Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework

Research Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1909-1921

  Pénin, Julien ^a   Wack, Jean Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LOUIS PASTEUR   (France)

Author keywords

Collective invention; Intellectual property rights; Knowledge; Open source; Sequential innovation

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

COLLECTIVE INVENTION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; KNOWLEDGE; OPEN SOURCE; SEQUENTIAL INNOVATION;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 55649100725     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.012     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Allen R.C. Collective inventions. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 4 (1983) 1-24
2. Amesse F., and Cohendet P. Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy 30 (2001) 1459-1478
3. Amin A., and Cohendet P. Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities and Communities (2004), Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. Arora A., and Fosfuri A. The market for technology in the chemical industry: causes and consequences. Revue d'Economie Industrielle 92 (2000) 317-334
5. Arora A., and Merges P. Specialised supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries. Industrial and Corporate Change 13 (2004) 451-475
6. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A., 2000. Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Working paper. Yale School of Management. 39 p.
7. Arrow K.J. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (1962), Princeton University Press 609-625
8. Arthur W.B. Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events. Economic Journal 99 (1989) 116-131
9. Benkler Y. Freedom in the Commons: A Political Economy of Information (2006), Yale University Press
10. Bessen, J., Maskin, E., 2000. Sequential innovation, patents and imitation. Working paper 00-01, MIT.
11. Boettiger, S., Burk, D.L., 2004. Open source patenting. Journal of International Biotechnology Law 1, 221-231.
12. Bollier D. Silent Theft (2003), Routledge Ltd.
13. Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C., 2002. Why open source software can succeed. Working paper LEM 2002-15.
14. Bureth A., and Pénin J. Modular inventions and distributed processes: The case of genetically engineered vaccines. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems V 20/2 (2007) 251-274
15. Bureth A., Levy R., Pénin J., and Wolff S. Strategic reasons for patenting: between exclusion and coordination rationales. Rivista di Politica Economica (2005) 19-46
16. Bureth, A., Pénin, J., Wolff, S., 2006. Entrepreneurship in biotechnology: the case of four start-ups in the Upper-Rhine Biovalley. Working paper BETA, no. 2006-21.
17. Burk D.L. Open source genomics. Journal of Science and Technology Law 8 (2002) 254
18. Callon, M., 1993. Is science a public good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 23, 1993.
19. Callon, M., 1999. Le Réseau Comme Forme Emergente et Comme Modalité de Coordination. Réseau et Coordination, Callon et al., Economica.
20. Carayol N., and Matt M. Academic incentives and research organization for patenting at a large French university. Proceedings of the Empirical Economic Analysis of the Academic Sphere. Strasbourg, March 17 (2004)
21. Carlson R. The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science (2003) 1,3, 203-214
22. Cesaroni F., and Piccaluga A. Patenting activity of European universities. Relevant? Growing? Useful?. Proceedings of Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical Frameworks for Evidence-Based Policy. March 21-23, SPRU, University of Sussex (2002)
23. Cohen W.M., and Levinthal D.A. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99 (1989) 569-596
24. Cohen W.M., and Walsh J. Real impediments to academic biomedical research. NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy 8 1 (2008) 30 p
25. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper 7552.
26. Cohendet P., Farcot M., and Pénin J. Entre Incitation et Coordination: Repenser le Rôle Economique du Brevet d'Invention dans une Economie Fondée sur la Connaissance. Management International 10 (2006) 65-84
27. Cournot, A., 1838. Recherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Richesses. Hachette.
28. Cowan R., David P.A., and Foray D. The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 (2000) 211-253
29. Dalle J.M., and Jullien N. 'Libre' software: turning fads into institutions. Research Policy 32 (2003) 1-11
30. David P.A. Can 'open science' be protected from the evolving regime of intellectual property rights protections. Journal of Theoretical and Institutional Economics 160 (2004) 1-26
31. David P.A. Using IPR to expand the research commons for science: new moves in 'legal jujitsu'. Proceedings of the Conference Intellectual Property Rights for Business and Society. September 14-15, London (2006)
32. Dosi G. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature 26 (1988) 1120-1171
33. Eisenberg R. Patents and data sharing in public science. Industrial and Corporate Change 15 (2006) 1013-1031
34. Foray D. Economics of Knowledge (2004), The MIT Press, Cambridge
35. Fore J., Wiechers I., and Cook-Deegan R. The effects of business practices, licensing, and intellectual property on development and dissemination of the polymerase chain reaction: case study. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration 1 (2006) 1-17
36. Gitter D.M. Resolving the open source paradox in biotechnology: a proposal for a revised open source policy for publicly funded genomic databases. Houston Law Review 43 (2007) 1476-1521
37. Green J., and Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. Rand Journal of Economics 26 (1995) 20-33
