IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-11-00286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent protection and innovation in a vertical structure

Author

Listed:
  • Debasmita Basak

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Arijit Mukherjee

    (University of York)

Abstract

We show a new way through which patent protection affects innovation. We show that patent protection may reduce the final goods producers' incentives for innovation in industries with imperfectly competitive input markets. The input market structure may play an important role in this respect.

Suggested Citation

  • Debasmita Basak & Arijit Mukherjee, 2012. "Patent protection and innovation in a vertical structure," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 837-842.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-11-00286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2012/Volume32/EB-12-V32-I1-P78.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhillon, Amrita & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2002. "A generalised wage rigidity result," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 285-311, March.
    2. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.

    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. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    2. Kjell Erik Lommerud & Odd Rune Straume, 2012. "Employment Protection Versus Flexicurity: On Technology Adoption in Unionised Firms," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(1), pages 177-199, March.
    3. Dolfsma, W.A., 2006. "IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-004-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    5. Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent J., 2003. "Market competition and strike activity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 737-758, May.
    6. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    7. Arijit Mukherjee, 2007. "Note on a generalized wage rigidity result," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9.
    8. Yang, Wei & Wang, Xueke, 2024. "The impact of patent protection on technological innovation: A global value chain division of labor perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    10. Joel Sandonís & Javier M. López-Cuñat, 2018. "Upstream Incentives To Encourage Downstream Competition In A Vertically Separated Industry," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 63(03), pages 619-627, June.
    11. Rajeev Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2013. "Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: a somewhat new perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-485, August.
    12. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    13. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Ham Ziedonis, Rosemarie, 1999. "Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1rg1088v, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    14. Luciano Fanti & Nicola Meccheri, 2011. "On Product Differentiation and Profits in Unionized Duopolies," Working Paper series 37_11, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    15. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Symeonidis, George, 2010. "Downstream merger and welfare in a bilateral oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 230-243, May.
    17. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    18. Nicola Meccheri, 2021. "Biased managers in vertically related markets," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 724-736, April.
    19. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    20. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2012. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom Across Canadian Provinces," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 143-166.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent protection; Innovation; Input market;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-11-00286. 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: John P. Conley (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.