    8. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    9. Patrick Francois & Joanne Roberts, 2003. "Contracting Productivity Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(1), pages 59-85.
    10. Tiago Sequeira, 2012. "Facts and distortions in an endogenous growth model with physical capital, human capital and varieties," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 11(3), pages 171-188, December.
    11. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    12. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Yoshinori Kurokawa, 2011. "Variety-skill complementarity: a simple resolution of the trade-wage inequality anomaly," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 297-325, February.
    14. Ohki, Kazuyoshi, 2023. "Disruptive innovation by heterogeneous incumbents and economic growth: When do incumbents switch to new technology?," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    16. Su, Zhongfeng & Wang, Chenfeng & Peng, Mike W., 2022. "Intellectual property rights protection and total factor productivity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3).
    17. Elias Dinopoulos & Wolf-Heimo Grieben & Fuat Sener, 2012. "The Conundrum of Recovery Policies: Growth or Jobs?," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-03, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    18. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    19. Lorenczik, Christian & Newiak, Monique, 2012. "Imitation and innovation driven development under imperfect intellectual property rights," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1361-1375.
    20. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    21. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2009. "Business And Financial Method Patents, Innovation, And Policy," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(4), pages 443-473, September.

    More about this item

    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:dpr:wpaper:1205. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.html .

    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.