38. Guadamuz A. Open science: open source licences in scientific research. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 7 (2006) 321-366
39. Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (1968) 1243-1248
40. Heller M., and Eisenberg R. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280 (1998) 698-701
41. Hope J., 2004. Open source biotechnology. Thesis submitted at the Australian National University.
42. Hope, J., in press. Biobazaar: The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Jullien N., and Zimermann J.-B. Free/libre/open source software (FLOSS): lessons for intellectual property rights management in a knowledge-based economy. Proceedings of the DIME workshop on IPR. September 14-15, London (2006)
44. Lakhani K.R., and von Hippel E. How open source software works: 'free' user-to-user assistance. Research Policy 32 (2003) 923-943
45. Lerner J., and Tirole J. The open source movement: key research questions. European Economic Review 45 (2001) 819-826
46. Lerner J., and Tirole J. Efficient patent pools. American Economic Review 94 (2004) 691-711
47. Lessig L. The Future of Ideas (2001), Vintage Books, New York
48. Levin R.C., Klevorick K., Nelson R.R., and Winter S. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 3 (1987) 783-820
49. Maurer S.M. New institutions for doing sciences: from databases to open source biology. Proceedings of the European Policy for Intellectual Property conference. November 24-25, Maastricht (2003)
50. Maurer S.M., Rai A., and Sali A. Finding cures for tropical diseases: is open source an answer?. PLoS Medicine (2004) 183-186
51. Mazzoleni R., and Sampat B.N. University patenting: an assessment of the causes and consequences of recent changes in strategies and practices. Revue d'Economie Industrielle 99 (2002) 233-248
52. Merges R., and Nelson R.R. On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: the effect of patent scope decisions. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organizations 25 (1994) 1-24
53. Mowery D.C., and Ziedonis A.A. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy 31 (2002) 399-418
54. Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., and Ziedonis A.A. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effect of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy 30 (2001) 99-119
55. National Research Council. Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology (1997), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
56. Nelson R.R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33 (2004) 455-471
57. Nelson R.R. In: Maskus K.E., and Reichman J.H. (Eds). Linkages Between the Market Economy and the Scientific Commons. International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology (2005), Cambridge University Press 121-138
58. Nelson R.R., and Winter S. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
59. Nuvolari A. Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine. Cambridge Journal of Economics 28 (2004) 347-363
60. Oliver, A., Liebsekind, J., 2003. Public research and intellectual property rights: a tale of two inventions. ICOS working paper. (accessed 13.09.06).
61. Ordover J.A. A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1991) 43-60
62. Pénin, J., 2005. Open knowledge disclosure, incomplete information and collective innovations. Working Paper BETA 2005-10.
63. PIPRA, 2006. PIPRA's evaluation of the BIOS license. PIPRA's Summer 2006 quarter newsletter, issue 5. (accessed 15.01.08).
64. Polanyi M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy (1958), Harper & Row (Harper Torchbooks edition), NY
65. Pray C.E., and Naseem A. Intellectual property rights on research tools: incentives or barriers to innovation? Case studies of rice genomics and plant transformation technologies. AgBioForum 8 (2005) 108-117
66. Rai A.K. Open and collaborative research: a new model for biomedicine. In: Hahn, and Robert W. (Eds). Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries (2005), AEI-Brookings Press 131-158
67. Riggs W., and von Hippel E. Incentives to innovate and the sources of innovation: the case of scientific instruments. Research Policy 23 (1994) 459-469
68. Schrader S. Informal technology transfer between firms: cooperation through information trading. Research Policy 20 (1991) 153-170
69. Scotchmer S. Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1991) 29-41
70. Scotchmer S. Protecting early innovators: should second generation products be patentable?. Rand Journal of Economics 27 (1996) 322-331
71. Scotchmer S. Innovation and Incentives (2004), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
72. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In: Jaffe A., Lerner J., and Stern N. (Eds). Innovation Policy and the Economy vol. (2001), MIT Press
73. Simon H. Models of Bounded Rationality (1982), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
74. Stephan P., Sumell A., and Black G. Individual patenting and publication activity: having one's cake and eating it too. proceedings of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Annual Fall Conference. November 1-3, Washington, DC (2001)
75. Tirole, J., 2003. Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle: Une Introduction et Quelques Pistes de Réflexion, in Propriété Intellectuelle, report no 41 of the Conseil d'Analyse Economique, La documentation Française.
76. Walsh J.P., Arora A., and Cohen W.M. Research tool patenting and licensing and biomedical innovation. Patents in the Knowledge Based Economics (2003) 285-340
77. Walsh J.P., Cohen W.M., and Cho C. Where excludability matters: material vs. intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Research Policy 36 (2007) 1184-1203