In the shadow of giants

Jing-Yuan, Chiou (2012): In the shadow of giants.

Abstract

Intellectual giants provide broad shoulders for subsequent inventors. Their unfinished inquiry, however, also casts shadow on the prospect of future research. This paper incorporates this shadow effect into a two-stage innovation process and shows that patenting the first-stage result (the basic invention) may enhance the second-stage innovation. It is optimal to reject patent protection to the basic invention only when this beneficial effect does not arise, and when it is essential to preserve the pioneering inventor's incentive to continue research activities.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Cumulative Innovation; Patentable Subject Matter; Probabilistic Patents; Search; Shadow Effect
• Subjects: 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; K - Law and Economics > K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law > K39 - Other

References

Aoki R. and S. Nagaoka (2007), The Utility Standard and the Patentability of Internediate Technology, working paper.

Bag, P. K. and S. Dasgupta (1995), Strategic R&D Success Announcements, Economics Letters, Vol. 47: 17-26.

Bessen, J. and E. Maskin (2009), Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 40: 611-35.

Bulow, J. and P. Klemperer (2002), Prices and the Winner's Curse, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 33: 1-21.

Choi, J. P. (1991), Dynamic R&D Competition Under ``Hazard Rate'' Uncertainty, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 22: 596-610.

Denicolo, V. (2000), Two-Stage Patent Races and Patent Policy, Journal of Economics, Vol. 31: 488-501.

Eisenberg, R. (2000), Analyze This: A Lad and Economics Agenda for the Patent System, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 53: 2081-98.

Gershkov, A. and M. Perry (2009), Tournaments with Midterm Reviews, Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 66: 162-90.

Goltsmand, M. and A. Mukherjee (2008), Information Disclosure in Multistage Tournaments, working paper.

Farber, D. (2010), The First Amendment, thirrd edition, Foundation Press.

Gans, J., F. Murray, and S. Stern (2010), Contracting Over the Disclosure of Scientific Knowledge: Intellectual Property and Academic Publication, working paper.

Gruner, R. (2007), In Search of the Undiscovered Country: The Challenge of Describing Patentable Subject Matter, Santa Clara Comupter and High technology Law Journal, Vol. 23: 395-445.

Green J. and S. Scotchmer (1995), On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 26: 20-33.

Harhoff, D., P. Regibeau, and K. Rockett (2001), Some Simple Economics of GM Food, Economic Policy, Vol. 16: 265-99.

Kultti K. and A. Miettunen (2008), On the Optimal Novelty Requirement in Patent Proection, working paper.

Kuhn, J. (2007), Patentable Subject Matter Matters: New Uses for an old Doctrine, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 22: 89-114.

Mason, R. and J. Valimaki (2011), Learning about the Arrival of Sales, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 146: 1699-1711.

Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science, R. K. Merton and N. W. Storer ed., University of Chicago Press.

Malueg, D. and S. Tsutsui (1997), Dynamic R&D Competition with Learning, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 28: 751-772.

Matutes, C., P. Regibeau, and K. Rockett (1996), Optimal Patent Design and the Diffusion of Innovations, RAND Jurnal of Economics, Vol. 27: 60-83.

Merges, R. (1997), Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, second edition, Michie Press.

Merges, R. (2007), Software and Patent Scope: A Report from the Middle Innings, Texas Law Review, Vol. 85: 1627-76.

Murray, F., P. Aghion, M. Dewatripont, J. Kolev, and S. Stern (2009), Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation, working paper.

O'Donoghue, T. (1998), A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 29: 654-79.

Owan, H. and S. Nagaoka (2008), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation for Inventors, working paper.

Risch, M. (2008), Everything is Patentable, Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 75: 591-658.

Sauermann, H. and W. Cohen (2007), What Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Industrial Innovation, working paper.

Savage, L. J. (1972), The Foundations of Statistics, 2nd ed., Dover, New York.

Scotchmer, S. (1996), Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products be Patentable? RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 27: 322-31.

Scotchmer, S. (2004), Innovation and Incentives, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Williams, H. (2010), Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome, working paper.