Are intellectual property rights hindering technological advance? The need for technological commons

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 26, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 195-217

  Rouvinen, Petri ^a   Stankiewicz, Rikard ^b  

^a Elinkeinoelaman Tutkimuslaitos   (Finland)

^b EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Design space; Intellectual property; Science and technology policy; Technological development; University patenting

Indexed keywords

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 61649111787     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00375.x     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abramson, B. (2002). Promoting innovation in the software industry: A first principles approach to intellectual property reform. Journal of Science and Technology Law, 8(1), 75-156.
2. Agnes, T. (2003). Columbia patents under attack. The Scientist, 2003(July 25).
3. Allison, J. R., & Lemley, M. (2002). The growing complexity of the United States Patent System. Boston University Law Review, 82(1), 77-144.
4. Andersen, S. (2004). IP law comes of age: IP enters the no-holds-barred world of complex business litigation. Corporate Legal Times, 14(154), 48-51.
5. Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M., & Cohen, W. M. (2003). R&D and the patent premium. NBER Working Paper, January, 9431.
6. Bessen, J. (2005). Patents and the diffusion of technical information. Economics Letters, 86(1), 121-128.
7. Black, T. E. (2001). Taking account of the world as it will be: The shifting course of U.S. encryption policy. Federal Communications Law Journal, 53(2), 289-314.
8. Blaug, S., Chien, C., & Shuster, M. J. (2004). Managing innovation: University-industry partnership and the licensing of the Harvard mouse. Nature Biotechnology, 22(6), 761-763.
9. Carlson, S. C. (1999). Patent pools and the antitrust dilemma. Yale Journal on Regulation, 16(359), 359-399.
10. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1-44.
11. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecing their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper, February, 7552.
12. Cowhey, P. F., Aronson J. D., & Richards, R. (2009). Shaping the architecture of the U.S. information and communication technology architecture: A political economic analysis. Review of Policy Research, 26(1/2), 105-126.
13. David, P. A. (1993). Knowledge, property, and the system dynamics of technological change. In L. H. Summers & S. Shah (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Bank Conference of Development Economics (pp. 215-248). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
14. David, P. A. (2004). Can "open science" be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160(1), 9-34.
15. Drews, J. (1999). In quest of tomorrow's medicines. New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Dubois, P.-A., & McCallie, K. (2003). Of mice and men. Managing Intellectual Property, 130 (June), 32-36.
17. Dunning, J. H., & Lundan S. M. (2009). The internationalization of corporate R&D: A review of the evidence and some policy implications for home countries. Review of Policy Research, 26, 13-33.
18. Graham, S. J. H., & Mowery, D. C. (2005). Submarines and Technological Innovation: U.S. Continuation Patenting in Software and Biotechnology Technologies in the 1980s and 1990s. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship (Vol. 15) (pp. 71-101). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
19. Granstrand, O. (1999). The economics and management of intellectual property: Towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
20. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698-701.
21. Hemphill, T. A. (2003). Preemptive patenting, human genomics, and the US biotechnology sector: Balancing intellectual property rights with societal welfare. Technology in Society, 25(3), 337-349.
22. Henry, C. (2007). Of patents and genes: Flows of knowledge and intellectual property rights. In F. Bourguignon, P. Jacquet, & B. Pleskovi (Eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, Europe: Economic Integration and Social Responsibility (pp. 121-131). Washington, DC: World Bank.
23. Herson, D. (2000). The changing face of international cryptography policy: Part 14 - RSA and digital signatures. Computer Fraud & Security, 2000(9), September.
24. Hicks, M. (2003). Eolas founder: Browser victory shouldn't alter HTML (interview). eWeek, 20(38).
25. HJLT. (2004). Columbia, co-transformation, commercialization & controversy: The axel patent litigation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 17(2), 583-618.
26. Hughes, S. S. (2001). Making dollars out of DNA: The first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974-1980. Journal of the History of Science in Society, 92(3), 541-575.
27. Hunt, R., & Bessen, J. (2004). The software patent experiment. Business Review, 2004(Q3), 22-32.
28. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontinents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Kamber, M. (2003). Note: Coming out of the maze-Canada grants the Harvard mouse patent. The George Washington International Law Review, 35(3), 761-786.
30. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). On the licensing of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 16(4), 504-520.
31. Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Koechlin, F. (2003). Gene Tests: The El Dorado of Genetic Engineering? The Example of Myriad Genetics, Inc. and the Patented BRCA1 Gene. Paper presented at the Conflicts of Interests: Ethics and Predictive Medicine, Basel, Switzerland. 20-21 February 2003.
33. Kushida, K. E., & Zysman, J. (2009). The services transformation and network policy: The new logic of value creation. Review of Policy Research, 26, 173-194.
34. Lauzon, E. (1998). The Philip Zimmermann investigation: The start of the fall of export restrictions on encryption software Under First Amendment Free Speech Issues. Syracuse Law Review, 48(1307), 1307-1364.
35. Lee, P. (2004). Patents, paradigm shifts, and progress in biomedical science. Yale Law Journal, 114(3), 659-695.
36. Malakoff, D. (2004). NIH roils academe with advice on licensing DNA patents. Science, 303(5665), 1757-1758.
37. McKenzie, M., & Walter, M. (1999). Microsoft's style sheet patent is bogus, so why not turn it over to the W3C? Seybold Report on Internet Publishing, 3(7), 12.
38. Merges, R. P. (1994). Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: The case of blocking patents. Tennessee Law Review, 62(1), 75-106.
39. Merges, R. P., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 90(4), 885-891.
40. Merrill, S. A., & Elliott, G. C. (2004). Appendix A: A patent primer. In S. A. Merrill, R. R. Levin, & M. B. Myers (Eds.), A Patent System for the 21st Century (pp. 143-154). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. Merrill, S. A., Levin, R. R., & Myers, M. B. (Eds.) (2004). A patent system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42. Messmer, E. (2000). Clock ticking on key encryption patent. CNN.com, 2000 (January 28).
43. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 31(3), 399-418.
44. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45. NB. (2003). Editorial: Ownership at too high a price? Nature Biotechnology, 21(9), 953.
46. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455-471.
47. Pallatto, J. (2005). Court overturns Microsoft ruling. eWeek, 22(10), 18.
48. Paradise, J., Andrews, L., & Holbrook, T. (2005). Patents on human genes: An analysis of scope and claims. Science, 307(5715), 1566-1567.
49. Pollack, A. (2000). Is everything for sale? New York Times, 149 (28 June 2000), C1.
50. Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1&2), 289-314.
51. Reynolds, T. (2000). News: NCI-Myriad agreement offers BRCA testing at reduced cost. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92(8), 596.
52. SEC. (2004). The United States Securities and Exchange Commission - Form 10-K: Myriad Genetics, Inc., 0-26642 (For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004).
53. Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, 1(1), 119-150.
54. Smith, N. A. (2002). Business method patents and their limits: Justifications, history, and the emergence of a claim construction jurisprudence. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 9(1), 171-209.
55. Stankiewicz, R. (2000). On the concept of "design space." In J. Ziman (Ed.), Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process (pp. 234-247). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56. Stankiewicz, R. (2002). The cognitive dynamics of biotechnology and the evolution of its technological systems. In B. Carlsson (Ed.), Technological Systems in the Bio Industries: An International Study (pp. 35-52), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
57. Stern, R. H. (1999). Licensing IP embodied in standards. IEEE Micro, 19(4), 7-8, 82-83.
58. Taylor, D. (2004). Utah's large families, residents' interest in genealogy help create some of the world's most significant genetics research, The Enterprise (Utah's Business Journal, Salt Lake City), 33(39), 9.
59. Taylor, M. Z. (2009). International linkages and national innovation rates: An exploratory probe. Review of Policy Research, 26, 127-149.
60. Thumm, N. (2004). Motives for patenting biotechnological inventions: An empirical investigation in Switzerland. International Journal of Technology Policy & Management, 4(3), 1.
61. Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. TLJ. (2005). Federal circuit vacates in Eolas patent case. Tech Law Journal, 2005(March 2).
63. Ungar, E. (2002). Harvard mouse denied patent-Canadian Supreme Court rules higher life form is not an invention. The Scientist, 2002(December 6).
64. Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic analysis (3rd edn.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
65. Williams-Jones, B. (2002). History of gene patent: Tracing the development and application of commercial BRCA testing. Health Law Journal, 10, 123-146.