IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/labeco/200509.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Trade-Off Of Intellectual Property Rights Reconsidered: Technological Knowledge As An Essential Facility

Author

Abstract

Intellectual property rights have a twin effect on the economic system. On the one hand they favor the introduction of new technological knowledge. On the other they reduce competition and eventually may limit the rate of introduction of new knowledge. A trade-off takes place between such positive and negative effects. The application to the economics of knowledge of the notions of essential facility and liability rule can correct the balance of the trade-off and contribute the rate of advance of technological knowledge and its effective use in the economic system. The tuning of exclusive property rights makes it possible to minimize knowledge rents and favor the dissemina tion and use of knowledge in the economic system taking advantage of its intrinsic cumulability and complementarity.

Suggested Citation

  • Antoneli, Cristiano, 2005. "The Trade-Off Of Intellectual Property Rights Reconsidered: Technological Knowledge As An Essential Facility," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200509, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:labeco:200509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati_wp/wp2005dip_l_b/9_wp_momigliano.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2005. "Models of knowledge and systems of governance," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 51-73, June.
    2. Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-547, October.
    3. Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, May.
    4. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2001. "The Microeconomics of Technological Systems," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245536, Decembrie.
    5. Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Lee Davis, 2004. "Intellectual property rights, strategy and policy," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 399-415.
    10. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(2), pages 419-451, June.
    11. J. Gregory Sidak & William Baumol, 1994. "Toward Competition in Local Telephony," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52984, September.
    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. Cristiano Antonelli, 2007. "Technological knowledge as an essential facility," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 451-471, August.
    2. Cristiano Antonelli, 2004. "The Governance of Localized Technological Knowledge and the Evolution of Intellectual Property Rights," Chapters, in: Enrico Colombatto (ed.), The Elgar Companion to the Economics of Property Rights, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2005. "Models of knowledge and systems of governance," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 51-73, June.
    4. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2003. "The Governance of Technological Knowledge: Strategies, Processes and Public Policies," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200306, University of Turin.
    5. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    6. Antonelli Cristiano, 2012. "Compulsory licensing: the foundations of an institutional innovation," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201207, University of Turin.
    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. Cristiano Antonelli, 2003. "Knowledge Complementarity and Fungeability: Implications for Regional Strategy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6-7), pages 595-606.
    9. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kristof Van Criekingen, 2021. "Information Leakage, Imitation, and the Patent System," Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven 682983, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven.
    10. Patrick Cohendet & Matthieu Farcot & Julien Pénin, 2009. "Intellectual property in a knowledge-based economy : Patents to include vs. patents to exclude," Working Papers of BETA 2009-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. 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.
    12. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    13. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    14. Rajeev Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2013. "Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: a somewhat new perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-485, August.
    15. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    16. Harabi, Najib, 1996. "Patents in Theory and Practice: Empirical Results from Switzerland," MPRA Paper 9606, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Langinier, Corinne & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2002. "Economics of Patents: An Overview, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 2061, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2008. "Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization," Economics Working Papers 1254, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2014.
    19. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    20. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.

    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:uto:labeco:200509. 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: Piero Cavaleri or Marina Grazioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/leifrit.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.