Changing the Research Patenting Regime: Schumpeterian Explanation

Cozzi, Guido and Galli, Silvia (2007): Changing the Research Patenting Regime: Schumpeterian Explanation.

Abstract

Starting in the early 1980s, the U.S. patent regime experienced major changes that allowed the patenting of numerous scientific findings lacking in current commercial applications. We assess the rationality of these changes in the legal and institutional environment for science and technology policy. In order to model these changes in the incentives for the commercialization of new ideas, we extend the standard multisector Schumpeterian growth theory by decomposing the product innovation into a two-stage uncertain research activity. This analytical structure, beside suggesting new sources of market and non-market failures, allows us to compare the general equilibrium innovative performance of an economy where early-stage scientific results are patentable with the general equilibrium innovative performance of an economic system where these earlystage results are unpatentable and freely disseminated by public research institutions such as the universities. If researchers are unguided by the invisible hand they risk to invent redundant half-ideas, but public universities are better at internalizing research externalities. When scientists can patent their research, monopolistic research firms restrict entry in the applied R&D. This makes a regime choice a priori controversial and dependent on the exogenous data on technologies. We calibrate the model to the US data and show that in the 70s, a relatively higher applied R&D complexity magnified the public basic R&D inefficiencies and justified the patentability of basic scientific findings.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: R&D and Growth, Vertical Innovation, Sequential Innovation, Research Tools.
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

References

Aghion, P., Harris, C. and Vickers, J. (1997), “Competition and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation: An Example”, European Economic Review, vol. 41, pp. 771-782 ;

Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M. and Stein, J.C. (2005), “Academia, the Private Sector, and the Process of Innovation”, NBER working paper;

Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992), “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction”, Econometrica 60 (2), pp. 323-351; Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1998), “Endogenous Growth Theory”, MIT Press;

Cozzi, G. (2001), “Inventing or Spying? Implications for Growth”, Journal of Economic Growth, March;

Cozzi, G. and L. Spinesi (2006), “Intellectual Appropriability, Product Differentiation, and Growth”, Macroeconomic Dynamics, vol. 10, n. 1, February;

Cozzi, G. (2007), “Self-fulfilling Prophecies in the Quality Ladders Economy", Journal of Development Economics, forthcoming;

Dinopoulos, E. and Segerstom, P.S., (1999), "A Schumpeterian Model of Protection and Relative Wages", American Economic Review, pp. 450-472;

Gambardella, A. (1995). "Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1980s." Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.

Griliches, Z. (1990), "Patent Statistics and as Economic Indicators: A Survey", Journal of Economic Literature, 18(4), pp. 1661-1707.

Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991), “Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth”, Review of Economic Studies 58, pp. 43-61;

Grossman, G.M. and Lai E.L. (2004) "International Protection of Intellectual Property", American Economic Review, vol. 94, n.5. Hecht J., (1999). City of Light: The Story of Fiber Optics. NewYork: Oxford University Press;

Heller, M. and Eisemberg, R. (1998), "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-Commons in Biomedical Research", Science, 280. Henderson, R., L. Orsenigo, and G. Pisano (1999). “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: Interactions among Scientific, Institutional and Organizational Change.” In Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, edited by D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson, New York: Cambridge University Press;

Hopenhayn, H., G. Llobet and M. Mitchell (2006), "Rewarding Sequential Innovators: Prizes, Patents and Buy-outs", Journal of Political Economy, vol.114, n. 6, pp.1041-1068;

Howitt, P. (1999), "Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R&D Inputs Growing", Journal of Political Economy, vol.107, n. 4, pp.715-30;

Jensen, R. and Thursby, M. (2001), "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions", American Economic Review, 91(1), pp.240-59;

Jones, C., (1995) “R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth ”, Journal of Political Economy, 1995, 103: 759-784;

Jones, C., (2003)”Growth in a World of Ideas”, Handbook of Economic Growth, forthcoming.

Kortum, S. (1993), "Equilibrium R&D and the Decline of the Patent - R&D Ratio: U.S. Evidence", American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, vol.65(5), pp.1389-1419;

Kortum, S. (1997), "Research, Patenting and Technological Change", Econometrica, vol.83(2), pp.450-57;

Kremer, M. (1998), "Patent Buy-outs: a Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation", Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, No. 4, p. 1137-1167.

Krusell, P., L. Ohanian, J.V. Rios-Rull and G. Violante (2000): “Capital-Skill Complementarity and Inequality”, Econometrica, 68:5, 1029-1054.

Lach, S. and Shankerman, M. (2003), “Incentives and invention in universities”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 3916, London, CEPR;

Martins, J. Scarpetta, S. and D. Pilat, (1996). ”Markup Pricing, Market Structure and the Business Cycle”, OECD Economic Studies 27, 71-105;

National Research Council (2003). "Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy", edited by W. M. Cohen and S. A. Merrill, Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2004). A Patent System for the 21ST Century. edited by Merrill, S.A. Levin, R.C. and Myers, M.B., Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board (2006) "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006". Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation;

O’Donoghue, T. (1998), "A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, 29(4), pp.654-679;

O’Donoghue, T., Scotchmer, S., and Thisse, J.F., (1998) “Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 7(1), pp.1-32;

O’Donoghue, T. and Zweimüller, J. (2004),“Patents in aModel of Endogenous Growth”, Journal of Economic Growth, vol.9(1), pp.81-123;

Roeger, W. (1995). “Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for US Manufacturing”, Journal of Political Economy 103, 2, 316-330;

Romer, P.M. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, vol.98, pp.S71-S102;

Scotchmer, S. (1991), "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law", Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1),29- 41;

Segerstrom, P.S. (1991), "Innovation, Imitation and Economic Growth", Journal of Political Economy, pp. 807-827;

Segerstrom, P.S. (1998), “Endogenous Growth Without Scale Effects,” American Economic Review, vol. 88,n. 5, pp.1290-1310;

Teece, D.J. (2000), "Managing Intellectual Capital", Oxford University Press. WIPO, 100 Years Protection of Intellectual Property Statistics, available on http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/.