Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication

Research Policy

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 820-835

  Gans, Joshua S ^a,b   Murray, Fiona E ^b,c   Stern, Scott ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disclosure; Firm strategy; Intellectual property (IP) protection; Publication; Science; Secrecy

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

DISCLOSURE; FIRM STRATEGY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION; PUBLICATION; SCIENCE; SECRECY;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 85014668464     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Stein, J., Academic freedom, private-sector focus and the process of innovation. RAND J. Econ. 39:3 (2009), 617–635.
2. Arrow, K., Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. Nelson, R., (eds.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, 1962, Princeton University Press, Princeton (NJ), 609–625.
3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T., The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. J. Ind. Econ. 75 (2009), 637–676.
4. Baker, S., Mezzetti, C., Disclosure as a strategy in a patent race. J. Law Econ. 4 (2005), 173–194.
5. Bar, T., Defensive publications in an R&D Race. J. Econ. Manag. Strat. 15 (2006), 229–254.
6. Bar-Gill, O., Parchomovsky, G., The value of giving away secrets. Va. Law Rev. 89 (2003), 1857–1895.
7. Bhaskarabhatla, A., Hegde, D., An organizational perspective on patenting and open innovation. Organ. Sci. 25:6 (2014), 1744–1763.
8. Bok, D., Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
9. Cockburn, I., Henderson, R., Public-private interaction and the productivity of pharmaceutical research. J. Ind. Econ., 46, 1998, 2.
10. Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Q. 35 (1990), 128–152.
11. Dasgupta, P., David, P.A., Towards a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23 (1994), 487–521.
12. David, P.A., The historical origins of “open science”: an essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. CAS, 3, 2008 Article 5.
13. Ducor, P., Intellectual property: coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289 (2000), 873–875.
14. Fehder, D.C., Murray, F., Stern, S., Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific journals as a platform. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 36 (2014), 83–94.
15. Fabrizio, K., Di Minin, A., Commercializing the laboratory: the relationship between faculty patenting and publishing. Res. Policy 37 (2008), 914–931.
16. Furman, J.L., Stern, S., Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: The impact of institutions on cumulative research. Am. Econ. Rev. 5 (2011), 1933–1963.
17. Fu, C., Turck, C.W., Kurosaki, T., Chan, A.C., BLNK: a central linker protein in B cell activation. Immunity 9 (1998), 93–103.
18. Gans, J.S., Murray, F.E., Funding scientific knowledge: selection disclosure and the public-private portfolio. Lerner, J., Stern, S., (eds.) Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, 2012, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (Chapter 1).
19. Gilbert, R.J., Newbery, D.M.G., Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. Am. Econ. Rev. 72 (1982), 514–526.
20. Gittelman, M., Kogut, B., Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Manag. Sci. 49 (2003), 366–382.
21. Haeussler, C., Jiang, L., Thursby, J., Thursby, M., Sharing Among Competing Researchers. 2011, Georgia Tech, Mimeo.
22. Hall, B.H., Ham Ziedonis, R., The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econ. 32 (2001), 101–128.
23. Heller, M., Eisenberg, R., Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280 (1998), 698–701.
24. Heller, M., The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets Stops Innovation. 2008, Costs Lives Basic Books, NY).
25. Hellmann, T., The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63 (2007), 624–647.
26. Henderson, R., Cockburn, I., Scale, scope and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND J. Econ. 27 (1996), 32–59.
27. Hicks, D., Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Ind. Corp. Change 4 (1995), 401–424.
28. Huang, K., Murray, F., Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from the human genome. Acad. Manag. J. 52 (2009), 1193–1221.
29. Jensen, R., Thursby, J., Thursby, M.C., University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting. Working Paper, No. 15732. 2010, National Bureau of Economic Research.
30. Jeon, D.-S., Menicucci, D., Money, fame and allocation of talent: brain drain and the institution of science. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 66 (2008), 558–581.
31. Johnson, J., Defensive Publication by a Leading Firm. 2005, Cornell University, Mimeo.
32. Jones, Charles I., R & D-based models of economic growth. J. Pol. Econ. 4 (1995), 759–784.
33. Katz, M., Shapiro, C., R&D rivalry with licensing or imitation. Am. Econ. Rev. 77 (1987), 402–420.
34. Lacetera, N., Different missions and commitment power in R&D organization: theory and evidence on industry-university relations. Organ. Sci. 20 (2009), 565–582.
35. Lampe, R., Strategic citations. Rev. Econ. Stat. 94 (2012), 320–333.
36. Lemley, M.A., Shapiro, C., Probabilistic patents. J. Econ. Perspect. 19 (2005), 75–98.
37. Lerner, J., The Importance of Trade Secrecy: Evidence from Civil Litigation. 1994, Harvard University, Mimeo.
38. Lerner, J., Tirole, J., The economics of technology sharing: open source and beyond. J. Econ. Perspect. 19 (2005), 99–120.
39. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S., Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 3 (1987), 783–831.
40. Lim, K., Do Firms Have to Perform Basic Research in Order to Capture Spillovers. 1999, MIT Sloan School, Mimeo.
41. Lim, K., The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries. 1981–1997. Res. Policy 33 (2004), 287–321.
42. Lowry, S., Inevitable disclosure trade secret disputes: dissolutions of concurrent property interests. Stanf. Law Rev. 40 (1988), 519–544.
43. Macho-Stadler, I., Pérez-Castrillo, D., Veugelers, R., Licensing of university inventions: the role of a technology transfer office. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 25 (2007), 483–510.
44. Machlup, F., Penrose, E., The patent controversy in the nineteenth century. J. Econ. Hist. 10 (1950), 1–29.
45. Marx, M., Strumsky, D., Fleming, L., Mobility, skills, and the Michigan non-compete experiment. Manag. Sci. 55 (2009), 875–889.
46. Merton, R.K., Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22 (1957), 635–659.
47. Merton, R.K., The normative structure of science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 267–280.
48. Metz, C., Artificial intelligence just broke Steve Jobs’ wall of secrecy. Wired, 6(December), 2016.
49. Milgrom, P.R., Shannon, C., Monotone comparative statics. Econometrica 62 (1994), 157–180.
50. Mokyr, J., The Gifts of Athena. 2004, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
51. Moser, P., How do patent laws influence innovation? Evidence from nineteenth-century world fairs. Am. Econ. Rev. 95 (2005), 1215–1236.
52. Mowery, D., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, A., Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer. 2004, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
53. Mukherjee, A., Stern, S., Disclosure or secrecy: the dynamics of open science. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 27 (2009), 449–462.
54. Murray, F., Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Res. Policy 31 (2002), 1389–1403.
55. Murray, F., The oncomouse that roared: hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. Am. J. Sociol. 116 (2010), 341–388.
56. Murray, F., Stern, S., Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63 (2007), 648–687.
57. Nelson, R.R., The market economy and the scientific commons. Res. Policy 33 (2004), 455–471.
58. Neuman, W., A man with muffin secrets, but no job with them. New York Times, 7(August), 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html (accessed 07.08.10).
59. O'Mahony, L., Dahlander, S., Progressing to the center: coordinating project work. Organ. Sci. 22 (2011), 961–979.
60. Rabinow, P., Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. 1996, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
61. Radcliffe, W., The Secret Instrument: The Birth of the Midwifery Forceps. 1947, William Heinemann. Medical Books, New York.
62. Reinganum, J., The timing of innovation: research, development and diffusion. Schmalensee, R., Willig, R., (eds.) Handbook of Industrial Organization, North-Holland, Amsterdam, vol. 1, 1989 (Chapter 14).
63. Roach, M., Sauermann, H., A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Res. Policy 39 (2010), 422–434.
64. Romer, P.M., Endogenous technological change. J. Polit. Econ. 98 (1990), S71–S102.
65. Rosenberg, N., Why do firms do basic research. With their own money?. Res. Policy 19 (1990), 165–174.
66. Sauermann, H., Roach, M., Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industry employment. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 32–47.
67. Sauermann, H., Stephan, P.E., Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organ. Sci. 24 (2013), 889–909.
68. Sauermann, H., Cohen, W., What makes them tick? Employee motives and firm innovation. Manag. Sci. 65 (2010), 2134–2153.
69. Scotchmer, S., Protecting early innovators: should second-generation products be patentable?. Rand J. Econ., 1996, 322–331.
70. Scotchmer, S., Green, J., Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND J. Econ. 2 (1990), 131–140.
71. Shockley, W., The theory of p-n junctions in semiconductors and p-n junction transistors. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 28 (1949), 435–489.
72. Stephan, P., How Economics Shapes Science. 2011, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
73. Stern, S., Do scientists pay to be scientists?. Manag. Sci. 50 (2004), 835–853.
74. Stokes, D., Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. 1997, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
75. Williams, H., Intellectual property rights and innovation: evidence from the human genome. J. Polit. Econ. 121 (2013), 1–27.
76. Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., Uzzi, B., The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316 (2007), 1036–1039.
77. Ziedonis, R., Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Manag. Sci. 50 (2004), 804–820.