|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
|
Issue of 2016‒12‒11
seven papers chosen by Giovanni Ramello Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” |
| By: | David Autor; David Dorn; Gordon H. Hanson; Pian Shu; Gary Pisano |
| Abstract: | Manufacturing is the locus of U.S. innovation, accounting for more than three quarters of U.S. corporate patents. The rise of import competition from China has represented a major competitive shock to the sector, which in theory could benefit or stifle innovation. In this paper we empirically examine how rising import competition from China has affected U.S. innovation. We confront two empirical challenges in assessing the impact. We map all U.S. utility patents granted by March 2013 to firm-level data using a novel internet-based matching algorithm that corrects for a preponderance of false negatives when using firm names alone. And we contend with the fact that patenting is highly concentrated in certain product categories and that this concentration has been shifting over time. Accounting for secular trends in innovative activities, we find that the impact of the change in import exposure on the change in patents produced is strongly negative. It remains so once we add an extensive set of further industry- and firm-level controls. Rising import exposure also reduces global employment, global sales, and global R&D expenditure at the firm level. It would appear that a simple mechanism in which greater foreign competition induces U.S. manufacturing firms to contract their operations along multiple margins of activity goes a long way toward explaining the response of U.S. innovation to the China trade shock. |
| JEL: | F14 F6 O31 O34 |
| Date: | 2016–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:22879&r=ipr |
| By: | Akcigit, Ufuk; Hanley, Douglas; Stantcheva, Stefanie |
| Abstract: | We study the optimal design of R&D policies and corporate taxation when the outputs of innovation are not appropriable in the absence of intellectual property rights policies and there are non-internalized technology spillovers across firms. Firms are heterogeneous in their research productivity, i.e., in the efficiency with which they convert a given set of R&D inputs into successful innovations. There is asymmetric information about firm productivity and about its stochastic evolution over time that prevents the first best solution to the technology spillover. The problem is thus posed as one of dynamic mechanism design with externalities. We characterize the optimal constrained efficient allocations over firms' life cycles and for firms of different productivities. We show that the constrained efficient allocations can be implemented either by a patent system plus a price subsidy for the monopolists' products, together with a parsimonious R&D subsidy function or, equivalently, by a prize mechanism. We estimate our model using firm-level data matched to patent data and quantify the optimal policies. Simpler innovation policies, such as linear R&D subsidies and linear profit taxes, lead to large revenue losses relative to the optimal mechanism. |
| Keywords: | Corporate taxation; innovation; patents; R&D; Subsidies; Tax credits |
| JEL: | H21 H23 H25 H32 O31 O32 O33 O38 |
| Date: | 2016–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:11682&r=ipr |
| By: | Petros Gkotsis (European Commission – JRC); Antonio Vezzani (European Commission – JRC) |
| Abstract: | Advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) and other key enabling technologies (KETs) are expected to have a major impact on productivity, efficiency, profitability and employment in major industrial sectors worldwide. Thus, development of AMTs and KETs is considered essential if the European Union is to achieve the strategic goals set out in the European Commission’s Employment, Growth and Investment priorities. Indeed, AMTs and KETs are among the top priorities identified as necessary to support the competitiveness of European industries in the context of the European flagship on industrial modernisation. This study builds upon and extends results that were obtained in the context of the Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Competitiveness AMTEC project, in which the technological profiles of the patent portfolios of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard companies were constructed using patent-based analysis. In particular, their technological competences were investigated and it was found that European companies invest in KETs, and in particular in AMTs, as these technologies are considered to be vital for maintaining current competitiveness. However, other countries also invest heavily in AMTs and KETs. It is therefore very important for the EU to define a strategy that aims to find a suitable position in the global value and innovation chains and that selectively augments existing capabilities. To this end, a methodology based on patent analysis was applied to assess the capacity of the world’s top R&D investors in developing AMTs. Particular emphasis was placed on complex AMT patents that also pertain to at least one of the five KETs. These patents are considered important because they represent AMT applications used for the development of KETs in general or, conversely, they represent other KET applications that can be incorporated into AMT systems. The main questions addressed by this study were (1) In which countries are the most important inventors of AMTs and applicants for AMT-related patents located? (2) Is it possible to analyse internationalisation patterns and knowledge flows between world regions and countries? and (3) Are there any special patterns and clusters between AMT-related technological fields and the five core KETs and, if so, which companies are responsible for the development of these technological applications? Developing and patenting AMT-related technologies is particularly important for firms in the Aerospace & defence, Industrials, Automobiles & parts and Electronics & electrical equipment sectors. Moreover, the more specialised a sector is in developing AMT-related technologies, the less internationalised the AMT-related activities of the firms in the sector appear to be. In general AMT-related R&D activities of European- and US-based firms are more internationalised than the activities of Japanese- and Asian-based companies. It was found that many Scoreboard firms based in the USA, Japan, Germany, France and the UK own and develop a large number of AMT-related patents. However, there are also many inventors of AMT-related technologies based in other countries, such as China, India, Canada, Italy, Belgium and Spain. Finally, the ratio of complex AMT patents to the total number of AMT-related patents is close to 8%, the vast majority being patents that relate to micro- and nano-electronics, advanced materials or photonics. Companies that own these complex patents are often relatively small firms that are highly specialised in the development of AMT-related applications. |
