nep-ipr New Economics Papers
on Intellectual Property Rights
Issue of 2008‒06‒13
seven papers chosen by
Roland Kirstein
Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg

  1. Radical versus Non-Radical Inventions By Schoenmakers, Wilfred; Duysters, Geert; Vanhaverbeke, Wim
  2. Enabling and Sustaining Collaborative Innovation By Blecker, Thorsten; Abdelkafi, Nizar; Raasch, Christina
  3. Competition, R&D and the cost of innovation By Philippe Askenazy; Christophe Cahny; Delphine Irac
  4. Distance to Frontier and Appropriate Business Strategy By Alex Coad
  5. The Economics of Scientific Misconduct. By Nicola Lacetera; Lorenzo Zirulia
  6. Bringing Science to Market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR Awards By Albert N. Link; Christopher J. Ruhm
  7. Attempt of modelling the Technnological Acceleration By Ajeddi, majid

  1. By: Schoenmakers, Wilfred (Hasselt University); Duysters, Geert (UNU-MERIT); Vanhaverbeke, Wim (Hasselt University)
    Abstract: This paper looks at the special characteristics of radical inventions. It tries to identify those variables that differentiate radical inventions from non-radical inventions. Since radical inventions are very important for the economy as a whole and for the individual firm performances, understanding what makes radical inventions differ from non-radical inventions is very important. For our research we made use of the EPO (European Patent Office) database on patents. We used the number of forward patent citations per patent to identify radical from non-radical inventions. For our analysis we used the backward patent citations per patent. In order to test if the two groups we are considering are truly different and to see on what factors they differ we made use of discriminant function analysis. Some of our main conclusions are that radical inventions are to a higher degree based on existing knowledge than non-radical inventions. Also the combination of emergent and mature knowledge is more important for radical inventions. A further result that follows from our analysis is that radical inventions are induced by the recombination over more knowledge domains as compared to non-radical inventions. Our research hints also on the importance of alliances and an open innovation system for the development of radical inventions.
    Keywords: radical inventions, patents, organizational learning, alliances
    JEL: O30 O31 O32 O33 O34 D83
    Date: 2008
  2. By: Blecker, Thorsten; Abdelkafi, Nizar; Raasch, Christina
    Abstract: This paper extends the principles of open source software development to a non-industry-specific level by introducing the Open Source Innovation (OSI) model. OSI exhibits main differences to other related models and concepts such as the private-collective model, commons-based peer production, R&D networks and is therefore an innovation model in its own right. In order for OSI projects to be successful, numerous factors need to be fulfilled. We make the distinction between four categories of factors: economic, technical, legal, and social. In each category, we differentiate between enabling and sustaining factors. The enabling factors must be met at the beginning of the project, whereas the sustaining factors must be satisfied as the project progresses.
    Keywords: OSI; open source innovation; R&D
    JEL: O32 L17 O3 O31
    Date: 2008
  3. By: Philippe Askenazy; Christophe Cahny; Delphine Irac
    Abstract: This paper proposes a model in the spirit of Aghion and al. (2005) that relates the magnitude of the impact of competition on R&D to the cost of innovation. The effect of competition on R&D is an inverted U-shape. However, the shape is flatter and competition policy is therefore less relevant for innovation when innovations are relatively costly. Intuitively, if innovations are costly for a firm, competitive shocks have to be significant to alter its innovation decisions. Empirical investigations using a unique panel dataset from the Banque de France show that an inverted U-shaped relationship can be clearly evidenced for the largest firms, but the curve becomes flatter when the relative cost of R&D increases. For large costs, the relationship even vanishes.
    Date: 2008
  4. By: Alex Coad
    Abstract: This paper is an empirical test of the hypothesis that the appropriateness of different business strategies is conditional on the firms distance to the industry frontier. We use data on four 2-digit high-tech manufacturing industries in the US over the period 1972-1999, and apply semi-parametric quantile regressions to investigate the contribution of firm behavior to market value at various points of the conditional distribution of Tobin's q. Among our results, we observe that innovative activity, measured in terms of R&D expenditure or patents, has a strong positive association with market value at the upper quantiles (corresponding to the leader firms) whereas the innovative efforts of laggard firms are valued significantly less. Laggard firms, we suggest, should instead achieve productivity growth through efficient exploitation of existing technologies and imitation of industry leaders. Employment growth in leader firms is encouraged whereas growth of backward firms is not as well received on the stock market.
    Keywords: Distance to frontier, Strategy, Market value, Innovation, Firm Growth
    JEL: L25 L21 D21 O31
    Date: 2008–06–03
  5. By: Nicola Lacetera (Department of Economics, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western University, Cleveland, OH, USA); Lorenzo Zirulia (Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Italy; CESPRI, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy; and Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis)
    Abstract: Scientific fraud is a pervasive phenomenon with deleterious consequences, as it leads to false scientific knowledge being published, therefore a¤ecting major individual and public decisions. In this paper we build a game-theoretic model of the research and publication process that ana- lyzes why scientists commit fraud and how fraud can be detected and prevented. In the model, authors are asymmetrically informed about the success of their projects, and can fraudulently manipulate their results. We show four main results. First, the types of scientific frauds that are observed are unlikely to be representative of the overall amount of malfeasance in science; also, star scientists are more likely to misbehave, but are less likely to be caught than average scientists. Second, a reduction in the costs of checking for frauds may not lead to a reduction of misconduct episodes, but rather to a change in the type of research that is performed. Third, an increase in competition between scientists may in fact reduce, and not increase, scientific misconduct. Finally, a more active role of editors in checking for misconduct does not always provide additional deterrence.
    Keywords: Research and publication process, peer review, fraud.
    JEL: A14 D82 K42 O31 Z13
    Date: 2008–03
  6. By: Albert N. Link; Christopher J. Ruhm
    Abstract: We offer empirical information on the correlates of commercialization activity for research projects funded through the U.S. National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) award program. Based on this analysis we suggest possible recommendations for improving this aspect of the performance of NIH's SBIR program. Specifically, we estimate a model of the probability of commercialization as a function of the project's ability to attract additional developmental funding, along with other control variables. We find that additional developmental funding from non-SBIR federal sources and from own internal sources are important predictors of commercialization success, relatively more so than additional developmental funding from venture capitalists. We also find, among other things, that university involvement in the underlying research increases the probability of commercialization. Thus, these factors should be considered by NIH when making awards, if increased commercialization is an objective.
    JEL: I28 O38
    Date: 2008–06
  7. By: Ajeddi, majid
    Abstract: In this paper, we study the technological acceleration whithin a new frame work wich extends models used in the literature. The objective of our research is then to construct a global model of evaluation of the technological acceleration by two methods of physical science. Firstly, we will try to formulate the equation of propagation of the technological acceleration and to find out the variable upon which it depends by drawing our inspiration from the model of undulatory physics. Secondly, we will borrow the model of dynamic physics (kinematics and Newtonian dynamics) in order to be clarified on the evaluation and measure of the technological acceleration. Kinematics and Newtonian dynamics will serve to quantify the technological advance of an industry or of a country which will make it possible to inform the decision makers about the state of health of their technology and to guide them in their ulterior strategic choices.
    Keywords: Technological Acceleration- Physics Models – Dynamics of the Technological Acceleration- Patents.
    JEL: O32
    Date: 2008–06–02

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.