Abstract
So far we have seen the inherent uncertainty that the IP system creates as a result of its structural complexity. The way patent claims are conceived generates a multilayer, intertwined system of broad and narrow mixed claims that is very hard to fathom, and that adds to the lack of resources by patent offices, thus leading to imprecise decisions granting patents, which are a constant source of conflict. In other words, the supply of patent services is cumbersome, and therefore expensive; its price is usually defined through less-than-optimal preemptive strategies or simply by expensive court settlements or litigation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a detailed literature review, see Hall et al. (2014).
- 2.
Cost theory is traditionally related to utility theory. Under economic theory, costs are inextricably linked to the subject’s projected want satisfaction. Therefore, the only way in which cost can influence choice is the perception at the very moment of choice of the satisfactions foregone (Wicksteed 1967: 391, quoted by O’Driscoll and Rizzo 1985: 48). Failure to spot an opportunity that the system offered through better IP management is clearly a ‘social cost’ that undermines wealth creation in society. For these reasons, we refer to these failures as ‘costs’ that could have been avoided.
Bibliography
Anton JJ, Yao DA (2004) Little patents and big secrets: managing intellectual property. RAND J Econ 35(1):1–22
Bilir K (2014) Patent laws, product lifecycle lengths, and multinational activity. Am Econ Rev 104(7):1979–2013
De Leon I, Donoso JF (2016) The cost of using formal intellectual property rights: a survey on small innovative enterprises in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank, discussion paper N° IDB-DP-482
Fernandez Donoso J (2014) Do complex inventions need less international patent protection? Econ Lett 125:278–281
Giedion S (1948) Mechanization takes command. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hall B, Helmers C, Rogers M, Sena V (2014) The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: a review. J Econ Lit 52(2):375–423
Hunshell DA (1984) From the American system to mass production, 1900–1932: the development of manufacturing technology in the United States. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Kirzner IM (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J Econ Lit 35(1):60–85
Lerner J, Leamon A, Tighe J, Garcia-Robles S (2014) Adding value through venture capital in Latin America and the Caribbean, Working Paper, Harvard Business School
O’Driscoll G, Rizzo M (1985) The economics of time and ignorance. Routledge, London
Park WG (2008) International patent protection: 1960–2005. Res Policy 37:761–766
Wicksteed PH (1967 [1910]) The common sense of political economy, vol 1. Augustus M. Kelly, New York
Wolfe, R.M. 2016. “Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2013.” National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16313/pdf/nsf16313.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Leon, I., Fernandez Donoso, J. (2017). Hiding IP Strategy: Trading Secrets. In: Innovation, Startups and Intellectual Property Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54906-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54906-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54905-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54906-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)