|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
|
Issue of 2015‒08‒30
four papers chosen by Giovanni Ramello Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” |
| By: | Jeffrey Clemens; Stan Veuger |
| Abstract: | We describe the broad range of uncertainties faced by the developers of medical technologies. Empirically, we estimate the asset market incidence of two realizations of uncertainties we classify as within-market policy risks. The events we analyze concern the intellectual property of Myriad Genetics, Inc., an American molecular diagnostics firm. In June 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated several of Myriad's intellectual property claims. Subsequently, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) re-evaluated the reimbursements it pays for the services at issue in the Supreme Court's ruling. Each of these events moved Myriad's market capitalization by several hundred million dollars, or on the order of 20 percent. Myriad's exposure to the realization of these events reflected the concentration of its revenue streams among the affected services. We discuss the implications of the risks we analyze for the total volume of medical innovation and for its organization across firms. |
| JEL: | H51 H57 I18 O31 O32 O34 |
| Date: | 2015–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21469&r=all |
| By: | Adam B. Jaffe; Trinh Le |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the impact of government assistance through R&D grants on innovation output for firms in New Zealand. Using a large database that links administrative and tax data with survey data, we are able to control for large number of firm characteristics and thus minimise selection bias. We find that receipt of an R&D grant significantly increases the probability that a firm in the manufacturing and service sectors applies for a patent during 2005–2009, but no positive impact is found on the probability of applying for a trademark. Using only firms that participated in the Business Operation Survey, we find that receiving a grant almost doubles the probability that a firm introduces new goods and services to the world while its effects on process innovation and any product innovation are relatively much weaker. Moreover, there is little evidence that grant receipt has differential effects between small to medium (<50 employees) and larger firms. These findings are broadly in line with recent international evidence from Japan, Canada and Italy which found positive impacts of public R&D subsidy on patenting activity and the introduction of new products. |
| JEL: | O31 O34 O38 |
| Date: | 2015–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21479&r=all |
| By: | Breitschopf, Barbara |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes the impact of German policies promoting PV on industry structures and technological changes in the PV sector. A quantitative analysis is conducted by applying a set of policy variables derived from demand-, supplierand R&D-focused policies. To depict the industry structure, the production volume in MW of German PV module and cell manufacturers offers a good basis to derive structural variables. Patent applications are used to illustrate technological changes and competitiveness. The approach includes a descriptive as well as a multivariate analysis relying on the operationalization of demand policies and a policy mix. The results underpin the significance of demand policies and a policy mix for market formation and knowledge generation. But they also indicate that policies enhancing PV demand induce growth in PV industries abroad as well, which in turn affects domestic industry structures. |
| Date: | 2015 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:fisisi:s102015&r=all |
| By: | David Bailey; Lisa De Propris; Jürgen Janger |
| Abstract: | This deliverable draws on the findings of all Area3 outputs and it present the project's perspecitive on how to shape and design a new industrial policy for Europe. The Europe’s 2020 Strategy clearly outlines the ambition for EU member states to pursue a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: this means designing a the strategy that aims at achieving a socio-ecological transition by fostering economic growth as well as social development (e.g. with respect to employment, gender or cultural aspects) whilst also pushing for Europe’s green shift. To deliver the EU 2020 strategy a new definition of competitiveness needs to be considered. Aiginger et al. (2013) propose defining competitiveness as the ability to deliver beyond-GDP goals’. Competitiveness should be based on capabilities like skills, innovation, institutions, an empowering social system, and ecological ambitions. Outcomes should be defined by the achievement of ecological, social and economic goals. The new industrial policy for Europe will be underpinned by four game changers: (a) From GDP to beyond-GDP (b) A new definition of competitiveness (c) the green shift and (d) high road growth. Aiginger (2015) proposes to define industrial policy as economic policy to promote the competitiveness of a country or region, where competitiveness is defined as the ability to deliver the beyond-GDP goals. This means an industrial policy that shows leadership towards Europe’s green shift; this means not only pursuing -for instance- energy efficiency and applications of the circular economy, but that supports the conversion of the economy into a green-intensive economy with the creation of new sectors, new processes, new products and the emergence of “green gazelles”, that can deliver growth and jobs through ecological innovations. Industrial policy should foster the long-run transition, not decelerate structural change. This is a demanding challenge, given vested interests and the traditional role of governments to preserve the status quo and national champions. Refocusing on the economy’s industrial base is a necessity to anchor long term socio-economic prosperity, particularly after the experience of bubbles in financial and real estate markets. A new industrial policy for Europe should therefore pursue a balanced economy and support the transition of traditional, narrowly defined manufacturing sectors to an advanced and distributed manufacturing sector able of greater value creation, innovation and creativity. A new industrial policy for Europe should be delivered by means of a portfolio of instruments that simultaneously steer demand and supply sides to move in the same direction creating and additive effect as against a cancelling-out effect. Such portfolio needs to avoid trade-offs between technological change and growth/employment priorities. Policy changes need to provide long-run and consistent signals, which provide certainty for businesses in making long term investments and short term adjustment. Technological upgrading instrument needs to be mission-oriented programmes, compatible with existing capabilities but enabling capabilities to be diversified. Universities, investment in intangible assets, new technologies and key enabling technologies, and entrepreneurship will be crucial to secure Europe on a growth path compatible with a beyond GDP competitive agenda. |
| Keywords: | Industrial innovation, Industrial policy, Innovation, Innovation policy, Intangible assets, New technologies, Patents, Post-industrialisation, Research, SMEs, Sustainable growth |
| JEL: | L5 L52 L53 L59 |
| Date: | 2015–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:feu:wfedel:y:2015:m:8:d:0:i:9&r=all |