nep-ipr New Economics Papers
on Intellectual Property Rights
Issue of 2015‒02‒11
eight papers chosen by
Giovanni Ramello
Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”

  1. Strategic patenting and software innovation By Michael Noel; Mark Schankerman
  2. Research Intensity and Financial Analysts Earnings Forecast: Signaling Effects of Patents By Mohammadi, Ali; Basir, Nada O.; Beyhaghi, Mehdi
  3. Do inventors talk to strangers? on proximity and collaborative knowledge creation By Riccardo Crescenzi; Max Nathan; Andrés Rodríguez-Pose
  4. Innovation and SMEs Patent Propensity in Korea By Han, Junghee; Heshmati, Almas
  5. The Inventor Balance and the Functional Specialization in Global Inventive Activities By Lucio Picci; Luca Savorelli
  6. My Precious! the location and diffusion of scientific research: evidence from the synchrotron diamond light source By Christian Helmers; Henry G. Overman
  7. New Ideas in Invention By Mikko Packalen; Jay Bhattacharya
  8. Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D By Ashish Arora; Sharon Belenzon; Andrea Patacconi

  1. By: Michael Noel; Mark Schankerman
    Abstract: Strategic patenting is widely believed to raise the costs of innovating, especially in industries characterised by cumulative innovation. This paper studies the effects of strategic patenting on R&D, patenting and market value in the computer software industry. We focus on two key aspects: patent portfolio size, which affects bargaining power in patent disputes, and the fragmentation of patent rights (‘patent thickets’) which increases the transaction costs of enforcement. We develop a model that incorporates both effects, as well as knowledge spill overs. Using panel data for 121 firms covering the period 1980–99, we show that strategic patenting and spill overs affect innovation and market value of software firms, that there is a patent premium accounting for 20 per cent of the returns to R&D, and that software firms do not appear to be trapped in a prisoners' dilemma of ‘excessive patenting.
    JEL: N0
    Date: 2013–09
  2. By: Mohammadi, Ali (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Basir, Nada O. (Faculty of Business and IT, University of Ontario Institute of Technology); Beyhaghi, Mehdi (College of Business,University of Texas at San Antonio)
    Abstract: In this paper, we study how R&D investment affect financial analyst’s earnings forecasts and how intellectual capital endowments moderate this effect. We argue that high information asymmetry and uncertainty associated with R&D investment increase a financial analysts’ earnings forecast error. Patents can remedy this relationship by signaling the ability of a firm in transforming research investments into new and valuable knowledge. Using a panel of 2,253 publicly listed U.S firms, we find that higher R & D intensity is positively correlated with financial analysts’ earnings forecast error. The endowment of intellectual capital (i.e. patents) moderates this relationship negatively. However we do not find any moderating effect for the value of patents measured as forward citations.
    Keywords: R&D intensity; Analyst forecasts; Patent; information asymmetry; uncertainty; Capital market
    JEL: G24 O32 O34
    Date: 2015–02–03
  3. By: Riccardo Crescenzi; Max Nathan; Andrés Rodríguez-Pose
    Abstract: This paper investigates how physical, organisational, institutional, cognitive, social, and ethnic proximities between inventors shape their collaboration decisions. Using a new panel of UK inventors and a novel identification strategy, this paper systematically explores the net effects of all these ‘proximities’ on co-patenting. The regression analysis allows us to identify the full effects of each proximity, both on choice of collaborator and on the underlying decision to collaborate. The results show that physical proximity is an important influence on collaboration, but is mediated by organisational and ethnic factors. Over time, physical proximity increases in salience. For multiple inventors, geographic proximity is, however, much less important than organisational, social, and ethnic links. For inventors as a whole, proximities are fundamentally complementary, while for multiple inventors they are substitutes.
    Keywords: innovation; patents; proximities; cities; regions; knowledge spillovers; collaboration; ethnicity
    JEL: O31 O33 R11 R23
    Date: 2014–01
  4. By: Han, Junghee (Chonnam National University); Heshmati, Almas (Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS), Jönköping International Business School, & Sogang University)
