IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc15/113045.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beat the gun - protection against zero-profit imitation

Author

Listed:
  • Schubert, Stefanie
  • Jost, Peter-J.

Abstract

The recent development of 3D printing raises the issue of how to protect manufacturing firms from product piracy. In this paper, we are interested in potential regulatory requirements to protect firms from falling victim of product piracy and associated quality choices. We employ a game-theoretic model of duopoly competition. One firm offers a high-quality product facing quality-related costs. An imitator views the product and produces an imitation using a low-cost production method as 3D printing. Our results indicate that copy protection by the high-quality firm yields a higher quality than under patent protection. However, the chosen quality level of the high-quality firm is highest in duopoly without protection. Optimal patent protection crucially depends on the underlying objective function. It is only socially optimal if the regulatory authority maximises GDP.

Suggested Citation

  • Schubert, Stefanie & Jost, Peter-J., 2015. "Beat the gun - protection against zero-profit imitation," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113045, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc15:113045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/113045/1/VfS_2015_pid_626.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Lutz, 1997. "Vertical product differentiation and entry deterrence," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 79-102, February.
    2. Ulrich Lehmann-Grube, 1997. "Strategic Choice of Quality When Quality is Costly: The Persistence of the High-Quality Advantage," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(2), pages 372-384, Summer.
    3. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    4. 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.
    5. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    6. Arijit Mukherjee & Enrico Pennings, 2004. "Imitation, patent protection, and welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 715-733, October.
    7. Marjit, Sugata & Kabiraj, Tarun & Dutta, Arijita, 2009. "Strategic Under-utilization of Patents and Entry Deterrence: The Case of Pharmaceutical Industry," MPRA Paper 19157, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    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. Nordhaus, William D, 1969. "An Economic Theory of Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 18-28, May.
    11. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    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. Besen, Stanley M & Kirby, Sheila Nataraj, 1989. "Private Copying, Appropriability, and Optimal Copying Royalties," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(2), pages 255-280, October.
    14. Shabtai Donnenfeld & Shlomo Weber, 1995. "Limit Qualities and Entry Deterrence," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    15. Buxmann, Peter & Pohl, Gerrit & Johnscher, Patrick & Strube, Jochen & Groffmann, Hans-Dieter, 2005. "Strategies for Digital Music Markets: Pricing and the Effectiveness of Measures against Pirate Copies : Results of an Empirical Study," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 103198, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    16. Baker, Scott & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2005. "Disclosure as a Strategy in the Patent Race," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 173-194, April.
    17. Paul Belleflamme & Martin Peitz, 2010. "Digital Piracy: Theory," CESifo Working Paper Series 3222, CESifo.
    18. Morton I. Kamien & Israel Zang, 1999. "Virtual Patent Extension by Cannibalization," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(1), pages 117-131, July.
    19. Johnson, William R, 1985. "The Economics of Copying," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(1), pages 158-174, February.
    20. Novos, Ian E & Waldman, Michael, 1984. "The Effects of Increased Copyright Protection: An Analytic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(2), pages 236-246, April.
    21. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    23. Choi, Chong Ju & Shin, Hyun Song, 1992. "A Comment on a Model of Vertical Product Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 229-231, June.
    24. Martin Peitz & Patrick Waelbroeck, 2003. "Piracy of Digital Products: A Critical Review of the Economics Literature," CESifo Working Paper Series 1071, CESifo.
    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. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    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. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    4. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    5. Yuan, Michael Y., 2005. "Does decrease in copying cost support copyright term extension?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 471-494, October.
    6. Jen-Te Yao, 2005. "Counterfeiting and an Optimal Monitoring Policy," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 95-114, January.
    7. Yongmin Chen & David E.M. Sappington, 2018. "An optimal rule for patent damages under sequential innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 370-397, June.
    8. Andreas Reinstaller & Gerhard Schwarz, 2012. "Die wirtschafts- und forschungspolitische Bedeutung der Umsetzung der Biopatentrichtlinie im österreichischen Patentgesetz," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 44635, January.
    9. Patrick Legros, 2005. "Art and the Internet: Blessing the Curse?," NajEcon Working Paper Reviews 172782000000000001, www.najecon.org.
    10. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    11. Cevikarslan, Salih, 2013. "Optimal patent length and patent breadth in an R&D driven market with evolving consumer preferences: An evolutionary multi-agent based modelling approach," MERIT Working Papers 2013-020, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Pasquale L. Scandizzo & Marco Ventura, 2016. "Innovation and imitation as an interactive process," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 821-851, November.
    13. Hylton, Keith N. & Zhang, Mengxi, 2017. "Optimal remedies for patent infringement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 44-57.
    14. Reitzig, Markus, 2003. "What determines patent value?: Insights from the semiconductor industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 13-26, January.
    15. Paul Belleflamme & Pierre M. Picard, 2007. "Piracy and Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 351-383, June.
    16. Ganguly, Madhuparna, 2021. "Stronger Patent Regime, Innovation and Scientist Mobility," MPRA Paper 107635, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2017. "Econometric Evidence on the R&D Depreciation Rate," NBER Working Papers 23072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    19. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    20. Davin Chor & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2013. "Cumulative Innovation, Growth and Welfare-Improving Patent Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 4407, CESifo.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:zbw:vfsc15:113045. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.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 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.html .

    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.