nep-ipr New Economics Papers
on Intellectual Property Rights
Issue of 2008‒03‒01
four papers chosen by
Roland Kirstein
Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg

  1. Firms' Rationales for Interaction with Research Universities By Broström, Anders
  2. Mapping Technological Trajectories as Patent Citation Networks. An application to Data Communication Standards By Roberto Fontana; Alessandro Nuvolari; Bart Verspagen
  3. The allocation of property rights to intangible cultural assets By Sebastian Lechner; Zulia Gubaydullina; Kilian Bizer
  4. How often do economists self-archive? By Ted Bergstrom; Rosemarie Lavaty

  1. By: Broström, Anders (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: R&D managers at 50 firms randomly selected from all firms who have formal relations with two research universities in Stockholm are being interviewed about their rationales for collaboration. Drawing on this material, a distinctive typology of rationales and the therewith associated effects from cooperative relations is presented. As expected, rationales related to innovation, in terms of invented or improved products or processes, are found to be the main drivers for interaction. As regards the nature of the innovation process leading to innovation, most respondents indicate that “indirect” relationships between collaboration outcomes and successful innovation dominate over “direct” appropriation of results. Contrasting open ended search rationales with pursuit of defined objectives, we find that both types are strongly represented among the studied collaborative linkages. We also find that interaction rationales often go beyond the pursuit of innovation per se; firms also work with university researchers to access academic networks, to develop its human capital and to realise direct business opportunities. The consequences of these findings for policy measures steered towards the strengthening of collaborative university-industry linkages are discussed.
    Keywords: R&D collaboration; technology transfer; university-industry linkages; innovation collaboration
    JEL: O32 O33 O38
    Date: 2008–02–26
  2. By: Roberto Fontana (University of Pavia); Alessandro Nuvolari (Eindhoven University of Technology); Bart Verspagen (Eindhoven University of Technology)
    Keywords: Technical systems, Technological trajectories, Patents, Network analysis, Data communications
    JEL: O30 O33 L96
    Date: 2007–02–19
  3. By: Sebastian Lechner (University of Göttingen); Zulia Gubaydullina (University of Göttingen); Kilian Bizer (University of Göttingen)
    Abstract: This paper provides an economic justification for the protection of cultural property rights of indigenous groups. Cultural property either in the form of traditional knowledge or folklore carries the potential to increase wealth by adding to the knowledge base of an economy. But in order to ensure efficient use of cultural assets, the law should provide protection from overexploitation which is likely to occur as cultural assets can be characterized as a common pool resource. In contrast to other intellectual property such as inventions cultural goods are primarily provided by intrinsic motivation. External effects of using them in the production of other goods could crowd out this motivation. If cultural assets are part of the knowledge base of an economy, as argued here, protection of cultural assets should be implemented by either specific regulation by the state or the creation of property rights which can be traded on markets. International law should endeavour to provide a framework with lowest possible transaction costs while securing cultural assets.
    Keywords: Intellectual property rights, Cultural property rights, common pool resource, knowledge base
    JEL: Z1 O34 H41
    Date: 2008–02–25
  4. By: Ted Bergstrom (University of California, Santa Barbara); Rosemarie Lavaty (UCSB)
    Abstract: To answer the question of the paper's title, we looked at the tables of contents from two recent issues of 33 economics journals and attempted to find a freely available online version of each article. We found that about 90 percent of articles in the most-cited economics journals and about 50 percent of articles in less-cited journals are available. We conduct a similar exercise for political science and find that only about 30 percent of the articles are freely available. The paper reports a regression analysis of the effects of author and article characteristics on likelihood of posing and it discusses the implications of self-archiving for the pricing of subscription-based academic journals.
    Keywords: open access, self-archiving, academic journals, citations, impact factor, journal prices,
    Date: 2007–02–08

This nep-ipr issue is ©2008 by Roland Kirstein. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.