|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
|
Issue of 2021‒02‒22
five papers chosen by Giovanni Ramello Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” |
| By: | Haugen, Atle (Dept. of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics); Juranek, Steffen (Dept. of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | We present two classroom experiments on technology licensing. The first classroom experiment introduces the concept of royalty stacking. The students learn that non-cooperative pricing of royalties for complementary intellectual property rights leads to a double-marginalization effect. Cooperation solves the problem and is welfare improving. The second classroom experiment introduces students to cross-licensing. It shows that reciprocal royalty payments dampen competition. The classroom experiments stimulate discussions of technology licensing, intellectual property rights, different royalty structures, patent pools and technology standards. We present the experimental procedures, and suggests routes for the discussion. |
| Keywords: | Licensing; royalty stacking; cross-licensing; patent pools; classroom experiment |
| JEL: | A20 L24 O30 |
| Date: | 2021–02–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:nhhfms:2021_003&r=all |
| By: | Kyle Higham (Hitotsubashi University); Gaetan de Rassenfosse (Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne); Adam Jaffe (Brandeis University, Queensland University of Technology, NBER) |
| Abstract: | The ‘quality’ of novel technological innovations is extremely variable, and the ability to measure innovation quality is essential to sensible, evidence-based policy. Patents, an often vital precursor to a commercialised innovation, share this heterogeneous quality distribution. A pertinent question then arises: How should we deï¬ ne and measure patent quality? Accepting that different parties have different views of, and different sets of terminologies for discussing this concept, we take a multi-dimensional view of patent quality in this work. We ï¬ rst test the consistency of popular post-grant outcomes that are often used as patent quality measures. Finding these measures to be generally inconsistent, we then use a raft of patent indicators available at the time of grant to dissect the characteristics of different post-grant outcomes. We ï¬ nd broad disagreement in the relative importance of individual characteristics between outcomes and, further, signiï¬ cant variation of the same across technologies within outcomes. We conclude that measurement of patent quality is highly sensitive to both the observable outcome selected and the technology type. Our ï¬ ndings bear concrete implications for scholarly research using patent data and policy discussions about patent quality. |
| Keywords: | Patent; Patent quality; Patent value; Patent citation; Patent policy; Technological impact |
| JEL: | O30 O34 |
| Date: | 2021–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iip:wpaper:14&r=all |
| By: | Nikolaos Athanasios Anagnostopoulos |
| Abstract: | While patents and standards have been identified as essential driving components of innovation and market growth, the inclusion of a patent in a standard poses many difficulties. These difficulties arise from the contradicting natures of patents and standards, which makes their combination really challenging, but, also, from the opposing business and market strategies of different patent owners involved in the standardisation process. However, a varying set of policies has been adopted to address the issues occurring from the unavoidable inclusion of patents in standards concerning certain industry sectors with a constant high degree of innovation, such as telecommunications. As these policies have not always proven adequate enough, constant efforts are being made to improve and expand them. The intriguing and complicated relationship between patents and standards is finally examined through a review of the use cases of well-known standards of the telecommunications sector which include a growing set of essential patents. |
| Date: | 2021–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2101.10548&r=all |
| By: | Antoine Dechezleprêtre (CERNA i3 - Centre d'économie industrielle i3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres); Sam Fankhauser; Matthieu Glachant (CERNA i3 - Centre d'économie industrielle i3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres); Jana Stoever; Simon Touboul (CERNA i3 - Centre d'économie industrielle i3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres) |
| Date: | 2020 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-03109935&r=all |
| By: | Meier-Ewert, Wolf R.; Gutierrez, Jorge |
| Abstract: | This paper explores how regulatory responses to emerging IP issues in digital trade may develop at the international level and in particular how existing mechanisms might influence the chances of developing internationally agreed rules in this regard. The primacy of state sovereignty in intellectual property up to the late 19th century gave way to the important WIPO treaties, which still retained some independence of member states and based international regulatory responses directly on national experience. While more regulatory sovereignty was ceded in TRIPS, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, the adoption of non-binding instruments (such as the WIPO Joint Recommendations in the area of trademarks) show the limits of decision making by consensus. International non-state solutions such as the Uniform DomainName Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have introduced separate, technically determined solutions to specific IP issues. Proliferating free-trade agreements (FTAs) have emerged as a new platform to agree to IPrelated regulatory responses that can be used to project the national solutions of a few dominant FTA-partners. However, these FTAs have also served to give legally binding status to internationally agreed non-binding recommendations. These diverse approaches are apparent in recent IPregulatory responses to emerging digital issues that are particularly relevant for digital business models, including inter alia Internet service provider (ISP) liability, "safe harbour" provisions and the issue of orphan works, where there appears to be less agreement. Still further behind to reaching any kind of agreement are the emerging issues of online exhaustion, data mining and IP-related questions of artificial intelligence. |
| Keywords: | intellectual property,trade in knowledge,digital trade,TRIPS Agreement,Berne Convention,Paris Convention,WIPO Internet Treaties,Regional Trade Agreements,online exhaustion,safe harbour,ISP liability |
| JEL: | F13 K10 K33 O30 O31 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:wtowps:ersd20214&r=all |