Patentability, industry structure, and innovation
To qualify for a patent, an invention must be new, useful, and nonobvious. This paper presents a model of sequential innovation in which industry structure is endogenous and a standard of patentability determines the proportion of all inventions that qualify for protection. There is a unique patentability standard, or inventive step, that maximizes the rate of innovation by maximizing the number of firms engaged in R&D. Surprisingly, this standard is more stringent for industries disposed to innovate rapidly. If a single standard is applied to heterogeneous industries, it will encourage entry, and therefore innovation, in some industries while discouraging it in others. The model suggest a number of important implications for patent policy.
|Date of creation:||2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 10 Independence Mall, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1574|
Web page: http://www.philadelphiafed.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.phil.frb.org/econ/wps/index.html Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kamal Saggi, 2002.
"Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology Transfer: A Survey,"
World Bank Research Observer,
World Bank Group, vol. 17(2), pages 191-235, September.
- Saggi, Kamal, 2000. "Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer : a survey," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2349, The World Bank.
- Vincenzo Denicol�, 2000. "Two-Stage Patent Races and Patent Policy," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 450-487, Autumn.
- Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques-François Thisse, 1998.
"Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress,"
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, 03.
- O'DONOGHUE, Ted & SCOTCHMER, Suzanne & THISSE, Jacques-FranÃ§ois, . "Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1314, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989.
"A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction,"
UWO Department of Economics Working Papers
8904, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Working papers 527, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 1990. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," NBER Working Papers 3223, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," DELTA Working Papers 90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
- Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, June.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1990.
"How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
- Partha Dasgupta & Joseph Stiglitz, 1980. "Uncertainty, Industrial Structure, and the Speed of R&D," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 1-28, Spring.
- Chou, T. & Haller, H.H., 1995. "The Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation Reconsidered," Discussion Paper 1995-64, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2006.
"Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation,"
Economics Working Papers
0025, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
- Vincenzo Denicol�, 2000. "Two-Stage Patent Races and Patent Policy," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 488-501, Autumn.
- Saul Lach & Rafael Rob, 1992.
"R&D, Investment and Industry Dynamics,"
NBER Working Papers
4060, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Green, J.R. & Scotchmer, S., 1993.
"On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1638, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- 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.
- Scherer, F M, 1992. "Schumpeter and Plausible Capitalism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1416-33, September.
- Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring.
- Horowitz, Andrew W & Lai, Edwin L-C, 1996. "Patent Length and the Rate of Innovation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(4), pages 785-801, November.
- B. Douglas Bernheim, 1984. "Strategic Deterrence of Sequential Entry into an Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, Spring.
- Gilbert, R. & Shapiro, C., 1988.
"Optimal Patent Length And Breadth,"
28, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
- Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1985. "Innovation and Industry Evolution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 100(1), pages 81-99.
- Robert M. Hunt, 1999. "Nonobviousness and the incentive to innovate: an economic analysis of intellectual property reform," Working Papers 99-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Haller, H. & Chou, T., 1995. "The Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation Reconsidered," Papers 9564, Tilburg - Center for Economic Research.
- Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
- Keith E. Maskus, 1993. "Intellectual property rights and the Uruguay Round," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q I, pages 10-25.
- Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
- Keith E. Maskus, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 99, December.
- Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 1996. "Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 322-331, Summer.
- Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107 Elsevier.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedpwp:01-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Beth Paul)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.