IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umamer/2001027.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Protecting the digital endeavour: prospects for intellectual property rights in the information society

Author

Listed:
  • Cowan, Robin
  • Harison, Elad

    (MERIT)

Abstract

The impacts of the New Economy are not limited only to recently developed technologies, but involve new opportunities for more “traditional” technologies to develop. Knowledge-based industries, and information technologies in particular, hold both promises and threats in many fields. However, as technical know-how is both an input to and an output of knowledge-based industries, IPR regimes may have a large effect on the pace of innovation in knowledge-based technologies. Knowledge is a stimulus for innovation, particularly in knowledge-based technologies where large shares of technical know-how are embedded in final goods. Information goods are described as public goods: if information is disclosed to the public, its originator loses the advantages of propriety, but a new generation of know-how and ideas is stimulated and expanded as a result of its publication. However, knowledge is not legally a public good because unauthorized reproduction can be monitored by IPR. Whether IPR regimes facilitate innovation or reduce its pace has been raised as a pressing issue by the emergence of new technological paradigms and recent economic changes, namely the New Economy. This paper discusses four technologies which are emblematic of the new economy, and which raise important issues regarding IPRs. The technologies presented in this report were selected for analysis on three criteria. First, they are predicted to see rapid evolution during the coming decade and to hold a major share of both economic activity and growth. Second, these technologies are knowledge-based and most have been developed since the mid 1980s. Third, in the context of the technologies discussed here, the current design of IPR regimes seems to conflict with their original aims, namely fostering innovation and technological diffusion by promoting knowledge disclosure and granting monopoly. This report also reviews alternative economic and business models that question the need to protect information goods by IPRs.

Suggested Citation

  • Cowan, Robin & Harison, Elad, 2001. "Protecting the digital endeavour: prospects for intellectual property rights in the information society," Research Memorandum 027, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    • Handle: RePEc:unm:umamer:2001027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unu-merit.nl/publications/rmpdf/2001/rm2001-027.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Takeyama, Lisa N, 1997. "The Intertemporal Consequences of Unauthorized Reproduction of Intellectual Property," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 511-522, October.
    2. Josh Lerner & Jean Triole, 2000. "The Simple Economics of Open Source," NBER Working Papers 7600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1987. "Coordination Through Committees and Markets," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5sn4b6v4, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. Sirilli, Giorgio & Evangelista, Rinaldo, 1998. "Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: results from Italian surveys," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 881-899, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Harchaoui, Tarek M. & Hamdad, Malika, 2000. "The prices of classical recorded music: a hedonic approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 497-514, April.
    7. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1988. "Coordination Through Committees and Markets," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt08w115vq, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    8. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    9. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    10. Ove Granstrand, 1999. "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1651, June.
    11. Michael Stolpe, 2000. "Protection Against Software Piracy: A Study Of Technology Adoption For The Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 25-52.
    12. Liebowitz, S J, 1985. "Copying and Indirect Appropriability: Photocopying of Journals," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 945-957, October.
    13. Silva, Francesco & Ramello, Giovanni B, 2000. "Sound Recording Market: The Ambiguous Case of Copyright and Piracy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(3), pages 415-442, September.
    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. Harison, Elad & Koski, Heli, 2010. "Applying open innovation in business strategies: Evidence from Finnish software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-359, April.
    2. Harison, Elad & Koski, Heli, 2006. "Innovative Software Business Strategies: Evidence from Finnish Firms," Discussion Papers 1042, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

    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. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    2. Tor Winston, 2006. "Innovation and Ex Ante Consideration of Licensing Terms in Standard Setting," EAG Discussions Papers 200603, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    3. Foucart, Renaud & Li, Qian Cher, 2021. "The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    4. Vendrik, M.C.M. & Hirata, J., 2003. "Experienced versus decision utility of income: relative or absolute happiness," Research Memorandum 039, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    5. Felix B. Buesching & Dennis M. Steininger & Daniel J. Veit, 2023. "Governing digital crisis responses: platform standards and the dilemma of COVID-19 contact tracing," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 267-323, January.
    6. Gallini, Nancy, 2014. "Cooperating with competitors: Patent pooling and choice of a new standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 4-21.
    7. Dinçkol, Dize & Ozcan, Pinar & Zachariadis, Markos, 2023. "Regulatory standards and consequences for industry architecture: The case of UK Open Banking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    8. Timothy Simcoe & Jeremy Watson, 2019. "Forking, Fragmentation, and Splintering," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 283-297, December.
    9. Bekkers, Rudi & Martinelli, Arianna & Tamagni, Federico, 2020. "The impact of including standards-related documentation in patent prior art: Evidence from an EPO policy change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    10. Gina Dokko & Lori Rosenkopf, 2010. "Social Capital for Hire? Mobility of Technical Professionals and Firm Influence in Wireless Standards Committees," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 677-695, June.
    11. van Kranenburg, H.L. & Hogenbirk, A.E., 2003. "Determinants of multimedia, entertainment, and business software copyright piracy: a cross-national study," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    12. Gallini, Nancy, 2015. "Promoting Competition by Coordinating Prices: When Rivals Share Intellectual Property," Economics working papers nancy_gallini-2015-22, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 07 Dec 2015.
    13. Tian Liang & Hongying Mao & Yujiao Tan & Bing Sun, 2023. "How Does Socio-technical Landscape Affect the Formation of Technical Standards?," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    14. Cesare A.F. Riillo & Kai Jakobs, 2023. "Too many or too few Standards Setters? Evidence from the Performance of Firms engaged in Standardization," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2106-2131, December.
    15. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    16. Tobias Kretschmer & Katrin Muehlfeld, 2004. "Co-opetition in Standard-Setting: The Case of the Compact Disc," Working Papers 04-14, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    17. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    18. Wijkström, Erik & McDaniels, Devin, 2013. "International standards and the WTO TBT Agreement: Improving governance for regulatory alignment," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2013-06, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    19. Frey, Bruno S. & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1996. "FOCJ: Competitive governments for Europe," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 315-327, September.
    20. Daniel P. Gross, 2020. "Collusive Investments in Technological Compatibility: Lessons from U.S. Railroads in the Late 19th Century," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5683-5700, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:unm:umamer:2001027. 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: Angie Figueroa Alarcon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meritnl.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.