Ottoz, Elisabetta and Cugno, Franco (2010): Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents.
This is the latest version of this item.
Download (175Kb) | Preview
We present a model where an incumbent firm has a proprietary product whose technology consists of at least two components, one of which is patented while the other is kept secret. At the patent expiration date, an entrant firm will enter the market on the same technological footing as the incumbent if it is successful in duplicating, at certain costs, the secret component of the incumbent’s technology. Otherwise, it will enter the market with a production cost disadvantage. We show that under some conditions a broad scope of trade secret law is socially beneficial despite the innovator is over-rewarded.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents|
|Keywords:||knowledge spillovers; duplication costs; covenants not to compete; inevitable disclosure|
|Subjects:||O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property Rights
O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
|Depositing User:||Franco Cugno|
|Date Deposited:||05. Dec 2010 19:48|
|Last Modified:||15. Feb 2013 11:55|
Arora, Ashish.1997. “Patents, Licensing, and Market Structure in Chemical Industry,” 26 Research Policy 391–403.
Bone, Robert. 1998. “A New Look At Trade Secret Law: Doctrine in Search of Justification,” 86 California Law Review 243-313.
Cugno, Franco, and Elisabetta Ottoz. 2006. “Trade Secret vs. Broad Patent: The Role of Licensing,” 2 Review of Law and Economics Article 3.
Denicolò, Vincenzo. 2007. “Do Patents Over-Compensate Innovators?,” 22 Economic Policy 679–729.
Denicolò, Vincenzo, and Luigi Franzoni. 2008. “Innovation, Duplication, and the Contract Theory of Patents” in Roberto Cellini and Luca Lambertini, eds., The Economics of Innovation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Erkal, Nisvan. 2004. “On The Interaction Between Patent and Trade Secret Policy,” 37 Australian Economic Review 427–35.
Friedman, David, William Landes, and Richard Posner. 1991. “Some Economics of Trade Secret Law,” 5 Journal of Economic Perspectives 61-72.
Gallini, Nancy. 1992. “Patent Policy and Costly Imitation,” 23 RAND Journal of Economics 52–63.
Gilbert, Richard, and Carl Shapiro. 1990. “Optimal patent length and breadth,” 21 RAND Journal of Economics 106–112.
Gilson, Ronald. 1999. “The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete,” 74 New York University Law Review 575-629.
Jorda, Karl. 2004. “The Role and Value of Trade Secrets in IP Management Strategies,” Pierce Law Working Paper.
Klemperer, Paul. 1990. “How broad should the scope of patent protection be?,” 21 RAND Journal of Economics 113–130.
Lemley, Mark. 2008. “The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights,” 61 Stanford Law Review 311-354.
Maurer, Stephen, and Suzanne Scotchmer. 2002. “The independent invention defence in intellectual property,” 69 Economica 535-547.
Nordhaus, William. 1969. Invention, Growth and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ottoz, Elisabetta, and Franco Cugno. 2008. “Patent-Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms,” 10 American Law and Economics Review 142-158.
Risch, Michael. 2007. “Why Do We Have Trade Secrets?,” 11 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 1-76.
Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
Tandon, Pankaj. 1982. “Optimal patents and compulsory licensing,” 90 Journal of Political Economy 470–486.
Takalo, Tuomas. 1998. “Innovation and Imitation under Imperfect Patent Protection,” 67 Journal of Economics 229-241.
Thiebart, P., 2003. “The Basics: Covenants Not to Compete and Trade Secrets in France,” available at www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/annual/2003/abasf.doc .
Available Versions of this Item
Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents. (deposited 16. Feb 2010 00:27)
- Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents. (deposited 05. Dec 2010 19:48) [Currently Displayed]