    Abstract: This paper analyzes the patent propensity as an outcome of innovative activities of regional SMEs. To achieve the aims, we apply robust regression analysis to estimate the models to test 5 research hypotheses using 263 firm level data located at Gwangju region in Korea. Our empirical results show that a firm’s industry characteristics, such as machinery and automotive parts industry, is negatively related with propensity to patent innovation. Also, unlike expectations, the InnoBiz firms designated as innovative SMEs by the government are not performing differently than general firms. Only the CEO’s academic credentials are positively related with propensity to patent. From the findings, we can conclude that patenting propensity is not directly related with a firm’s characteristics but mainly to CEO’s managerial strategy. Also, we cannot find evidence for policy effectiveness from public support given to InnoBiz firms as part of the state policy to nurture photonic industry to boost regional economic development. Given the lack of strong policy effects, a new industry policy should be considered to actively promote SMEs innovativeness.
    Keywords: Patent propensity; Photonic Industry; SMEs growth; R&D; innovation; InnoBiz; Korea
    JEL: C51 D22 O31 O32
    Date: 2015–01–27
  5. By: Lucio Picci (University of Bologna); Luca Savorelli (University of St Andrews)
    Abstract: We study the functional specialization whereby some countries contribute relatively more inventors vs. organizations in the production of inventions at a global scale. We propose a conceptual framework to explain this type of functional specialization, which posits the presence of feedbacks between two distinct sub-systems, each one providing inventors and organizations. We quantify the phenomenon by means of a new metric, the “inventor balance”, which we compute using patent data. We show that the observed imbalances, which are often conspicuous, are determined by several factors: the innovativeness of a country relative to its level of economic development, relative factor endowments, the degree of technological specialization and, last, cultural traits. We argue that the “inventor balance” is a useful indicator for policy makers, and its routine analysis could lead to better informed innovation policies.
    Keywords: Patents, Inventor balance, Inventor criterion, Applicant criterion, Internationalization of R&D, Specialization.
    JEL: O31 O34 F21 F23 F29
    Date: 2015–01–19
  6. By: Christian Helmers; Henry G. Overman
    Abstract: We analyze the impact of the establishment of a GBP 380 million basic scientific research facility in the UK on the geographical distribution of related research. We investigate whether the siting of the Diamond Light Source, a 3rd generation synchrotron light source, in Oxfordshire induced a clustering of related research in its geographic proximity. To account for the potentially endogenous location choice of the synchrotron, we exploit the availability of a `runner-up' site near Manchester. We use both academic publications and patent data to trace the geographical distribution of related knowledge and innovation. Our results suggest that the siting of the synchrotron in Oxfordshire created a highly localized cluster of related scientific research.
    Keywords: synchrotron; location; innovation; patents defaults; unobserved components model
    JEL: O31 O38 R12 R58
    Date: 2013–03
  7. By: Mikko Packalen; Jay Bhattacharya
    Abstract: A key decision in research is whether to try out new ideas or build on more established ideas. In this paper, we evaluate which type of work is more likely to spur further invention. When recent advances create superior opportunities for invention, their adoption as research inputs in the invention process promotes technological progress. The gains from pursuing such innovative research paths may, however, be very limited as new ideas are often initially raw and poorly understood. We determine idea inputs in invention based on the text of nearly every US patent granted during 1836–2010. We find that inventions that build on new ideas early are more likely to spur subsequent invention than inventions that rely on ideas of older vintage. Our results are important because they suggest a benefit from encouraging and supporting innovative research that tries out new ideas — avoiding stagnation in technological advance.
    JEL: I1 O31 O32 O33
    Date: 2015–01
  8. By: Ashish Arora; Sharon Belenzon; Andrea Patacconi
    Abstract: Scientific knowledge is believed to be the wellspring of innovation. Historically, firms have also invested in research to fuel innovation and growth. In this paper, we document a shift away from scientific research by large corporations between 1980 and 2007. We find that publications by company scientists have declined over time in a range of industries. We also find that the value attributable to scientific research has dropped, whereas the value attributable to technical knowledge (as measured by patents) has remained stable. These effects appear to be associated with globalization and narrower firm scope, rather than changes in publication practices or a decline in the usefulness of science as an input into innovation. Large firms appear to value the golden eggs of science (as reflected in patents) but not the golden goose itself (the scientific capabilities). These findings have important implications for both public policy and management.
    JEL: O31 O32
    Date: 2015–01

This nep-ipr issue is ©2015 by Giovanni Ramello. 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.