Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New Core @article{bessen2003patent, title={Patent thickets: Strategic patenting of complex technologies}, author={Bessen, James}, journal={Available at SSRN 327760}, year={2003} abstract={Patent race models assume that an innovator wins the only patent covering a product. But when technologies are complex, this property right is defective: ownership of a product’s technology is shared, not exclusive. In that case I show that if patent standards are low, firms build “thickets” of patents, especially incumbent firms in mature industries. When they assert these patents, innovators are forced to share rents under cross-licenses, making R&D incentives sub-optimal. On the other hand, when lead time advantages are significant and patent standards are high, firms pursue strategies of “mutual non-aggression.” Then R&D incentives are stronger, even optimal.}, discipline={}, research_type={}, industry={}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, , filename={Bessen (2003) - Patent Thickets Strategic Patenting Of Complex Technologies.pdf} } @article{epstein2004there, title={Is there a biomedical anticommons}, author={Epstein, Richard A and Kuhlik, Bruce N}, journal={Regulation}, volume={27}, pages={54}, year={2004}, abstract={}, discipline={Law}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={Biomedial}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf} } @article{galasso2007broad, title={Broad cross-license agreements and persuasive patent litigation: theory and evidence from the semiconductor industry}, author={Galasso, Alberto}, journal={LSE STICERD Research Paper No. EI45}, year={2007} abstract={}, discipline={}, research_type={}, industry={}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, , filename={Galasso (2007) - Broad Cross License Agreements And Persuasive Patent Litigation.pdf} } @techreport{galasso2008patent, title={Patent thickets and the market for ideas: evidence from settlement of patent disputes}, author={Galasso, Alberto and Schankerman, Mark}, year={2008}, abstract={}, discipline={}, research_type={}, industry={}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, , filename={Galasso Schankerman (2008) - Patent Thickets And The Market For Ideas.pdf} } @article{hall2007empirical, title={An empirical analysis of patent litigation in the semiconductor industry}, author={Hall, Bronwyn H and Ziedonis, Rosemarie}, journal={University of California at Berkeley working paper}, year={2007}, publisher={Citeseer} abstract={Semiconductor firms sell products that embed hundreds if not thousands of patented inventions, elevating concerns about patent-related hold-up in this sector. This paper examines the incidence and nature of patent lawsuits involving 136 dedicated U.S. semiconductor firms between 1973 and 2001. By supplementing patent litigation data with information drawn from archival sources, we estimate the probability that firms will be involved in patent lawsuits, either as enforcers of exclusionary rights or as targets of litigation filed by other patent owners. We further distinguish between disputes that involve product-market rivals and those that do not. Overall, we find little evidence that semiconductor firms have adopted a more aggressive stance towards patent enforcement since the 1970s, despite the effective strengthening of U.S. patent rights in the 1980s and widespread entry by small firms. In fact, their litigation rate as enforcers of patents remains relatively stable over the past two decades once we control for factors such as the number of patents they own and changes in R&D spending. In striking contrast, we find an escalation in their baseline risk as targets of litigation brought by outside patent owners.}, discipline={Econ, Law}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={Semiconductor}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, , filename={Hall Ziedonis (2007) - An Empirical Analysis Of Patent Litigation In The Semiconductor Industry.pdf} } @article{harhoff2007strategic, title={The strategic use of patents and its implications for enterprise and competition policies}, author={Harhoff, Dietmar and Hall, Bronwyn H and von Graevenitz, Georg and Hoisl, Karin and Wagner, Stefan and Gambardella, Alfonso and Giuri, Paola}, journal={Report commissioned by European Commission}, year={2007} abstract={}, discipline={Econ}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, , filename={Harhoff Hall vonGraevenitz Hoisl Wagner Gambardella Giuri (2007) - The Strategic Use Of Patents And Its Implications For Enterprise And Competition Policies.pdf} } @article{heller1997tragedy, title={Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, The}, author={Heller, Michael A}, journal={HARV. l. rEV.