Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 581–606 | Cite as

The private and social value of patents in discrete and cumulative innovation

  • Justus Baron
  • Henry Delcamp
Article

Abstract

This article analyzes the relationship between private and social value of patents, comparing discrete and cumulative innovation. Indicators of the social value of patents are known to be less correlated with measures of private value in technological fields where innovation is more cumulative. We test whether this is because the link between private and social value is weaker, or because the indicators are less informative of the underlying concepts of value. Furthermore we analyze whether these differences between technological fields are really due to cumulativeness. We observe cumulative innovation by making use of databases of patents declared essential for technological standards. Using factor analysis and a set of patent quality indicators, we test the relevance of social value for predicting the private value of a patent measured by renewal and litigation. Whereas we establish a robust and significant link for discrete technologies; neither common factors nor any indicator of social value allows predicting the private value of essential, very cumulative patents. Nevertheless, this result cannot be generalized to whole technological classes identified as “complex” by the literature.

Keywords

Patent value Patent quality Indicators Cumulative innovation Complex technologies Standardization 

JEL Classification

O31 O34 D23 

References

  1. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, NBER Chapters. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berger F., Blind K., & Thumm N. (2012). Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards. Research Policy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  3. Bessen, J. (2004). Patent thickets: Strategic patenting of complex technologies. Research on Innovation Working Paper.Google Scholar
  4. Bessen, J. (2006). The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research on Innovation Working Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Bessen, J., & Hunt R. (2003). An Empirical Look at software patents. Research on Innovation Working Paper No. 03-17/R.Google Scholar
  6. Bessen, J., & Maskin, E. (2006). Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. MIT Deptaerment of Economics Working Paper No. 00-01.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2010). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen W., Nelson R., & Walsh J. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working paper.Google Scholar
  9. Giummo, J. (2003). Should all patentable inventions receive equal protection? Identifying the sources of heterogeneity in patent value. Discussion paper. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  10. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: Determinants of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–95. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  14. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harhoff, D., von Graevenitz, G., & Wagner, S. (2008). Incidence and growth of patent thickets—The impact of technological opportunities and complexity. CEPR Discussion Papers 6900.Google Scholar
  16. Jaffe, A., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lanjouw, J., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: Uses of patent renewal and application data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 13(4), 405–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1999). The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working Paper, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Special Issue on Microeconomics, 3, 783–831.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, K., Arthurs, J., Cullen, J., & Alexander, R. (2008). Internal sequential innovations: How does interrelatedness affect patent renewal? Research Policy, 37(5), 946–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merges, R. P., & Nelson, R. (1990). On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 90(4), 839–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nagaoka, S., (2005). Patent quality, cumulative innovation and market value: Evidence from Japanese firm level panel data. IIR Working Paper 05–06. Institute of Innovation Research. Hitotsubashi University: Tokyo.Google Scholar
  24. Noel, M., & Schankerman, M. (2006). Strategic patenting and software innovation, LSE Research Paper No. EI43.Google Scholar
  25. Parchomovsky, G., Polk Wagner, R. (2005). Patent Portfolios. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(1), 1–77.Google Scholar
  26. Rysman, M., & Simcoe, T. (2008). Patents and the performance of voluntary standard setting organizations. Management Science, 54(11), 1920–1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salant, D. (2009). Formulas for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory royalty determination. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, 7(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119–150.Google Scholar
  29. Swanson, D., & Baumol, W. (2005). Reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalties, standards selection, and control of market power. Antitrust Law Journal, 73(1), 51–56.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, P. (1999). The Effect of technological impact upon patent renewal decisions. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trajtenberg, M. (1990a). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.Google Scholar
  32. Trajtenberg, M. (1990b). Economic analysis of product innovation: The case of CT scanners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 55(1), 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Zeebroeck, N., & de la Potterie, B. (2011). The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(3), 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Von Graevenitz, G., Wagner, S., & Harhoff, D. (2009). How to measure patent thickets: a novel approach. Discussion papers in business administration 10962. Mannheim: University of Munich, School of Management.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cerna Mines ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations