Innovation and IPRs in China and India pp 75-117

Part of the China-EU Law Series book series (CELS, volume 4) | Cite as

Does Patent Strategy Shape the Long-Run Supply of Public Knowledge?

Evidence from Human Genetics
Chapter

Abstract

How do firms’ patent strategies, and the landscape of private property rights they collectively produce, influence the long-run production of public knowledge? Management scholars have paid close attention to the ways in which firms benefit from public knowledge—ideas disclosed through open commons institutions—by using it to generate private knowledge, which is protected by private property institutions such as patents (Cockburn and Henderson 1998; Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Fleming and Sorenson 2004; Powell et al. 1996). However, they have paid scant attention to the converse relationship: the impact of private knowledge on public knowledge production. Instead, legal and policy analyses dominate the study of this relationship (Heller 2008; Heller and Eisenberg 1998; Lessig 2004). This situation speaks to the importance of a management perspective linking policy and legal studies with organizational theory and strategy that can initiate a rich agenda examining the interaction between firm strategy and the institutional foundations of knowledge work.

References

  1. Aghion P, Dewatripont M, Stein J (2005) Academic freedom, private-sector focus and the process of innovation. Working paper no. 11542, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida P, Dokko G, Rosenkopf L (2003) Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: increasing opportunity and decreasing ability? Res Policy 32:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews EL (1991) U.S. seeks patent on genetic codes, setting off furor. New York Times, October 21Google Scholar
  4. Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust difference-in-differences estimates. Q J Econ 119:249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenthal D (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. J Am Med Assoc 277:1224–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron CA, Trivedi PK (1986) Econometric models based on count data: comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. J Appl Econ 1:29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron CA, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, Holtzman NA, Blumenthal D (2002) Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. J Am Med Assoc 287:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, Leonard DGB, Merz JF (2003) Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J Mol Diagn 5(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockburn I, Henderson R (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ 46(2):157–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colyvas JA, Powell WW (2006) Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between public and private science. In: Kramer RM, Staw BM (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 21. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 305–353Google Scholar
  14. Crichton M (2006) Next. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Towards a new economics of science. Res Policy 23:487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149:510–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dreyfuss R (2004) Protecting the public domain of science: has the time for an experimental use defense arrived? Ariz Law Rev 46:457–472Google Scholar
  18. Ducor P (2000) Intellectual property: coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289:873–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenberg R (1996) Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Rev 82:1663–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fauchart E, von Hippel E (2008) Norms-Based intellectual property systems: the case of French chefs. Organ Sci 19(2):187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferber MA (1988) Citations and networking. Gend Soc 2(1):82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fleming L, Sorenson O (2004) Science as a map in technological search. Strateg Manag J 25:909–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furman J, Stern S (2006) Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: the impact of institutions on cumulative research, Working paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Futreal PA, Coin L, Marshall M, Down T, Hubbard T, Wooster R, Rahman N, Stratton MR (2004) A census of human cancer genes. Nat Rev Cancer 4:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gans J, Stern S (2000) Incumbency and R&D incentives: licensing the gale of creative destruction. J Econ Manag Strateg 8:484–511Google Scholar
  26. Gans J, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res Policy 32:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gans J, Hsu D, Stern S (2008a) The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: evidence from patent grant delays. Manag Sci 54:982–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gans J, Murray F, Stern S (2008b) Patents, papers and secrecy: scientific disclosure as a negotiation between scientists and those who fund them. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gittelman M, Kogut B (2003) Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Manag Sci 49:366–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenfield DL (2006) Greenberg v. Miami children’s hospital: unjust enrichment and the patenting of human genetic material. Ann Health Law 15(2):213–249Google Scholar
  32. Hagström WO (1965) The scientific community. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. Working paper no. 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=285618
  34. Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm Sci Q 44:82–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harhoff D, Reitzig M (2004) Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants: the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Int J Ind Organ 22:443–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46:1251–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hausman JA, Hall BH, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 52:909–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heller MA (2008) Gridlock economy: how too much ownership wrecks markets, stops innovation and costs lives. Basic Books, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Henderson R, Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strateg Manag J 15:63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henry RM, Cho MK, Weaver MA, Merz JF (2002) DNA patenting and licensing. Science 297:1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hitt M (2005) Management theory and research: potential contributions to public policy and public organizations. Acad Manag J 48:963–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoetker G, Agarwal R (2007) Death hurts but isn’t fatal: the postexit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies. Acad Manag J 50:446–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holman CM (2007) The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation.. Working paper IPSC, http://www.law.depaul.edu/institutes_centers/ciplit/ipsc/paper/Chris_HolmanPaper.pdf Google Scholar
  45. Holman MA, Munzer SR (2000) Intellectual property rights in genes and gene fragments: a registration solution for expressed sequence tags. Iowa Law Rev 85:735–848Google Scholar
