Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance

Industrial and Corporate Change

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 899-925

  Cockburn, Iain M ^a   MacGarvie, Megan J ^a   Müller, Elisabeth ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS;

EID: 77955730495     PISSN: 09606491     EISSN: 14643650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtq035     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Anand, B. and T. Khanna, (2000), 'Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances,' Strategic Management Journal, 21, 295-315.
2. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri and A. Gambardella, (2001), Markets for Technology: Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
3. Athreye, S. and J. Cantwell, (2007), 'Creating competition?: Globalisation and the emergence of new technology producers,' Research Policy, 36, 209-226.
4. Bessen, J. and E. Maskin, (2000), 'Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation,' MIT Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 00-01 (forthcoming RAND Journal of Economics).
5. Bessen, J. and M. Meurer, (2008), Patent Failure. How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
6. Cassiman, B. and R. Veugelers, (2000), 'External technology sources: embodied or disembodied technology acquisition,' University Pompeu Fabra, Economics and Business Working Paper No. 444.
7. Cassiman, B. and R. Veugelers, (2006), 'In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition,' Management Science, 52, 68-82.
8. Clark, D. and K. Konrad, (2008), 'Fragmented property rights and Incentives for R&D,' Management Science, 54, 969-981.
9. Cockburn, I. and M. MacGarvie, (2009), 'Patents, thickets and the financing of early stage firms: evidence from the software industry,' Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18, 729-777.
10. Czarnitzki, D. and K. Kraft, (2004), 'An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?,' Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 153-173.
11. Czarnitzki, D. and K. Kraft, (2005), 'License expenditures of incumbents and potential entrants: an empirical analysis of firm behavior,' ZEW Discussion Paper No. 05-35.
12. Denicolo', V., D. Geradin, A. Layne-Farrar and A.J. Padilla, (2008), 'revisiting injunctive relief in high-tech industries with non-practicing patent holders,' Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4, 571-608.
13. Federal Trade Commission, (2003), To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy. Federal Trade Commission: Washington, DC.
14. Galasso, A. and M. Schankerman, (2008), 'Patent thickets and the market for ideas: evidence from settlement of patent disputes,' mimeo.
15. Gallini, N. T. (2002), 'The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform,' Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 131-154.
16. Gambardella, A. and M. S. Giarratana, (2008), 'General technologies, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology: evidence from the software security industry,' Working Paper.
17. Gans, J., D. Hsu and S. Stern, (2002), 'When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?,' RAND Journal of Economics, 33, 571-586.
18. Gans, J., D. Hsu and S. Stern, (2008), 'The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: evidence from patent grant delays,' Management Science, 54, 982-997.
19. Gans, J. and S. Stern, (2003), 'The product market and the market for 'ideas: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs,' Research Policy, 32, 333-350.
20. Geradin, D., A. Layne-Farrar and A. J. Padilla, (2007), 'Royalty stacking in high tech industries: separating myth from reality,' CEPR Discussion Paper No. 6091.
21. Geradin, D. and M. Rato, (2006), 'Can standard-setting lead to exploitative abuse? A dissonant view on patent hold-up, royalty stacking and the meaning of FRAND,' Working Paper.
22. Von Graevenitz, G., S. Wagner and D. Harhoff, (2008), 'Incidence and growth of patent thickets - the impact of technological opportunities and complexity,' CEPR Discussion Paper No. 6900.
23. Green, J. R. and S. Scotchmer, (1995), 'On the division of profit in sequential innovation,' RAND Journal of Economics, 26, 20-33.
24. Griffith, R., E. Huergo, J. Mairesse and B. Peters, (2006), 'Innovation and productivity across four European countries,' Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22, 483-498.
25. Grimpe, C. and K. Hussinger, (2008), 'Pre-empting technology competition through firm acquisitions,' Economics Letters, 100, 189-191.
26. Hall, B. H. (2002), 'A note on the bias of herfindahl-type measures based on count data,' in Jaffe and M. Trajtenberg (eds), Patents, Citations, and Innovations. MIT Press: Cambridge: MA, pp. 454-459.
27. Hall, B. H. (2004), 'Exploring the patent explosion,' Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 35-48.
28. Häussler, C., D. Harhoff and E. Müller, (2008), 'To be financed or not... - the role of patents for venture capital financing,' CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7115.
29. Heller, M. A. and R. S. Eisenberg, (1998), 'Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research,' Science, 280, 698-701.
30. Jaffe, A. B. and J. Lerner, (2004), Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
31. Kaiser, U. (2002), 'An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation,' International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 747-774.
32. Lemley, M. and C. Shapiro, (2007), 'Patent holdup and royalty stacking,' Texas Law Review, 85.
33. Lichtman, D. (2006), 'Patent holdouts in the standard-setting process,' Academic Advisory Council Bulletin 1.3, Progress and Freedom Foundation.
34. Lin, L. (2009), 'Patent thickets and the licensing of patents for cumulative innovations,' Working Paper, Boston University.
35. Merges, R. P. and R. R. Nelson, (1990), 'On the complex economics of patent scope,' Columbia Law Review, 90, 839-916.
36. st Century. National Academies Press: Washington DC.
37. Nagaoka, S. (2008), 'An analysis of unilateral and cross-licensing: new evidence from the inventor survey in Japan,' Working Paper.
38. Noel, M. and M. Schankerman, (2006), 'Patent thickets and software innovation: theory and evidence from a panel of U.S. firms,' CEPR Working Paper No. 5701.
39. OECD, (1994), 'Using patent data as science and technological indicators,' Patent Manual.
40. OECD and Eurostat, (1997), 'Oslo Manual - Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data,' OECD/Eurostat: Paris.
41. Razgaitis, R. (2006), 'U.S./Canadian Licensing In 2005-Survey Results,' les Nouvelles, 234-245.
42. Scotchmer, S. (1991), 'Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law,' Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 29-41.
43. Shapiro, C. (2001), 'Navigating the patent thicket: cross-licenses, patent pools, and standardsetting,' in Jaffe, A., Lerner, J. and S. Stern (eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1, MIT Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research.
44. Sidak, G. (2008), 'Holdup, royalty stacking, and the presumption of injunctive relief for patent infringement: a reply to Lemley and Shapiro,' Minnesota Law Review, 92, 713.
45. Siebert, R. and G. von Graevenitz, (2006), 'How licensing resolves hold-up: evidence from a dynamic panel with unobserved heterogeneity,' CEPR Discussion Paper 5436.
46. Teece, D. J. (2002), Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
47. Wooldridge, J. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross-section and Panel Data. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
48. Ziedonis, R. (2004), 'Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms,' Management Science, 50, 804-820.