|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
| By: | Elizabeth Webster (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne); Paul H. Jensen (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne) |
| Abstract: | In this paper, we take another look at the role that patents play in determining successful commercialization. We address this issue using survey data on 3,736 Australian inventions which were the subject of a patent application between 1986 and 2005. Although almost half of the survey respondents’ patent applications were not granted, many still attempted to commercialize their inventions. This variation in patenting and commercialization outcomes enables us to address the question: do patents matter for commercialization? Our results suggest that while the receipt of a patent grant had a positive and significant effect on most commercialization stages, the magnitude of the effect is quite modest. In fact, the marginal increase in the probability of attempting a commercialization stage due to the presence of a patent varies from 2.0 (export) to 8.0 (mass production stage) percentage points. |
| Date: | 2009–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2009n08&r=ipr |
| By: | Gastón Llanes (Harvard Business School, Entrepreneurial Management Unit); Stefano Trento (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona) |
| Abstract: | We present a model of sequential innovation in which an innovator uses several research inputs to invent a new good. These inputs, in turn, must be invented before they can be used by the final innovator. As a consequence, the degree of patent protection affects the revenues and cost of the innovator, but also determines the incentives to invent the research inputs in the first place. We study the effects of increases in the number of required inputs on innovation activity and optimal patent policy. We find that the probability of introducing the final innovation decreases (increases) as the number of inputs increases when inputs are complements (substitutes). We also find that the optimal strength of patents on research inputs is increasing in the degree of substitution between the inputs, but decreasing in the number of inputs for any degree of substitution. |
| Date: | 2009–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hbs:wpaper:09-148&r=ipr |
| By: | Antti-Jussi Tahvanainen |
| Abstract: | ABSTRACT : Finnish university technology transfer is currently caught in the turbulences of major changes in the national innovation system. Three virtually simultaneous changes are of special importance. The first is the massive on-going renewal of the Universities Act governing the Finnish higher education system in its entirety. It was originally initiated to provide universities with more financial and operational flexibility and autonomy and, thus, with better premises to fulfil the three mandates (i) to educate, (ii) to conduct academic research, and (iii) to impact societal welfare. The second change is the foundation of the so-called Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation (Finnish acronym : SHOK) that aim at establishing and re-enforcing long-term research cooperation between the academia and the Industry. The final change is the enactment of the new University Inventions Act in early January 2007. The Act provided universities with the rights of ownership to inventions made in sponsored research that, according to the principle of the professor’s privilege, were considered property of the respective academic inventors prior to the change. In the beginning of 2008 Etlatieto Ltd. interviewed 11 of 20 research universities active in Finland to capture the potential impacts the three changes might have on university technology transfer activities. The set of interviewees comprised professionals conducting different tasks in the technology transfer units of universities ranging from research directors to technology transfer officers to lawyers. According to the results, the expected benefits of the renewal of the Universities Act mainly comprise of the increasing financial flexibility of universities hoped to translate into a proliferation of tools available for the transfer of university technology (support of start-ups, investments etc.), and a general increase in the profile of technology transfer functions that should alleviate their current deficiency in resources. Challenges regarding the Universities Act, on the other hand, relate to the lack of administrative and business related expertise in universities required to fulfil the up-coming tasks mandated by the Act, and the lack of commitment on part of universities’ management resulting in insufficient resources. SHOKs, in turn, are expected to enable longer project cycles, to reduce administrative burden, to encourage the setting of scientifically more ambitious research objectives, as well as to increase research collaboration and its efficiency. Challenges were identified to relate to proposed IPR-practices potentially endangering the academic freedom of university research, the incentive schemes of top researchers to participate in SHOK projects, the inefficiencies of a large participant base, and the dangers of a strongly industry driven mode of co-operation to academic values. Finally, the benefits of the University Inventions Act are expected to emerge from the gradual dismantling of the “ivory tower of academe”, an increase in the amount of received invention disclosures, and more efficient administrative practices in university technology transfer functions. Perceived challenges, in turn, include interpretational difficulties of the Act, the modest commitment of university management to university technology transfer in general, increasing administrative burdens, and strong cultural differences between researchers, industry and university administration. |
| Keywords: | strategic centres for science, technology and innovation, SHOK, Universities Act, University Inventions Act, university technology transfer, national innovation system, technology transfer offices |
| JEL: | O30 O38 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2009–06–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rif:dpaper:1188&r=ipr |
| By: | Matthias Buerger; Tom Broekel; Alex Coad |
| Abstract: | We investigate the lead-lag relationship between growth of patent applications, growth of R&D, and growth of total sectoral employment for 270 German labour market regions over the period 1999-2005. Our unique panel dataset includes information on four two-digit industries, namely Chemistry, Transport equipment, Medical & Optical Equipment as well as Electrics & Electronics. The results obtained from a vector autoregression model show that an increased innovative activity is associated with subsequent growth of employment in the Medical & Optical Equipment industry as well as in the Electrics & Electronics sector. With respect to the latter growth of patent applications is also associated with subsequent growth of R&D employees indicating either a ‘success-breeds-success’ story or benefits due to agglomeration economies at the level of the region. However we do not find those effects for the other industries due to their idiosyncratic innovation and patenting behaviour. |
