The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: Evidence from patent grant delays

Management Science

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 982-997

  Gans, Joshua S ^a   Hsu, David H ^b   Stern, Scott ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Commercialization; Entrepreneurship; Innovation; Licensing; Patents

Indexed keywords

ASYMMETRIC INFORMATIONS; COMMERCIALIZATION; DATA SETS; EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES; ENTREPRENEURSHIP; HAZARD RATES; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; LICENSING; LICENSING AGREEMENTS; MARKET FOR TECHNOLOGIES; PATENT RIGHTS; PATENT SYSTEMS; PATENTS; SEARCH COSTS; START-UP;

COPYRIGHTS; INTERNET PROTOCOLS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MARKETING; REAL TIME SYSTEMS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; TIME MEASUREMENT;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 61849167917     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0814     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abbring, J. H., G. J. van den Berg. 2003. The nonparametric identification of treatment effects in duration models. Econometrica 71 1491-1518.
2. Aghion, P., J. Tirole. 1994. The management of innovation. Quart. J. Econom. 109 1185-1210.
3. Anand, B., T. Khanna. 2000. The structure of licensing contracts. J. Indust. Econom. 48 103-135.
4. Anton, J. J., D. A. Yao. 1994. Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. Amer. Econom. Rev. 84 190-209.
5. Arora, A. 1995. Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 4 41-49.
6. Arora, A., M. Ceccagnoli, W. M. Cohen. 2008. R&D and the patent premium. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. Forthcoming.
7. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella. 2001. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
8. Arrow, K. J. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. R. Nelson, ed. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 609-625.
9. Ausubel, L., P. Cramton, R. J. Deneckere. 2002. Bargaining with incomplete information. R. Aumann, S. Hart, eds. Handbook of Game Theory, Vol. 3, Chap. 50. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
10. Beggs, A. W. 1992. The licensing of patents under asymmetric information. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 10 171-191.
11. Cohen, W. M., S. A. Merrill, eds. 2003. Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
12. Dechenaux, E., B. Goldfarb, S. Shane, M. Thursby. 2008. Appropriability and commercialization: Evidence from MIT inventions. Management Sci. 54 893-906.
13. Elfenbein, D. 2007. Publications, patents and the market for university inventions. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63 688-715.
14. Farrell, J., C. Shapiro. 2008. How strong are weak patents? Amer.Econom. Rev. Forthcoming.
15. Fleming, L., O. Sorenson. 2004. Science as a map in technological research. Strategic Management J. 25 909-928.
16. Gans, J. S., S. Stern. 2000. Incumbency and R&D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. J. Econom. Management Strategy 9 485-511.
17. Gans, J. S., D. H. Hsu, S. Stern. 2002. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND J. Econom. 33 571-586.
18. Gittelman, M., B. Kogut. 2003. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Sci. 49 366-382.
19. Giuri, P., M. Mariani, S. Brusoni, G. Crespi, D. Francoz, A. Gambardella, W. Garcia-Fontes, A. Geuna, R. Gonzales, D. Harhoff, K. Hoisl, C. Lebas, A. Luzzi, L. Magazzini, L. Nesta, O. Nomaler, N. Palomeras, P. Patel, M. Romanelli, B. Verspagen. 2007. Inventors and invention processes in Europe. Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Res. Policy 36 1107-1127.
20. Graham, S. J. H., D. Harhoff. 2006. Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of USand European patents. CEPR Discussion Paper 5680, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
21. Graham, S. J. H., D. Mowery. 2003. Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. W. M. Cohen, S. L. Merrill, eds. Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 219-281.
22. Hall, B. H., M. MacGarvie. 2006. The private value of software patents. NBER Working Paper 12195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
23. Hall, B. H., A. B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg. 2001. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
24. Harhoff, D., S. Wagner. 2005. Modelling the duration of patent examination at the European patent office. Working Paper 5283, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
25. Heller, M., R. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science 280 698-701.
26. Hellmann, T. 2007. The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63 624-657.
27. Hsu, D. 2006. Venture capitalists and cooperative start-up commercialization strategy. Management Sci. 52 204-219.
28. Jaffe, A., J. Lerner. 2004. Innovation and Its Discontents. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
29. Johnson, D. K. N., D. Popp. 2003. Forced out of the closet: The impact of the American inventors protection act on the timing of patent disclosure. RAND J. Econom. 34 96-112.
30. Katila, R., P. Y. Mang. 2003. Exploiting technological opportunities: The timing of collaborations. Res. Policy 32 317-332.
31. Kitch, E. 1977. The nature and function of the patent system. J. Law Econom. 20 265-290.
32. Lamoreaux, N. R., K. L. Sokoloff. 1996. Long-term change in the organization of inventive activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93 12686-12692.
33. Lancaster, T. 1990. The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34. Lanjouw, J. O., M. Schankerman. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. 32 129-151.
35. Lanjouw, J. O., M. Schankerman. 2004. Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114 441-465.
36. Lemley, M. A., C. Shapiro. 2005. Probabilistic patents. J. Econom. Perspect. 19 75-98.
37. Lerner, J., R. Merges. 1998. The control of technology alliances: An empirical analysis of the biotechnology industry. J. Indust. Econom. 46 125-156.
38. Lerner, J., F. Zhu. 2007. What is the impact of software patent shifts? Evidence from Lotus v. Borland. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 25 511-529.
39. Lowe, R. A. 2004. Knowledge transfer and university entrepreneurship. Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
40. Markewicz, K. R. 2005. University patenting and the rate of knowledge exploitation. Working paper, University of California, Berkeley.
41. Narin, F. 1994. Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics 30 147-155.
42. Nelson, R. R., R. Merges. 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Rev. 90 839-916.
43. Popp, D., T. Juhl, D. Johnson. 2004. Time in purgatory: Determinants of the grant lag for U.S. patent applications. Topics Econom. Anal. Policy 4(1), Article 29.
44. Quillen, C. D., Jr., O. H. Webster. 2001. Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. patent office. Federal Circuit Bar J. 11 1-21.
45. Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
46. Scherer, F. M., D. Harhoff. 2000. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Res. Policy 29 559-566.
47. Scotchmer, S. 2004. Innovation and Incentives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Shapiro, C. 2001. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner, S. Stern, eds. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 119-150.
49. Teece, D. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15 285-305.
50. Thursby, M., J. Thursby, E. Dechenaux. 2007. Shirking, sharing risk, and shelving: The role of university license contracts. NBER Working Paper 11128, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
51. van den Berg, G. J. 2001. Duration models: Specification, identification, and multiple durations. J. J. Heckman, E. Leamer, eds. Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. V. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 3381-3460.