The patent paradox - new insights through decision support using compound options

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 180-185

  Goldenberg, David H ^a   Linton, Jonathan D ^b  

^a RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision support; Intellectual property; Patents; Policy; Real options

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PUBLIC POLICY;

CURRENT REGULATIONS; DECISION SUPPORTS; NET PRESENT VALUE; PATENT PROTECTION; PATENT REGULATIONS; PATENTS; REAL OPTIONS; SOCIETAL BENEFITS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

DECISION ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; POLICY APPROACH; PROFITABILITY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

CLUSIA (ANGIOSPERM);

EID: 84860916451     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.017     Document Type: Note

References (28)

1. Bureau of National Affairs, Polaroid Corp. vs. Eastman Kodak Co. (DC Mass) 16USPQ2d 1481, Intellectual Property Library, 2003.
2. J.I. Arnold, A.W. Garten, J.C. Janka, R.P. Niro, The law and economics of reasonable royalty damages After Black and Decker's 'Snakelight' litigation, Fed. Circuit Bar J. 7 (1997) 373-390.
3. K. Fitchard, RIM settlement has few larger repercussions, Telephony 247 (5) (2006) 10-12.
4. T. Takalo, V. Kanniainen, Do patents slow down technological progress? Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction, Int. J. Ind. Organ. 18 (7) (2000) 1105-1127.
5. A.B. Jaffe, J. Lerner, Innovation and its discontents, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004.
6. G.K. Hadfield, Legal Services Wanted; Lawyers Need Not Apply. Miller-McCune June 28, 2011 Internet Edition, http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs/legal-services-wanted-lawyers-need-not-apply-32128/2011Accessed July 18, 2011.
7. F. Phillips, The state of technological and social changes: impressions, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (6) (2011) 1072-1078.
8. R.R. Nelson, The market economy, and the scientific commons, Res. Policy 33 (2004) 455-471.
9. P. Hanel, Intellectual property rights business management practices: a survey of the literature, Technovation 26 (2006) 895-931.
10. K. Blind, J. Edler, R. Frietsch, U. Schmoch, Motives to patent: empirical evidence from germany, Res. Policy 35 (2006) 655-672.
11. E. Mansfield, Patents and innovation: an empirical study, Manag. Sci. 2 (1986) 173-181.
12. M.S. Landis, Buy low, sell high: a practical guide on the pricing and presentation of patents and technical information, J. Proprietary Rights 8 (5) (1996) 7-14.
13. R. Goldscheider, J. Jarosz, C. Mulhern, Use of the 25 percent rule in valuing IP, Les Nouvelles 37 (4) (2002) 123-133.
14. G. Clarkson, Avoiding suboptimal behavior in intellectual asset transactions: economic and organizational perspectives on the sale of knowledge, Harvard J. Law Technol. (2001) 712-740.
15. M.S. Rahman, Patent valuation: impact on damages, University of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law J. 6 (1998) 145-159.
16. F.R. Denton, P.J. Heald, Random walks, non-cooperative games, and the complex mathematics of patent pricing, Rutgers Law Rev. 55 (2003) 1175-1286.
17. N. Bloom, J. Van Reenen, Patents, real options and firm performance, Econ. J. 112 (2002) 478.
18. R. Geske, The valuation of compound options, J. Financial Econ. 7 (1) (1979) 63-81.
19. A. Arundel, G. van de Paal, L. Soete, Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms. results of the PACE Survey for Information Sources, Public Research, Protection, of Innovations and Government Programmes, Merit, M. European Commission/GD., Telecommunication, PACE Report, final Report, European Commission, Brussels, 1995.
20. E. Duguet, I. Kabla, Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: an econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing, Annales d'Economie et de Statistique 49 (50) (1998) 289-327.
21. W.M. Cohen, A. Goto, A. Nagata, R.R. Nelson, J.P. Walsh, R and D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States, Res. Policy 31 (2002) 1349-1367.
22. H.J. Schalk, U.C. Tager, S. Brander (Eds.), Wissenverbreitung und Diffusionsdynamik in Spannungsfeld zwischen innovierenden und imitierended Unternehmen, Ifo-Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung, Munchen, 1999.
23. OECD (Committee for Scientific, Technological Policy - Ed..), Preliminary Results of OECD/BIAC Survey on the Use and Perception of Patents in the Business Community, Working Party on Innovation and Policy, 19-20, June, 2003.
24. PTC Research Foundation, Patent Costs, IDEA: The J. Law Technol. 36 (1996) 350-382.
25. D. Pressman, Patent it Yourself, Nolo Press, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
26. US Patent and Trademark Office. 2005. Fiscal Year 2005 Fee Schedule. US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2004dec08.htm.
27. H. Delerue, A. Lejeune, Job mobility restriction mechanisms and appropriability in organization: the mediating role of secrecy and lead time, Technovation 30 (2010) 359-366.
28. A. Arudel, The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation, Res. Policy 30 (2001) 611-624.