IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tth/wpaper/06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Should Competition Policies and Intellectual Property Issues Interact in a Globalised World? A Schumpeterian Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo Burlamaqui

Abstract

In the 21 century globalized economy, innovation, antitrust issues and (new) intellectual property rules are in the forefront of every government, large company and policy making debates. This paper aims to be a preliminary effort to contribute for a better understanding of the interactions between Competition policies (rather than antitrust) and Intellectual Property issues under a schumpeterian perspective and, therefore, towards a more coherent framework within which the discussions of both institutional building and policy design towards development can proceed. The policy-institutions resulting from the analyses should be flexible and pragmatic, and should have creative destruction management – or the promotion and regulation of entrepreneurial success – as its main goal. The key insight of the policy prescriptions proposed to deal with the question is the need of a huge dose of “strategic state action” and a high degree of international cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo Burlamaqui, 2006. "How Should Competition Policies and Intellectual Property Issues Interact in a Globalised World? A Schumpeterian Perspective," The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 06, TUT Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance.
    • Handle: RePEc:tth:wpaper:06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hum.ttu.ee/wp/paper6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard N. Langlois, 1999. "Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach," Working papers 1999-07, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    2. Varian,Hal R. & Farrell,Joseph & Shapiro,Carl, 2004. "The Economics of Information Technology," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521844154, January.
    3. Roger G. Noll, 2004. "The Conflict Over Vertical Foreclosure In Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Law," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(1), pages 79-96, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Mario Cimoli & Giovanni Dosi & Richard R. Nelson & Joseph Stiglitz, 2006. "Institutions and Policies Shaping Industrial Development: An Introductory Note," LEM Papers Series 2006/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Anthony Bartzokas & Sunil Mani (ed.), 2004. "Financial Systems, Corporate Investment in Innovation, and Venture Capital," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3089.
    7. Dennis W. Carlton & Robert H. Gertner, 2003. "Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and Strategic Behavior," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 3, pages 29-60, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Altenburg, Tilman & Schmitz, Hubert & Stamm, Andreas, 2008. "Breakthrough China's and India's Transition from Production to Innovation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 325-344, February.
    2. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    3. Kanchan Lala & Kunal Sinha, 2019. "Role of Technology Incubation in India’s Innovation System: A Case of the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Incubation Centre," Millennial Asia, , vol. 10(1), pages 91-110, April.
    4. Marcela Miozzo & Lori DiVito & Panos Desyllas, 2011. "Cross-border acquisitions of science-based firms: Their effect on innovation in the acquired firm and the local science," DRUID Working Papers 11-17, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    5. Giovanni B. Ramello, 2003. "Copyright and antitrust issues," Chapters, in: Wendy J. Gordon & Richard Watt (ed.), The Economics of Copyright, chapter 7, pages 118-147, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Nicola Gennaioli & Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2015. "Optimally vague contracts and the law," Economics Working Papers 1410, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2017.
    7. McGahan, Anita M. & Silverman, Brian S., 2006. "Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1222-1242, October.
    8. Dolfsma, W.A., 2006. "IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-004-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Beatriz Kira & Vikram Sinha & Sharmadha Srinivasan, 2021. "Regulating digital ecosystems: bridging the gap between competition policy and data protection [Merger policy in digital markets: an ex post assessment]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1337-1360.
    10. Malte Mosel, 2011. "Big patents, small secrets: how firms protect inventions when R&D outcome is heterogeneous," Working Papers 105, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    11. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    12. Fernandes, Ana M. & Mattoo, Aaditya & Nguyen, Huy & Schiffbauer, Marc, 2019. "The internet and Chinese exports in the pre-ali baba era," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 57-76.
    13. Alberto Botta, 2017. "The Complex Inequality–Innovation–Public Investment Nexus: What We (Don’t) Know, What We Should Know and What We Have to Do," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 275-298, July.
    14. Neij, Lena & Heiskanen, Eva & Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "The deployment of new energy technologies and the need for local learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 274-283.
    15. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    16. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    17. Wolfgang Drechsler, 2009. "Towards the Law & Economics of development: Ragnar Nurkse (1907–1959)," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 19-37, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Vladimir I. Soloviev & Natalia A. Iliina & Marina V. Samoyavcheva, 2009. "Cournot Equilibrium In A Model Of Hardware And Software Manufacturers' Interaction," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(11), pages 1-4.
    20. Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent protection under endogenous product differentiation," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 78-93, March.

    More about this item

    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:tth:wpaper:06. 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: Shobhit Shakya (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ahittee.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.