Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Induce More Patents?

  • Chapter
Economic and Management Perspectives on Intellectual Property Rights

Part of the book series: Applied Econometrics Association Series ((AEAS))

Abstract

The patent system has long been recognized as an important policy instrument for the promotion of innovation and technology transfers. This trend is evidenced by the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) under the GATT-WTO of 1994. The main reason to protect patents is due to two main characteristics of innovation: non-rival and partially non-excludable (Romer, 1990). Non-rival means that the use of a particular innovation by a producer does not preclude other entrepreneurs from using it, whereas partially non-excludable implies that the innovator is often unable completely to prevent others from using the innovation without authorization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aghion, P. and P. Howitt, Endogenous Growth Theory (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. and A. Gambardella, 1994, ‘The Changing Technology of Technological Change: General and Abstract Knowledge and the Division of Innovative Labor’, Research Policy, 23 (1994), 523–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. H., Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 2nd edn (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J. and E. Maskin, ‘Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation’, MIT Working Paper, No. 00–0,1(2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson and J. P. Walsh, ‘Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)’, NBER Working Paper 7552 (2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coriat, B. and F. Orsi, ‘Establishing a New Intellectual Property Rights Regime in the United States: Origins, Content and Problem’, Research Policy, 31 (2002), 1491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallini, N. T., ‘The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent US Patent Reform’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2002), 131–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A. and C. F. Walters, ‘Innovative Activity over Business Cycle’, Economic Journal, 105 (1995), 916–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginarte, J. C. and W G. Park, 1997, ‘Determinants of Patent Rights: A Cross National Study’, Research Policy, 26 (1997), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, D. M. and W. C. Gruben, ‘The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Economic Growth’, Journal of Development Economics, 48 (1996), 323–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., ‘Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (1990), 1661–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M. and E. L.-C. Lai, ‘International Protection of Intellectual Property’, American Economic Review, 94 (2004), 1635–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., ‘The Financing of Research and Development’, NBER Working Paper 8773, (2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. and R. H. Ziedonis, ‘The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1975–1995’, RAND Journal of Economics, 32 (2001), 101–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. A. and R. Eisenberg ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-Commons in Biomedical Research’, Science, 280 (1996), 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helpman, E., ‘Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights’, Econometrica, 61 (1993), 1247–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., A. B. Jaffe and M. Trajtenberg, ‘Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: a Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80 (1998), 127–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., ‘The US Patent System in Transition: Policy Innovation and the Innovation Process’, Research Policy, 29 (2000), 531–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwar, S. and R. Evenson, ‘Does Intellectual Property Protection Spur Technological Change?’, Oxford Economic Papers, 55 (2003), 235–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S., ‘Research, Patenting and Technological Change’, Econometrica, 65 (1997), 1389–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S. and J. Lerner, ‘What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting?’, Research Policy, 28 (1999), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S. and J. Lerner, ‘Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation’, RAND Journal of Economics, 31 (2000), 674–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. L.-C, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Protection and the Rate of Product Innovation’, Journal of Development Economics, 55 (1998), 115–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. L.-C. and I. K. Yang, ‘International Protection of Intellectual Property: An Empirical Investigation’, paper presented at the International Conference ‘Recent Advances in International Economics III: Intellectual Property Protection and International Trade’, Hong Kong, 24–25 May (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lall, S., ‘Indicators of the Relative Importance of IPRs in Developing Countries’, Research Policy, 32 (2003), 1657–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. ‘Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years’, NBER Working Paper 8977 (2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. ‘Patents and Innovation: an Empirical Study’, Management Science, 32 (1986), 173–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K., Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. and B. Sampat, ‘Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporations’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2) (2001), 317–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. and N. S. Bhaven, ‘University Patents and Patent Policy Debates in the USA, 1925–1980’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (2001), 781–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. and A. Ziedonis, ‘Academic Patent Quality and Quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States’, Research Policy, 31 (2002), 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., B. Sampat and A. Ziedonis, ‘The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by US Universities: an Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980’, Research Policy, 30 (2001), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W D., Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. G. and A. Wagh, ‘Index of Patent Rights’, in Economic Freedom of the World: 2002 Annual Report (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P., ‘Endogenous Technological Change’, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (1990), S71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M. and L. Branstetter, ‘Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms’, RAND Journal of Economics, 32 (2001), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S., ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1991), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., ‘Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting’, Innovation Policy & the Economy, 1 (2000), 119–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M., ‘A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovation’, RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1990), 172–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank, ‘Intellectual Property: Balancing Incentives with Competitive Access’, in Global Economic Prospects (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, G. and K. Maskus, ‘Intellectual Property Rights, Licensing, and Innovation in an Endogenous Product Cycle Model’, Journal of International Economics, 53 (2001), 169–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Sung Jin Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hwan Joo Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, USA

    Carine Peeters (Research Fellow) (Research Fellow)

  2. Solvay Business School (ULB), Belgium

    Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (Vice-President and Director of its MBA Programmes) (Vice-President and Director of its MBA Programmes)

Copyright information

© 2006 Applied Econometrics Association

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kang, S.J., Seo, H.J. (2006). Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Induce More Patents?. In: Peeters, C., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (eds) Economic and Management Perspectives on Intellectual Property Rights. Applied Econometrics Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504745_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation