IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ind/igiwpp/2011-002.html

Rewarding innovation efficiently: Research spill-overs and exclusive IP rights

Author

Listed:
  • Vincenzo Denicol

    (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research)

  • Luigi A. Franzoni

    (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development ResearchInstitute of Economic Growth)

Abstract

We investigate the conditions for the desirability of exclusive intellectual property rights for innovators as opposed to weak rights allowing for some degree of imitation and ex-post competition. The comparison between the two alternatives reduces to a specific "ratio test," which suggests that strong exclusive IP rights are preferable when competition from potential imitators is weak, the innovation attracts large R&D investments, and research spill-overs are small.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincenzo Denicol & Luigi A. Franzoni, 2011. "Rewarding innovation efficiently: Research spill-overs and exclusive IP rights," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2011-002, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    • Handle: RePEc:ind:igiwpp:2011-002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2011-002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. La Manna, Manfredi & Macleod, Ross & de Meza, David, 1989. "The case for permissive patents," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1427-1443, September.
    2. Vincenzo Denicolò & Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2004. "Patents, Secrets, and the First‐Inventor Defense," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 517-538, September.
    3. Denicolo, Vincenzo & Franzoni, Luigi Alberto, 2003. "The contract theory of patents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 365-380, December.
    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. Zhang, Tianle, 2012. "Patenting in the shadow of independent discoveries by rivals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 41-49.
    2. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Sergei Guriev, 2006. "Patents vs. Trade Secrets: Knowledge Licensing and Spillover," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(6), pages 1112-1147, December.
    3. Klein, Michael A., 2020. "Secrecy, the patent puzzle and endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    4. Lindblom Ted & Mallios Aineas & Sjögren Stefan, 2024. "A Theoretical Analysis of Collusion Involving Technology Licensing Under Diseconomies of Scale," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 263-297, January.
    5. Gabrovski, Miroslav, 2015. "The Patent System as a Tool for Eroding Market Power," MPRA Paper 81330, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Sep 2017.
    6. Aineas Kostas Mallios, 2024. "Licensing and secrecy under imperfect intellectual property protection," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 527-552, November.
    7. Aineas Kostas Mallios, 2025. "Technology Transfer and Imitation in a Cournot Oligopoly," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(2), pages 9649-9683, June.
    8. Carl Shapiro, 2008. "Patent Reform: Aligning Reward and Contribution," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 111-156, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Klaus Kultti & Tuomas Takalo & Juuso Toikka, 2006. "Simultaneous Model of Innovation, Secrecy, and Patent Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 82-86, May.
    10. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Ponce, Carlos J., 2011. "Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 418-434.
    12. Massimiliano Granieri, 2011. "A Law and Economics Introduction to Patent Law and Procedure," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/3jesolrqda8pl9qj4osla4hevt is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Zaby, Alexandra K., 2005. "Losing the lead: Patents and the disclosure requirement," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 296, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    15. Ponce, Carlos J., 2007. "More secrecy... more knowledge disclosure? : On disclosure outside of patents," UC3M Working papers. Economics we077241, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    16. Ottoz, Elisabetta & Cugno, Franco, 2011. "Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 219-227.
    17. Tapan Biswas & Jolian McHardy, 2012. "Secrecy Versus Patents: Process Innovations and the Role of Uncertainty," Working Paper series 18_12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    18. Mari Komulainen & Tuomas Takalo, 2013. "Does State Street Lead to Europe? The Case of Financial Exchange Innovations," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 521-557, June.
    19. Johnson, Justin P., 2014. "Defensive publishing by a leading firm," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 15-27.
    20. Klein, Michael A., 2022. "The reward and contract theories of patents in a model of endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    21. Paul Belleflamme & Paul Bloch, 2013. "Dynamic Protection of Innovations through Patents and Trade Secrets," CESifo Working Paper Series 4486, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law

    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:ind:igiwpp:2011-002. 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: Shamprasad M. Pujar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/igidrin.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.