| Keywords: | innovation, regional dynamics, r&d growth, employment growth, patent growth |
| JEL: | O18 R11 |
| Date: | 2009–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:0908&r=ipr |
| By: | Matthias Bürger (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, RTG 1411 - The Economics of Innovative Change); Tom Brökel (Utrecht University, Urban and Regional Research Centre Utrecht (URU)); Alex Coad (Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena; Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, Univ. Paris 1) |
| Abstract: | We investigate the lead-lag relationship between growth of patent applications, growth of R&D, and growth of total sectoral employment for 270 German labour market regions over the period 1999-2005. Our unique panel dataset includes information on four two-digit industries, namely Chemistry, Transport equipment, Medical & Optical Equipment as well as Electrics & Electronics. The results obtained from a vector autoregression model show that an increased innovative activity is associated with subsequent growth of employment in the Medical & Optical Equipment industry as well as in the Electrics & Electronics sector. With respect to the latter growth of patent applications is also associated with subsequent growth of R&D employees indicating either a "success-breeds-success" story or benefits due to agglomeration economies at the level of the region. However we do not find those effects for the other industries due to their idiosyncratic innovation and patenting behaviour. |
| Keywords: | Innovation, Agglomeration, Employment |
| JEL: | O18 R11 |
| Date: | 2009–06–25 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2009-046&r=ipr |
| By: | Gastón Llanes (Harvard Business School, Entrepreneurial Management Unit); Ramiro de Elejalde (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) |
| Abstract: | We present a model of industry equilibrium to study the coexistence of Open Source (OS) and Proprietary (P) firms. Two novel aspects of the model are: (1) participation in OS arises as the optimal decision of profit-maximizing firms, and (2) OS and P firms may (or may not) coexist in equilibrium. Firms decide their type and investment in R&D, and sell packages composed of a primary good (like software) and a complementary private good. The only difference between both kinds of firms is that OS share their technological advances on the primary good, while P keep their innovations private. The main contribution of the paper is to determine conditions under which OS and P coexist in equilibrium. Interestingly, this equilibrium is characterized by an asymmetric market structure, with a few large P firms and many small OS firms. |
| Keywords: | Industry Equilibrium, Open Source, Innovation, Complementarity, Technology Sharing, Cooperation in R&D |
| JEL: | O31 L17 D43 |
| Date: | 2009–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hbs:wpaper:09-0xx&r=ipr |
| By: | Robin Cowan; Natalia Zinovyeva |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes empirically the channels through which university research affects industry innovation. We examine how the opening of new science, medicine and engineering departments in Italy during 1985-2000 affected regional innovation systems. We find that creation of a new university department increased regional innovation activity 3-4 years later. On average, an opening of a new department has led to a twenty percent change in the number of patents led by regional firms. Given that this effect occurs within the first half decade of the appearance of a new department, it cannot be ascribed to improvements in the quality and quantity of graduates. At the same time, traditional measures of academic research activity -- publications and patents -- can explain at most 50 percent of this effect, of which the lion's share is due to publications. |
| Date: | 2009–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2009-20&r=ipr |
| By: | Gerald Carlino; Robert Hunt |
| Abstract: | The authors geocode a data set of patents and their citation counts, including citations from abroad. This allows them to examine both the quantity and quality of local inventions. They also refine their data on local academic R&D to explore effects from different fields of science and sources of R&D funding. Finally, they incorporate data on congressional earmarks of funds for academic R&D. ; With one important exception, results using citation-weighted patents are similar to those using unweighted patents. For example, estimates of the returns to density (jobs per square mile) are only slightly changed when using citation-weighted patents as the dependent variable. But estimates of returns to city size (urbanization effects) are quite sensitive to the choice of dependent variable. ; Local human capital is the most important determinant of per capita rates of patenting. A 1 percent increase in the adult population with a college degree increases the local patenting rate by about 1 percent. ; With few exceptions, there is little variation across fields of science in the contribution of academic R&D to patenting rates. The exceptions are computer and life sciences, where the effects are smaller. There is greater variation in the contribution of R&D funded by different sources-academic R&D funded by the federal government generates smaller increases in patenting rates than R&D funded by the university itself. This effect is somewhat stronger for federally funded applied R&D than for basic R&D. The authors also find small negative effects for cities with greater exposure to academic R&D allocated by congressional earmarks. ; They discuss the implications of these results for policy and future research. |
| Date: | 2009 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fip:fedpwp:09-12&r=ipr |
| By: | Roberto Fontana (Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi); Geuna Aldo (University of Turin) |
| Abstract: | We investigate the reasons why different governance modes are used in a sample of successful collaborative patenting activities in Europe. First we show that collaboration activities in the patenting process are much more common than one may expect by looking only at information on co-assignment. Indeed, collaborative patenting activity accounts for more than a quarter of all patents in our sample. This figure is about eight times higher than that from co-assignment data (usually considered to assess cooperation in patenting). We then examine the impact of organizational, individual and project determinants on the choice of three possible modes of governance: coassignment,co-invention, collaborative agreement. We find that higher project complexity and technological scope are associated to tighter modes of governance. We also find a significant negative relationship between licensing and co-assignment, thus providing some support to the view that some licensing can be the result of ex-ante legal agreements rather than of the presence of a market for technology. Finally, inventor specific characteristics matter too. In particular, age increases the probability of choosing looser governance modes while better education is associated to tighter modes. |
| Date: | 2009–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uto:labeco:200910&r=ipr |