IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/adp/jomcij/v1y2015i1p1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is US Patent Policy Strong Enough to Withstand the Winds of Change: A Study of the Need to Change United States Patent Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Kent R Acheson

    (Department of Business, University of Phoenix, USA)

Abstract

The purpose of this case study was to learn how US patent policy requirements differ for the Software and Pharmaceutical Industries, specifically if United States Patent Policy adequately protects intellectual property rights [1] for two divergent industries while still encouraging research and development (R & D) investment sufficient to increase profits and innovation. Data for this study consisted of 38 witness testimonies delivered to US Congress between the years 2005 and 2010 by experts representing the two industries of interest: pharmaceutical and software. Key findings from the data analysis of these 38 testimonies revealed both within industry differences and between industry differences in patent law protection. Within industry differences showed variance based on size of the company and the degree to which they relied on their own R & D. Between industry differences reflected divergent ‘products’ with Pharmaceutical Industries needing long-term protection to recover R & D expenditures that include expenses for human trials research to proceed from patent application to market. Software industry, on the other hand, uses follow-on innovation of others to continue technological advancement by constantly improving upon existing software. The data show that these two industries use patent policy protection in different ways for different reasons. This information will enable Policymakers to develop another form of product protection in lieu of the current patent law to better meet the needs of these two industries rather than try to modify the existing law

Suggested Citation

  • Kent R Acheson, 2015. "Is US Patent Policy Strong Enough to Withstand the Winds of Change: A Study of the Need to Change United States Patent Policy," Organic & Medicinal Chemistry International Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 1(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:adp:jomcij:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.19080/OMCIJ.2015.01.555551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://juniperpublishers.com/omcij/pdf/OMCIJ.MS.ID.555551.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://juniperpublishers.com/omcij/OMCIJ.MS.ID.555551.php
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.19080/OMCIJ.2015.01.555551?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chu, Angus C., 2009. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey," MPRA Paper 17342, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Angus Chu, 2010. "Effects of patent length on R&D: a quantitative DGE analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 117-140, March.
    4. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 541-567, Winter.
    5. Bessen, James, 2005. "Patents and the diffusion of technical information," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 121-128, January.
    6. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The Value of Intellectual Property Rights to Firms," Discussion Papers 06-036, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    7. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    2. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    3. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2008. "Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization," Economics Working Papers 1254, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2014.
    4. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    5. Grid Thoma & Salvatore Torrisi & Alfonso Gambardella & Dominique Guellec & Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff, 2010. "Harmonizing and Combining Large Datasets - An Application to Firm-Level Patent and Accounting Data," NBER Working Papers 15851, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    7. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The vulnerability of patent value determinants," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 283-308.
    8. Dirk Crass & Franz Schwiebacher, 2017. "The importance of trademark protection for product differentiation and innovation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(2), pages 199-220, June.
    9. Thac Dang‐Van & Tan Vo‐Thanh & Jianming Wang & Ninh Nguyen, 2023. "Luxury hotels' green practices and consumer brand identification: The roles of perceived green service innovation and perceived values," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4568-4583, November.
    10. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2009. "Patent disclosure and R&D competition in pharmaceuticals," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 467-486.
    11. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    12. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. van der Waal, Mark B. & Feddema, Jelle J. & van de Burgwal, Linda H.M., 2023. "Mapping the broad societal impact of patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    14. Pongsapak Chindasombatcharoen & Pattanaporn Chatjuthamard & Pornsit Jiraporn & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2022. "Achieving sustainable development goals through board size and innovation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 664-677, August.
    15. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    16. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    17. Hansen, Thorsten, 2010. "Innovation and the International Firm Structure: Theory and Evidence from German Firm-Level Data," Discussion Papers in Economics 11464, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    18. Emeric Henry & Carlos J. Ponce, 2011. "Waiting to Imitate: On the Dynamic Pricing of Knowledge," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(5), pages 959-981.
    19. James Bessen, 2010. "Communicating Technical Knowledge," Working Papers 1001, Research on Innovation.
    20. Fabio Montobbio & Ilaria Solito, 2018. "Does the Eco‐Management and Audit Scheme Foster Innovation in European Firms?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 82-99, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:adp:jomcij:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Robert Thomas (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.