nep-ipr New Economics Papers
on Intellectual Property Rights
Issue of 2008‒05‒31
eight papers chosen by
Roland Kirstein
Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg

  1. Technology transfer offices and university patenting - a review By Sidonia von Ledebur
  2. The impact of network structure on knowledge transfer: An application of social network analysis in the context of regional innovation networks By Michael Fritsch; Martina Kauffeld-Monz
  3. Innovators and the Diversity of Innovation Systems By Uwe Cantner; Andreas Meder
  4. Interaction Structures in Local Innovation Systems By Uwe Cantner; Holger Graf
  5. What do Scientists Want: Money or Fame? By Devrim Göktepe; Prashanth Mahagaonkar
  6. A Theoretical Framework for Understanding University Inventors and Patenting By Devrim Göktepe
  7. Forever Minus a Day? Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright Term By Pollock, Rufus
  8. What Is “Open”? An Economic Analysis of Open Institutions By Deng, Feng

  1. By: Sidonia von Ledebur (Friedrich Schiller Universität Jena, Graduate School "Economis of Innovative Change")
    Abstract: This policy paper on science-industry technology transfer has four emphases: the rationale of recent changes in German science policy, the contribution of diverse transfer channels to economic development as well as the role of IPR in that context, the differences in the institutional framework between Europe and USA regarding academic patenting, and the organisational design of technology transfer offices (TTOs). The extensive literature review highlights the importance of TTOs, the necessity of supporting manifold transfer channels, and continuous government funding of intermediaries. Important open research questions are the relative importance of transfer channels and the optimal size of TTOs.
    Keywords: science-industry links, university patenting, technology transfer offices, science policy
    JEL: O34 O33 O31
    Date: 2008–04–18
  2. By: Michael Fritsch (Friedrich Schiller University Jena, German Institute for Economic Research (DIW-Berlin), and Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena, Germany); Martina Kauffeld-Monz (Institute for Urban Science and Structural Policy (IfS Berlin), Germany)
    Abstract: We analyze information and knowledge transfer in a sample of 16 German regional innovation networks with almost 300 firms and research organizations involved. The results indicate that strong ties are more beneficial for the exchange of knowledge and information than weak ties. Moreover, our results suggest that broker positions tend to be associated with social returns rather than with private benefits.
    Keywords: Regional innovation networks, R+D-collaboration, knowledge exchange, social network analysis, strong ties, knowledge brokers
    JEL: D83 D85 L14 O32
    Date: 2008–05–06
  3. By: Uwe Cantner (Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Economics Department); Andreas Meder (Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Economics Department)
    Abstract: This work deals with the determinants of cooperative invention and innovation within innovation systems. Several proximity dimensions are used to identify the levels on which systemic innovation activities can be observed. To disentangle the effects of different proximity dimensions a procedure is suggested to identify the relative regional impact (RRI) on cooperative invention and innovation. Applying this method to German patent data shows that there are significant differences in the RRI of German regions. These differences are related to measures of the technological relatedness of the regions knowledge bases, and over time they show a considerable path dependency.
    Keywords: proximity concepts, cooperative innovation, innovation systems
    JEL: O31 P25 Q55
    Date: 2008–05–26
  4. By: Uwe Cantner (Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Economics Department); Holger Graf (Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Economics Department)
    Abstract: The flow of knowledge through interaction between innovative actors is central to the systemic view of innovation. We review the lite ature on interaction and innovator networks with a focus on regional aspects. To illustrate the relevance of these relations, we apply social network analysis methods to describe the evolution of the innovator network of Jena, Germany in the period from 1995 to 2001. During this period, the network is characterised by growth in the number of patents, actors and relations, with central positions of public research. The evolution is directed towards an increasing focus on core compe- tencies of the network.
    Keywords: Innovator Networks, Innovation System, R+D Cooperation. Mobility
    JEL: O31 L14 R11
    Date: 2008–05–08
  5. By: Devrim Göktepe (Max Planck Institute of Economics); Prashanth Mahagaonkar (Max Planck Institute of Economics)
    Abstract: What makes scientists patent and disclose inventions to employers? Using a new dataset on Max Planck scientists, we explore their motivations to patent and/or disclose inventions. We propose that patenting need not be used for monetary benefits. Scientists value reputation as important use patenting and disclosures as a signal to gain it. We find that it is not monetary benefits that drive patenting and disclosures but expectation of reputation. We also find that experience with the employer matters for disclosure of inventions. This may imply that patents are indeed used as information transfer mechanisms with prime motivation being reputation.
    Keywords: university patenting, inventors, incentives
    JEL: B31 C12 O31 O34
    Date: 2008–04–08
  6. By: Devrim Göktepe (Max Planck Institute of Economics)
    Abstract: This paper develops theoretical standpoints to investigate and analyse university inventors and patenting activities. Although the studies on academic entrepreneurship and university patenting have substantially increased, first there have not been enough studies on individual inventors and second the current theoretical studies are not eclectic enough to capture the different factors that may explain university inventors patenting activities. The framework described here addresses this need. To accomplish this we inductively derive several factors from a substantial number of studies on university patenting and entrepreneurship, and develop these factors into a tentative framework. It is our hope that this framework is useful in future empirical research on university patenting and provides a point of departure for scientists.
    Keywords: theoretical approach, university patenting, inventors, incentives
    JEL: O31 O34 B31
    Date: 2008–04–08
  7. By: Pollock, Rufus
    Abstract: The optimal term of copyright has been a matter for extensive debate over the last decade. Using a simple model we characterise optimal term as a function of a few key parameters. We estimate this function using a combination of new and existing data on recordings and books and find an optimal term of around fifteen years. This is substantially shorter than any current copyright term and implies that existing copyright terms are too long.
    Keywords: Copyright; Intellectual Property; Copyright Term
    JEL: O34 L10 O31
    Date: 2008–01
  8. By: Deng, Feng
    Abstract: By examining several different types of open institutions including open source software, open science, open square and (open) urban planning, this paper presents a general analysis of open institutional structure that is complementary to traditional proprietary mode. We argue that open institutions, in whatever forms, are essentially about decentralized production of a collective good (or “commons”) that relies on voluntary collaboration of highly variable human-related input. In addition to providing a general definition of open institutional structure, we submit there are two necessary conditions for open institutions. The first is the integration of consumers into production. The second condition is that the efficiency gain from “production” commons is the objective and the tragedy of anticommons becomes a serious problem. In this sense, open institutions represent a positive approach toward externality and uncertainty.
    Keywords: open institutions; collective good; open source software; open science; open square; urban planning
    JEL: D23 D71 H41 L31 R52 L22
    Date: 2008–01–10

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.