}, volume={111}, pages={621}, year={1997}, abstract={Why are many storefronts in Moscow empty while street kiosks in front are full of goods? This article develops a theory of anitcommons property to help explain the puzzle of empty storefronts and full kiosks. Anticommons property can be understood as the mirror image of commons property. By definition, in a commons, multiple owners are each endowed with the privilege to use a given resource, and no one has the right to exclude another. When too many owners have such privileges of use, the resource is prone to overuse – a tragedy of the commons. In an anitcommons, by my definition, multiple owners are each endowed with the right to exclude others from a scarce resource, and no one has an effective privilege of use. When there are too many owners holding rights of exclusion, the resource is prone to underuse – a tragedy of the anitcommons. Anticommons property may appear whenever new property rights are being defined. For example in Moscow, multiple owners have been endowed initially with competing rights in each storefront, so no owner holds a useable bundle of rights and the store remains empty. Once an anticommons has emerged, collecting rights into private property bundles can be brutal and slow. This article explores the dynamics of anitcommons property in transition economies, formalizes the empirical material in a property theory framework, and then shows how the idea of anticommons property can be a useful new tool for understanding a range of property puzzles. The difficulties of overcoming a tragedy of the anticommons suggest that property theorists might pay more attention to the content of the property bundles, rather than focusing just on the clarify rights. }, discipline={Econ}, research_type={Theory}, industry={}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Heller (1998) - The Tragedy Of The Anticommons.pdf} } @article{mann2005patents, title={Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?}, author={Mann, Ronald J}, journal={Texas Law Review}, volume={83}, pages={961--1009}, year-{2005}, abstract={}, discipline={Law}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={Software}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Mann (2005) - Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry.pdf} } @article{merges1990complex, title={On the complex economics of patent scope}, author={Merges, Robert P and Nelson, Richard R}, journal={Columbia Law Review}, pages={839--916}, year={1990}, abstract={}, discipline={Law}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={Software}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Merges Nelson (1990) - On The Complex Economics Of Patent Scope.pdf} } @article{merges1999institutions, title={Institutions for intellectual property transactions: the case of patent pools}, author={Merges, Robert P}, journal={University of California at Berkeley Working Paper}, year={1999}, abstract={}, discipline={Law}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={Software}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Merges (1999) - Institutions For Intellectual Property Transactions.pdf} } @article{murray2007formal, title={Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis}, author={Murray, Fiona and Stern, Scott}, journal={Journal of Economic Behavior \& Organization}, volume={63}, number={4}, pages={648--687}, year={2007}, abstract={Although many scholars suggest that IPR has a positive effect on cumulative innovation, a growing “anticommons” perspective highlights the negative role of IPR over scientific knowledge. At its core, this debate is centered on how intellectual property rights over a given piece of knowledge affect the propensity of future researchers to build upon that knowledge in their own scientific research activities. This article frames this issue around the concept of dual knowledge, in which a single discovery may contribute to both scientific research and useful commercial applications, and finds evidence for a modest anti-commons effect. A key implication of dual knowledge is that it may be simultaneously instantiated as a scientific research article and as a patent. Such patent-paper pairs are at the heart of our empirical strategy.We exploit the fact that patents are granted with a substantial lag, often many years after the knowledge is initially disclosed through paper publication. The knowledge associated with a patent-paper BibTeX entries pair therefore diffuses within two distinct intellectual property environments, one associated with the pre-grant period and another after formal IP rights are granted. Relative to the expected citation pattern for publications with a given quality level, the anti-commons perspective suggests that the citation rate for a scientific publication should be added herefall after formal IP rights associated with that publication are granted. Employing a differences-in-differences estimator for 169 patent-paper pairs (and including a control group of other publications from the same journal for which no patent is granted), we find evidence for a modest anti-commons effect (the citation rate after the patent grant declines by approximately 10 to 20 percent). This decline becomes more pronounced with the number of years elapsed since the date of the patent grant and is particularly salient for articles authored by researchers with public sector affiliations.}, discipline={Econ}, research_type={Discussion, Empirical}, industry={}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Murray Stern (2007) - Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder The Free Flow Of Scientific Knowledge.pdf} } @article{walsh2003effects, title={Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation}, author={Walsh, John P and Arora, Ashish and Cohen, Wesley M}, journal={Patents in the Knowledge-based Economy}, volume={285}, pages={286}, year={2003}, abstract={}, discipline={Law}, research_type={Discussion}, industry={Software}, thicket_stance={}, thicket_stance_extract={}, thicket_def={}, thicket_def_extract={}, tags={}, filename={Walsh Arora Cohen (2003) - Effects Of Research Tool Patents And Licensing On Biomedical Innovation.pdf} }
PTLR Core Group Processed BibTeX (view source)
Revision as of 19:24, 25 March 2013
, 19:24, 25 March 2013no edit summary
===Additional entries===
