Intellectual Property, Antitrust and Strategic Behavior
Economic growth depends in large part on technological change. Laws governing intellectual property rights protect inventors from competition in order to create incentives for them to innovate. Antitrust laws constrain how a monopolist can act in order to maintain its monopoly in an attempt to foster competition. There is a fundamental tension between these two different types of laws. Attempts to adapt static antitrust analysis to a setting of dynamic R&D competition through the use of 'innovation markets' are likely to lead to error. Applying standard antitrust doctrines such as tying and exclusivity to R&D settings is likely to be complicated. Only detailed study of the industry of concern has the possibility of uncovering reliable relationships between innovation and industry behavior. One important form of competition, especially in certain network industries, is between open and closed systems. We have presented an example to illustrate how there is a tendency for systems to close even though an open system is socially more desirable. Rather than trying to use the antitrust laws to attack the maintenance of closed systems, an alternative approach would be to use intellectual property laws and regulations to promote open systems and the standard setting organizations that they require. Recognition that optimal policy toward R&D requires coordination between the antitrust and intellectual property laws is needed.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and Strategic Behavior , Dennis W. Carlton, Robert H. Gertner. in Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 3 , Jaffe, Lerner, and Stern. 2003|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.
- David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2001.
"Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries,"
NBER Working Papers
8268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2002. "Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 1-50 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 1998.
"The Strategic Use Of Tying To Preserve And Create Market Power In Evolving Industries,"
University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State
145, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 1998. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," NBER Working Papers 6831, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bernheim, B.D., 1992.
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1622, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, .
"Measuring the Social Return to R&D,"
97002, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism For Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167, November.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Spence, Michael, 1984. "Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 101-21, January.
- Farrell, Joseph, 1989.
"Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt8161p50b, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1992. "Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 9-35, March.
- Joseph Farrell and Garth Saloner., 1989. "Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces," Economics Working Papers 89-130, University of California at Berkeley.
- Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-40, June.
- Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
- 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.
- Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1984.
"Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation,"
345, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Steven C. Salop, 1995. "You Keep On Knocking But You Can't Come In: Evaluating Restrictions On Access To Input Joint Ventures," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 111, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 1987.
"The Effect of Takeover Activity on Corporate Research and Development,"
NBER Working Papers
2191, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 1988. "The Effect of Takeover Activity on Corporate Research and Development," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences, pages 69-100 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Economides, Nicholas & White, Lawrence J., 1994. "Networks and compatibility: Implications for antitrust," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 651-662, April.
- Michael Kremer, 1997. "Patent Buy-Outs: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," NBER Working Papers 6304, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Prusa, Thomas J. & Schmitz, James Jr., 1991. "Are new firms an important source of innovation? : Evidence from the PC software industry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 339-342, March.
- Barry Nalebuff, 2000. "Competing Against Bundles," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm157, Yale School of Management.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:8976. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.