The Effect of Litigation on Intellectual Property and Welfare
This paper shows that “wasteful” litigation about intellectual property may be welfare enhancing. The aim of an intellectual property protection system is to solve the trade-off between exante innovation incentive and ex-post monopoly welfare loss. The litigation about intellectual property in court decreases the expected rent from intellectual property, therefore reducing the incentive to innovate in the first place leading to a negative effect on social welfare. Yet the legal contest may have the positive welfare effect of breaking the monopoly and allowing an entrant into the market, thus lowering prices and reducing the welfare loss of monopoly. If the welfare effect of increasing competition outweighs the first effect of reduced research, a litigation contest is welfare increasing.
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.:
- Nordhaus, William D, 1972. "The Optimum Life on a Patent: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 428-31, June.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1990.
"How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. Vries, 2005.
"Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(505), pages 583-601, 07.
- Baye, M.R. & Kovenock D. & De Vries, C.G., 2000. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: an Auction-Theoretic Approach," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1137, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. de Vries, 2000. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-13, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. de Vries, 2004. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," Working Papers 2004-24, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper De Vries, 2000. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 373, CESifo Group Munich.
- Waterson, Michael, 1990. "The Economics of Product Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 860-69, September.
- Arye L. Hillman & John G. Riley, 1987.
"Politically Contestable Rents and Transfers,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
452, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1996. "Patent Races and Optimal Patent Breadth and Length," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 249-65, September.
- Martin Kolmar & firstname.lastname@example.org & Andreas Wagener, 2012. "Contests and the Private Production of Public Goods," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 161-179, July.
- Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001.
"Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-47, October.
- Steven Shavell & Tanguy van Ypersele, 1999. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," NBER Working Papers 6956, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- SHAVELL, Steven & VAN YPERSELE, Tanguy, . "Rewards versus intellectual property rights," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1597, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 1999. " Legal Expenditure as a Rent-Seeking Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 271-88, September.
- Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908 Elsevier.
- Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2003. "Procuring Knowledge," NBER Working Papers 9903, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Glenn C. Loury, 1976.
"Market Structure and Innovation,"
256, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-97, September.
- Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
- Gilbert, Richard J & Newberry, David M G, 1984. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 238-42, March.
- Lee, Tom & Wilde, Louis L, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 94(2), pages 429-36, March.
- Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-51, Spring.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vie:viennp:0511. 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: (Paper Administrator)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.