IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7062.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94

Author

Listed:
  • Bronwyn H. Hall
  • Rose Marie Ham

Abstract

This paper examines the patenting behavior of firms in an industry characterized by rapid technological change and cumulative innovation. Recent evidence suggests that semiconductor firms do not rely heavily on patents, despite the strengthening of US patent rights in the early 1980s. Yet the propensity of semiconductor firms to patent has risen dramatically over the past decade. This paper explores this apparent paradox by analyzing the patenting activities of almost 100 US semiconductor firms during 1980-94. The results suggest that stronger patents may have facilitated entry by firms in niche product markets, while spawning patent portfolio races' among capital-intensive firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Bronwyn H. Hall & Rose Marie Ham, 1999. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," NBER Working Papers 7062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7062
    Note: PR IO
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7062.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean O. Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 1996. "Preliminary Injunctive Relief: Theory and Evidence from Patent Litigation," NBER Working Papers 5689, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    5. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2000. "Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look," NBER Working Papers 7741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Pakes, Ariel & Griliches, Zvi, 1980. "Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 377-381.
    8. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    9. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Windmeijer, Frank, 2002. "Individual effects and dynamics in count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 113-131, May.
    10. Ashish Arora, 1995. "Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights And The Market For Know-How," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 41-60.
    11. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    12. 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, March.
    13. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. Zvi Griliches & Bronwyn H. Hall & Ariel Pakes, 1988. "R&D, Patents, and Market Value Revisited: Is There Evidence of A SecondTechnological Opportunity Related Factor?," NBER Working Papers 2624, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Bronwyn H. Hall & Zvi Griliches & Jerry A. Hausman, 1984. "Patents and R&D: Is There A Lag?," NBER Working Papers 1454, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Ariel Pakes & Zvi Griliches, 1980. "Patents and R and D at the Firm Level: A First Look," NBER Working Papers 0561, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi & Hausman, Jerry A, 1986. "Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(2), pages 265-283, June.
    21. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
    22. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-720, May.
    23. Jean Olson Lanjouw, 1994. "Economic Consequences of a Changing Litigation Environment: The Case of Patents," NBER Working Papers 4835, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
    25. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    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. Alberto Di Minin & Mario Benassi, 2008. "Playing In Between: Patents’ Brokers In Markets For Technology," Working Papers 200802, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Enrique Schroth & Dezsö Szalay, 2010. "Cash Breeds Success: The Role of Financing Constraints in Patent Races," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 14(1), pages 73-118.
    3. Macdonald, Stuart, 2004. "When means become ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, March.
    4. Illoong Kwon, 2008. "Patent Portfolio Race and Secrecy," Discussion Papers 08-05, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    5. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Bekkers, Rudi & Duysters, Geert & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1141-1161, September.
    7. Bessen, James & Neuhäusler, Peter & Turner, John L. & Williams, Jonathan, 2018. "Trends in private patent costs and rents for publicly-traded United States firms," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 53-69.
    8. Jiri Schwarz & Martin Stepanek, 2016. "Patents: A Means to Innovation or Strategic Ends?," Working Papers IES 2016/08, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2016.
    9. Mario Calderini & Andrea Giannaccari, 2006. "Standardisation in the ICT sector: The (complex) interface between antitrust and intellectual property," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 543-567.
    10. Kenney, Martin & Richard Goe, W., 2004. "The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 691-707, July.
    11. Thomas Hoeren & Francesca Guadagno & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, 2015. "Breakthrough technologies - Semiconductor, innovation and intellectual property," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 27, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    12. Yoon-Jun Lee & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2007. "Technology strategy for enhancing the public-to-private technology transfer: evidence from the duration of patent," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 229-240.
    13. Ueda, Masako & Hirukawa, Masayuki, 2008. "Venture Capital and Innovation: Which is First?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7090, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Chipten Valibhay & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2019. "The 'Distinctive Capacity': Managing the invention process by managing the prior art," Post-Print hal-02095821, HAL.
    15. C Niranjan Rao, 2004. "The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Information and Communication Technologies," Microeconomics Working Papers 22406, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    16. Paul A. David, 2005. "Can ‘Open Science’ be Protected from the Evolving Regime of IPR Protections?," Industrial Organization 0502010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Reul, Ervilia & Tietze, Frank & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2007. "Exploring the correlation of patent ownership and firm success: Cases from the LCD flat panel display industry," Working Papers 47, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.

    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. Bronwyn Hall & Rosemaire Ham Ziedonis, 2000. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979-95," Economics Series Working Papers 2000-W16, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    2. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    3. Alexandre Almeida & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2007. "Does Patenting negatively impact on R&D investment?An international panel data assessment," FEP Working Papers 255, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    4. Louise Keely, 2001. "Using Patents In Growth Models," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 449-492.
    5. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Chadha, Alka, 2009. "TRIPs and patenting activity: Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 499-505, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Schim van der Loeff, 2009. "Innovative Sales, R&D and Total Innovation Expenditures: Panel Evidence on their Dynamics," CESifo Working Paper Series 2716, CESifo.
    9. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708, December.
    10. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    11. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2009. "The knowledge production of 'R' and 'D'," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 141-143, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Llobet, Gerard, 2003. "Patent litigation when innovation is cumulative," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1135-1157, October.
    14. Gamba, Simona, 2017. "The Effect of Intellectual Property Rights on Domestic Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 15-27.
    15. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Ufuk Akcigit & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1374-1443.
    17. Ann-Kathrine Ejsing & Ulrich Kaiser & Hans Christian Kongsted & Keld Laursen, 2013. "The Role of University Scientist Mobility for Industrial Innovation," Working Papers 332, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    18. Rentocchini, Francesco, 2011. "Sources and characteristics of software patents in the European Union: Some empirical considerations," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 141-157, March.
    19. Wang, Ning & Hagedoorn, John, 2014. "The lag structure of the relationship between patenting and internal R&D revisited," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1275-1285.
    20. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising

    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:nbr:nberwo:7062. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.