nep-ipr New Economics Papers
on Intellectual Property Rights
Issue of 2009‒05‒30
six papers chosen by
Roland Kirstein
Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg

  1. Market Structure and Property Rights in Open Source By Michele Boldrin; David K Levine
  2. Interest Groups and Patent Reform in India By Anitha Ramanna
  3. Upstream Innovation Protection: Common Law Evolution and the Dynamics of Wage Inequality By Guido Cozzi; Silvia Galli
  4. How ’Open ’ is Innovation in the US and Japan?: Evidence from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey By John P. Walsh; Sadao Nagaoka
  5. National Innovation System in the Era of Liberalization: Implications for Science and Technology Policy for Developing Economies By Singh, Lakhwinder; Singh, Baldev
  6. Semi-Public Contests By Prüfer, J.

  1. By: Michele Boldrin; David K Levine
    Date: 2009–05–06
  2. By: Anitha Ramanna
    Abstract: India’s patent reforms represent a shift in India’s policy from one of enormous opposition to revising patent laws according to the WTO, to one of compliance with many aspects of TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement. Industry and civil society had a strong interest in blocking reforms on IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights), and initially played an important role in preventing reforms of India’s patent law. India has recently changed its patent regime, led by important industry groups who revised their positions, and new NGOs that promoted reform. The preferences of actors and their changing interests are important factors in the reform process. Perceived benefits from the new regime partly explain the rise of a pro-reform constituency among industry and NGOs. Yet preference formation is complex and depends on interpretation of strategies by various actors.[IGIDR WP 06]
    Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights; industry groups; NGOs; reform; preferences; Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
    Date: 2009
  3. By: Guido Cozzi; Silvia Galli
    Abstract: What is the most innovation-enhancing level of patent protection for the new ideas generated within the framework of multi-stage sequential innovation? How does increasing early innovation appropriability affect basic research, applied research, education, and wage inequality? What does the common law system imply on the macroeconomic responses to institutional change? We show how the jurisprudential changes in intellectual property rights witnessed in the US after 1980 can be related to the well-known increase in wage inequality and in education attainments. A Schumpeterian general equilibrium approach is followed.
    Keywords: Basic and Applied R&D, Sequential Innovation, Skill Premium, Inequality and Education, Research Exemption, Common Law
    JEL: O31 O33 O34
    Date: 2009–05
  4. By: John P. Walsh; Sadao Nagaoka
    Abstract: While individual inventors are key to technological progress, it is becoming increasingly necessary for inventors and their firms to exploit information and capabilities outside the firm in order to combine onefs own resources with resources from the external environment. To better understand the collaborative process in inventions, we collected detailed information on a sample of triadic patents, focusing on the invention process, sources of ideas, and collaboration (the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey), with over 1900 responses from the US and over 3600 responses from Japan. Our results suggest that in both countries, just over 10% of inventions involved an external co-inventor and about 30% involved external (non-co-inventor) collaborators (with the rate of collaboration somewhat higher in Japan). Cross-organizational co-inventions increase as firm size declines, especially in Japan. In both countries, vertical collaborations (both co-inventions and other collaborations) with users and suppliers were the most common. The most important knowledge sources were similar in the two countries: patents, customers, publications, and information from other parts of the firm, although their relative rankings varied somewhat. In particular, patent literature is a relatively more important information source in Japan and scientific literature is relatively more important in the US. Since our evidence suggest that inventors see literature globally, such difference does not seem to be driven by the difference of the disclosed literature (for an example, more early patent disclosure in Japan) as suggested by earlier literature but by that of the incentive and capability of the inventors. While in both countries most R&D funding is provided internally, venture capital and government funding play a greater role in the US than in Japan, with venture capital funds especially important for the smallest US firms. On the other hand, industry funding plays a greater role for university researchersf inventions in Japan. There is some evidence that gopen innovationh through collaborations enhances not only the technical significance of the invention, but also the probability of its commercialization through, for an example, vertical collaboration facilitating better matches between the needs of customers or the capabilities of suppliers.
    Date: 2009–05
  5. By: Singh, Lakhwinder; Singh, Baldev
    Abstract: The national system of innovations in the recent phase of globalization has undergone dramatic structural transformation. Innovations entails organizational as well as changes in the rules of the game. The history of economic development of the developing and newly industrializing economies shows that national systems of innovation have evolved keeping in view the most pressing requirements of the national economic development. The knowledge generation and transmission are the two essential characteristics of national innovation system that connects the users and producers of knowledge and also allows institutional arrangements to functions as a feedback system. The institutional arrangements are being altered substantially to allow capital to move freely across national borders on the one side and strict trade related intellectual property rights on the other. How these arrangements have affected the national system of innovation both in the developed and developing countries during the recent liberalisation phase of economic development? In this paper an attempt has been made to provide some plausible answers to this question. Input and output indicators have been used with a view to unravel the dramatic structural changes occurring both in the economic and innovation structure of the global economy. The internationalisation of R&D expenditure and its implications for revealed comparative advantage have been examined in order to understand the direction of change during the era of liberalisation. The suitable changes in the science and technology policy have been suggested to strengthen the national system of innovation for generating unique competitive advantage in the developing countries.
    Keywords: National system of innovation; structural transformation; input and output measures of innovations; revealed competitive advantage; public policy; internationalisation of R&D; intellectual property rights
    JEL: O1 O3 O31
    Date: 2009–05–20
  6. By: Prüfer, J. (Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research)
    Abstract: The process of innovation is driven by two main factors: new inventions and institutions supporting the transformation of inventions into marketable innovations. This paper proposes a new institution, called a semi- public contest, that has been neglected by the economic literature but exists frequently in practice. I show how semi-public contests can mitigate a dilemma that arises at a very early stage of innovative activity and specify the general requirements for situations in which a semi-public contest can increase welfare. This paper's results suggest that governments promote knowledge about the semi-public contest mechanism but refrain from direct public funding of contests.
    Keywords: Innovation;Contests;Entrepreneurs;Institutional Design;Business Plan Competitions;Auctions
    JEL: D02 D86 L10 O31
    Date: 2009

This nep-ipr issue is ©2009 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.