IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Dual Effects of Intellectual Property Regulations: Within- and Between- Patent Competition in the US Pharmaceuticals Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Frank R. Lichtenberg
  • Tomas J. Philipson

Abstract

A patent only protects an innovator from others producing the same product, but it does not protect him from others producing better products under new patents. Therefore, one may divide up the source of competition facing an innovator into within-patent competition, which results from production of the same product, and betweenpatent competition, which results from production of products on other patents. Previous theoretical and empirical micro -based analyses have emphasized the effects of intellectual property regulations on within -patent competition by showing how protecting innovative returns from imitators raises R&D incentives. However, between-patent competition affects innovative returns, particularly through creative destruction in the many high-tech industries that seem central to overall economic progress. This suggests that a fuller understanding of IP-regulations take into account its effects on between-patent competition. We find that the total effects of intellectual property regulations depend heavily on whether these unexplored effects are present. We attempt to estimate the relative magnitudes of the two sources of competition in limiting innovative returns in the U.S. pharmaceuticals market. In this market within -patent competition from so-called generic producers has been analyzed relatively more compared to competition between-patents through so called therapeutic competition. We estimate that between-patent competition, most of which occurs while a drug is under patent, costs the innovator at least as much as within-patent competition, which cannot occur until a drug is off patent. The reduction in the present discounted value of the innovator's return from between-patent competition appears to be at least as large as the reduction from competition within -patents, and may be much larger.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank R. Lichtenberg & Tomas J. Philipson, 2002. "The Dual Effects of Intellectual Property Regulations: Within- and Between- Patent Competition in the US Pharmaceuticals Industry," NBER Working Papers 9303, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:9303
    Note: HC HE PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9303.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    3. repec:bin:bpeajo:v:27:y:1996:i:1996-3:p:201-267 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:bin:bpeajo:v:27:y:1996:i:1996-3:p:133-199 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    7. 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.
    8. Berndt, Ernst R, et al, 1995. "Information, Marketing, and Pricing in the U.S. Antiulcer Drug Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 100-105, May.
    9. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    10. Pakes, Ariel S, 1986. "Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 755-784, July.
    11. Z. John Lu & William S. Comanor, 1998. "Strategic Pricing Of New Pharmaceuticals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 108-118, February.
    12. Wright, Brian Davern, 1983. "The Economics of Invention Incentives: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 691-707, September.
    13. Horstmann, Ignatius & MacDonald, Glenn M & Slivinski, Alan, 1985. "Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 837-858, October.
    14. Judd, Kenneth L, 1985. "On the Performance of Patents," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(3), pages 567-585, May.
    15. Hall, Bronwyn & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 449-469, April.
    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. repec:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0503-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. John Cawley & John A. Rizzo, 2005. "The Competitive Effects of Drug Withdrawals," NBER Working Papers 11223, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Hostenkamp, Gisela, 2013. "Do follow-on therapeutic substitutes induce price competition between hospital medicines? Evidence from the Danish hospital sector," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 68-77.
    4. Francesco Laforgia & Fabio Montobbio & Luigi Orsenigo, 2007. "IPRs, technological and industrial development and growth: the case of the pharmaceutical industry," KITeS Working Papers 206, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Oct 2007.
    5. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2009. "Nuove politiche per l'innovazione nel settore delle scienze della vita," Working Papers CERM 03-2009, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    6. Heuer, Alexander & Mejer, Malwina & Neuhaus, Jennifer, 2007. "The national regulation of pharmaceutical markets and the timing of new drug launches in Europe," Kiel Advanced Studies Working Papers 437, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    7. Schnittker, Jason & Karandinos, George, 2010. "Methuselah's medicine: Pharmaceutical innovation and mortality in the United States, 1960-2000," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 961-968, April.
    8. Costa-Font, Joan & McGuire, Alistair & Varol, Nebibe, 2014. "Price regulation and relative delays in generic drug adoption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Joseph DiMasi & Cherie Paquette, 2005. "The economics of follow-on drug research and development: Trends in entry rates and the timing of development — The authors’ reply," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 1193-1202, December.
    10. Farasat A. S. Bokhari & Gary M. Fournier, 2013. "Entry in the ADHD drugs market: Welfare impact of generics and me-too's," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 339-392, June.
    11. Arcidiacono, Peter & Ellickson, Paul B. & Landry, Peter & Ridley, David B., 2013. "Pharmaceutical followers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 538-553.
    12. Michael Yuan, 2006. "A better copyright system? comparing welfare of indefinitely renewable copyright versus fixed-length copyright," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 519-542.
    13. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2002. "The Effect of Changes in Drug Utilization on Labor Supply and Per Capita Output," NBER Working Papers 9139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

    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:9303. 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: () or (Joanne Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.