| Keywords: | Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, Key Enabling Technologies, Patents, Industry |
| Date: | 2016–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc101970&r=ipr |
| By: | OKADA Yoshimi; NAITO Yusuke; NAGAOKA Sadao |
| Abstract: | Delineating the patent scope consistently with the contribution of the disclosed invention is one of the most crucial requirements for a patent system to promote innovation effectively. Given the incentive of an applicant to set a scope for the patent as broad as possible, an important task of the Patent Office is to narrow it so that it becomes commensurate with the invention. This study analyzes empirically how significantly the Patent Office delivers this important function through patent examination, focusing on product patents in four major technology areas. We find that, often (i.e., two-thirds of the granted patents), the patent's scope is narrowed as an outcome of the patent examination. In addition, both the incidence and the extent of such narrowing increase when the applicant chooses broader claims and decrease when the quality of prior art disclosure by the applicant is higher, suggesting that patent examination indeed contributes to making the patent scope consistent with the contribution of the invention. We also found that a more important patent application experiences more the narrowing event, consistent with our simple model of examination where an examiner aims at reducing the economic cost due to excess claim such as deadweight loss, subject to time constraint. |
| Date: | 2016–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eti:dpaper:16092&r=ipr |
| By: | Sunil Kanwar (Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics); Shailu Singh (Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | While there is consensus that innovation is a prime motive force in the process of modern economic growth, there continues to be lack of clarity about how best to capture this process of innovation. Although it is relatively clear that research and development expenditure constitutes an important, perhaps even the most important, input into the innovation process, its relationship with the output of this process remains enigmatic. A sizeable literature considers this relationship in the developed country context, though primarily the US, and sheds light on a number of aspects. Evidence for developing countries, in contrast, is sparse. This study intends to fill this gap by exploring the innovation-R&D relationship as exemplified by the influence of knowledge capital on patents, in the context of the emerging economy of India. Using a relatively large sample of 380 manufacturing firms spanning 22 industries over the recent period 2001-2010, we find weak evidence at best for this relationship. A one unit (dollar or rupee) increase in the knowledge capital stock is likely to raise the expected patent count by only about 0.7%, which given the current average patent count per firm per year, is only a marginal change. In addition, we also find that patent experience and the firm’s access to resources are both strongly significant factors explaining changes in expected patent counts, although their magnitudes are equally small. Our semi-elasticity estimate w.r.t knowledge capital translates to an elasticity of about 0.02 at the means, which is in line with that for enterprises in Spanish manufacturing. However, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the 0.1 to 0.2 reported for the Dutch pharmaceuticals sector, and the 0.3 to 0.6 for firms in the US manufacturing sector. Given the many reasons why most firms appear not to patent even when they conduct some research, policy makers would have to address multiple issues to bring about a more effective conversion of research into formal intellectual property in the developing country context. |
| Keywords: | Patents, r&d, manufacturing, India |
| Date: | 2016–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cde:cdewps:265&r=ipr |
| By: | Helmers, Christian; Lefouili, Yassine; Love, Brian; McDonagh, Luke |
| Abstract: | We study a U.K. court reform that established a cap on the amount of costs that a successful litigant may recover in a case litigated in the Patents County Court (PCC, now the IP Enterprise Court). We first build a theoretical model showing that the introduction of a costs cap is equivalent to an intermediate cost allocation rule falling between the English and American Rules. Our model suggests that the impact of the introduction of such a fee-shifting rule on the number of claims filed and the settlement rate is ambiguous. It shows, however, that the effect of the costs cap on IP holders' incentives to file a claim is stronger for smaller IP holders. Our empirical analysis of the impact of the costs cap takes advantage of our ability to compare IP litigation in the PCC with IP litigation in the High Court of England and Wales, which was not directly affected by the reform. Contrary to the existing literature, we find that the costs cap increased the number of cases filed by smaller companies and decreased the rate of settlement. |
| Keywords: | Litigation, Fee Shifting, Intellectual Property, Court Reform, U.K. |
| JEL: | K41 O34 |
| Date: | 2016–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tse:wpaper:31251&r=ipr |
| By: | Vasquez, Maria del Carmen |
| Abstract: | SECO Working Paper 16/2016 by María del Carmen Vásquez Callo and Camilo Pérez Restrepo |
| Date: | 2016–12–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wti:papers:1032&r=ipr |