  46. Huang KG (2006) Innovation in the life sciences: the impact of intellectual property rights on scientific knowledge diffusion, accumulation and utilization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Huang KG (2016) Uncertain intellectual property conditions and knowledge appropriation strategies: evidence from the genomics industry. Ind Corp Change (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  48. Huang KG, Ertug G (2014) Mobility, retention and productivity of genomics scientists in the U.S. Nat Biotechnol 32(9):953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huang KJ, Murray F (2010) Entrepreneurial experiments in science policy: analyzing the Human Genome Project. Res Policy 39(5):567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jensen K, Murray F (2005) The intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310:239–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klevorick A, Levin R, Nelson R, Winter S (1995) On the sources and significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Res Policy 24:185–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  53. Kogut B, Almeida P (1999) Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Manag Sci 45:905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3:383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kohler RE (1994) Lords of the fly: “Drosophila” genetics and the experimental life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  57. Lanjouw JO, Schankerman MA (2001) Enforcing intellectual property rights, Discussion paper no. 3093. Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  59. Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2005) Probabilistic patents. J Econ Perspect 19(2):75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND J Econ 25:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lessig L (2004) Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Lewis TR, Yao DA (1995) Some reflections on the antitrust treatment of intellectual property. Antitrust Law J 63:603–619Google Scholar
  63. Lim K (2000) Basic research, applied research, and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  64. Long SJ (1997) Count outcomes: regression models for counts. In: Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 217–250Google Scholar
  65. MacKie-Mason JK (2002) What to do about unilateral refusals to license? Paper submitted as testimony to the FTC-DOJ hearings, “Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy,” available at http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/detailsandparticipants.htm#May%201
  66. Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR (1998) Economic theories about the benefits and costs of patents. J Econ Issues 32:1031–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Merton RK (1973) The normative structure of science. In: Storer NW (ed) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 267–280Google Scholar
  68. Merz JF (1999) Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 45:324–330Google Scholar
  69. Meyer M (2000) Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res Policy 29:409–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Murray F (2002) Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Res Policy 31:1389–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Murray F (2007) The stem cell market: patents and the pursuit of scientific progress. N Engl J Med 356:2341–2343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Murray F (2008) The oncomouse that roared: hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  73. Murray F, O’Mahony S (2007) Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: implications for organization science. Organ Sci 18:1006–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J Econ Behav Organ 63:648–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Murray F, Stern S (2008) Learning to live with patents: assessing the dynamic adaptation to the law by the scientific community. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  76. Murray F, Aghion P, Dewatripont M, Kolev J, Stern S (2008) Of mice and growth: the effects of openness on follow-on research. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  77. Narin F, Hamilton K, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res Policy 26:317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nash M (2000) Who owns the genome? CNN, April 10. http://www.cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/04/10/genome.html
  79. Nelson RR (1959) The simple economics of basic scientific research. J Polit Econ 67:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nomaler Ö, Verspagen B (2007) Knowledge flows, patent citations and the impact of science on technology. Working paper 2007–022, UNU-MERITGoogle Scholar
  81. Orsi F, Coriat B (2005) Are “strong patents” beneficial to innovative activities? Lessons from the genetic testing for breast cancer controversies. Ind Corp Chang 14:1205–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Owen-Smith J, Powell W (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res Policy 32:1695–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Posner RA (2000) An economic analysis of the use of citations in the law. Am Law Econ Rev 2:381–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Powell W, Koput K, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q 41:116–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Resnik D (1998a) Conflicts of interest in science. Perspect Sci 6:381–408Google Scholar
  86. Resnik D (1998b) Industry-sponsored research: secrecy versus corporate responsibility. Bus Soc Rev 99(1):31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Romer PM (1994) The origins of endogenous growth. J Econ Perspect 8(1):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rosenberg N (1974) Science, invention and economic growth. Econ J 84:90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rysman M, Simcoe TS (2008) Patents and the performance of voluntary standard setting organizations. Manag Sci 54:1920–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sampat BN (2005) Do academic genomic patents curtail downstream research? Working paper, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  91. Scotchmer S (1991) Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. J Econ Perspect 5(5):29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S (eds) Innovation policy and the economy, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 119–150Google Scholar
  93. Shockley W (1949) The theory of P-N junctions in semiconductors and P-N junction transistors. Bell Syst Tech J 28:435–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Somaya D (2003) Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strateg Manag J 24:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stern S (2004) Do scientists pay to be scientists? Manag Sci 50:835–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stigler G, Friedland C (1975) The citation patterns of doctorates in economics. J Polit Econ 83:477–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Thursby J, Thursby M (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manag Sci 48:90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tijssen RJW (2002) Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors. Res Policy 31:509–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Trajtenberg M, Henderson R, Jaffe AB (1997) University vs. corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention. Econ Innov New Technol 5(1):19–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2006) Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Manag 36:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM (2003) Patenting and licensing of research tools and biomedical innovation. In: Merrill S, Levin R, Meyers M (eds) Innovation in a knowledge-based economy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 285–340Google Scholar
  102. Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen WM (2005) View from the bench: patents and material transfers. Science 309:2002–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Weitzman M (1974) Free access vs. private ownership as alternative systems for managing common property. J Econ Theory 8:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Ziedonis RH (2004) Don’t fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Manag Sci 50:804–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zucker L, Darby M, Brewer M (1998) Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprise. Am Econ Rev 88:290–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Engineering and Technology Management & Department of Strategy and Policy, NUS Business SchoolNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations