|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
| By: | Christian Helmers; Mark Rogers |
| Abstract: | This paper analyses the association between the number of patenting manufacturing firms andthe quantity and quality of relevant university research across UK postcode areas. We showthat different measures of research `power' and `excellence' positively affect the patenting ofsmall firms within the same postcode area. Patenting by large firms, in contrast, is unaffectedby research undertaken in nearby universities. This confirms the commonly held view thatlocation matters more for small firms than large firms. We also investigate specific channelsof technology transfer, finding that university-industry knowledge transfer occurs throughboth formal and informal channels. From a methodological point of view, we contribute tothe existing literature by accounting for potential simultaneity between university researchand patenting of local firms by adopting an instrumental variable approach. Moreover, wealso allow for the effects of the presence of universities in neighbouring postcode areas toinfluence firms' patenting activity by incorporating spatial neighborhood effects. |
| Keywords: | Patents, universities, knowledge transfer, spillover, UK |
| JEL: | L22 L26 O34 |
| Date: | 2010–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cep:sercdp:0054&r=ipr |
| By: | Natarajan Balasubramanian; Jagadeesh Sivadasan |
| Abstract: | This note provides details about the construction of the NBER Patent Data-BR concordance, and is intended for researchers planning to use this concordance. In addition to describing the matching process used to construct the concordance, this note provides a discussion of the benefits and limitations of this concordance. |
| Date: | 2010–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cen:wpaper:10-36&r=ipr |
| By: | Catalina Martinez |
| Abstract: | What are patent families? What is the impact of adopting one definition or another? Are some definitions of patent families better suited than others for certain uses in statistical and economic analysis? The aim of this paper is to provide some answers to these questions, compare the methodologies and outcomes of the most commonly used patent family definitions and provide guidance on how to build families based on raw data from the EPO Worldwide Patent Statistics database (PATSTAT). One of our findings, based on a characterisation of family structures, is that extended patent families and other family definitions, such as equivalents and single-priority families, provide identical outcomes for about 75% of the families with earliest priority dates in the 1990s because they have quite simple structures. Differences across definitions only become apparent for the families with more complex structures, which represent 25% of the families of that period.<P>Éclairage sur différents types de familles de brevets<BR>Qu’est-ce qu’une famille de brevets ? Quelles conséquences l’adoption de telle ou telle définition peut-elle avoir ? Certaines définitions des familles de brevets sont-elles mieux adaptées que d’autres à certains usages en analyse statistique et économique ? Le présent document a pour objet d’apporter des réponses à ces questions, de comparer les méthodologies et les résultats des définitions de familles de brevets les plus courantes et de donner des indications sur la marche à suivre pour construire des familles de brevets à partir des données brutes de la base de données mondiale de l’OEB sur les brevets (PATSTAT). L’une de nos conclusions, fondée sur une caractérisation des structures des familles de brevets, est que des familles de brevets étendues et d’autres types de familles de brevets, tels que les équivalents et les familles de brevets partageant la même priorité, fournissent des résultats identiques pour 75 % environ des familles dont les premières dates de priorité se situent dans les années 90, car elles présentent des structures relativement simples. Les définitions ne commencent à diverger que pour les familles offrant des structures plus complexes, lesquelles représentent 25 % de l’ensemble pour cette période. |
| Date: | 2010–02–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:stiaaa:2010/2-en&r=ipr |
| By: | Lorenzo Cassi; Anne Plunket |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates the determinants of co-inventor tie formation using micro-data on genomic patents from 1990 to 2006 in France. We consider in a single analysis the relational and proximity perspectives that are usually treated separately. In order to do so, we analyse the determinants of network ties that occur within existing components and between two distinct components (i.e. bridging ties). We test the argument that formation of these two different types of ties results from distinct strategies in accessing resources. Doing so, we contrast network and proximity determinants of network formation and we investigate if social network allows economic actors to cross over geographical, technological and organizational boundaries. |
| Keywords: | Social networks, relational perspective, proximity, co-patenting, network formation |
| JEL: | D85 O31 R12 Z13 |
| Date: | 2010–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:1015&r=ipr |
| By: | Tom Broekel (Department of Economic Geography, Urban & Regional Research Centre Utrecht (URU), Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University); Holger Graf (School of Economics and Business Administration, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena) |
| Abstract: | Economists pay more and more attention to knowledge networks and drivers of their development. Consequently, a rich literature emerged analyzing factors explaining the emergence of intra-organizational links. Despite substantial work focusing on the dyad level, only little is known about how and why (global) network structures differ between technologies or industries. The study is based on a new data source on subsidized R&D cooperation in Germany, which is presented in detail and discussed with respect to other types of relational data. A comparison of networks within ten technologies allows us to identify systematic differences between basic and applied research networks. |
| Keywords: | R&D subsidies, network, cooperation, Foerderkatalog, Germany |
| JEL: | L14 I28 O38 |
| Date: | 2010–11–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2010-078&r=ipr |
| By: | Robert E Evenson; K.J. Joseph |
| Abstract: | Using a unique panel data set on Indian firms, some basic but important and often neglected aspects of technology licensing agreements and their effect on the licenses have been analysed. [Working Paper No. 273] |
| Keywords: | data, Indian, firm, technology, licensing |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:3152&r=ipr |
| By: | Tomaso Duso (Humboldt University Berlin and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB)); Lars-Hendrik Roeller (European School of Management and Technology (ESMT) and Humboldt University Berlin); Jo Seldeslachts (University of Amsterdam) |
| Abstract: | This paper tests whether upstream R&D cooperation leads to downstream collusion. We consider an oligopolistic setting where firms enter in research joint ventures (RJVs) to lower production costs or coordinate on collusion in the product market. We show that a sufficient condition for identifying collusive behavior is a decline in the market share of RJV-participating firms, which is also necessary and sufficient for a decrease in consumer welfare. Using information from the US National Cooperation Research Act, we estimate a market share equation correcting for the endogeneity of RJV participation and R&D expenditures. We find robust evidence that large networks between direct competitors -created through firms being members in several RJVs at the same time- are conducive to collusive outcomes in the product market which reduce consumer welfare. By contrast, RJVs among non-competitors are efficiency enhancing. |
| Keywords: | Research Joint Ventures; Innovation; Collusion; NCRA |
| JEL: | K21 L24 L44 O32 |
| Date: | 2010–11–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:uvatin:20100112&r=ipr |