IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecanpo/v54y2017icp26-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investor perception and business method patents: A natural experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Kimmel, Randall K.
  • Antenucci, Robert
  • Hasan, Shahriar

Abstract

The 1998 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group court case is largely responsible for opening the door on the issuance of business method patents, while the 2008, in re Bilski decision closed it (at least partially) once again. The result of the first decision was a significant increase in the number of patents issued and law suits filed for infringement. This paper is the first the authors are aware of to utilize these court cases as natural experiments to gauge investor belief regarding the utility of business method patents on publicly traded companies. We find that investor beliefs about the effect of business method patents on company value evolved between 1998 and 2008, as investors modified their expectations for the effects of the in re Bilski decision based on what actually occurred after the State Street decision. We also find that investor sentiment varied by industry subsector. Our findings offer insights into the ongoing debate over the utility of business method patents, which may inform managers, investors, and both statutory and regulatory policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimmel, Randall K. & Antenucci, Robert & Hasan, Shahriar, 2017. "Investor perception and business method patents: A natural experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-48.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecanpo:v:54:y:2017:i:c:p:26-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2017.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592615300709
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eap.2017.01.007?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard, Vl, 1987. "Cross-Sectional Dependence And Problems In Inference In Market-Based Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 1-48.
    2. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
    3. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Where Does State Street Lead? A First Look at Finance Patents, 1971 to 2000," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 901-930, April.
    4. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    5. Hersch, Philip L, 1994. "The Effects of Resale Price Maintenance on Shareholder Wealth: The Consequences of Schwegmann," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 205-216, June.
    6. James Bessen & Jennifer L. Ford & Michael J. Meurer, 2011. "The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls," Working Papers 1103, Research on Innovation.
    7. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law: Part II - Empirical Studies of Corporate Law," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2453, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Sep 2002.
    8. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    9. Binder, John J, 1988. "The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Railroad Cartels," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 443-468, October.
    10. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    11. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2003. "Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy," NBER Working Papers 9717, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Hall, Bronwyn H. & MacGarvie, Megan, 2010. "The private value of software patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    13. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    14. Tawil, Natalie, 1999. "Flow Control and Rent Capture in Solid Waste Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 183-201, March.
    15. Howard F. Chang, 1995. "Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 34-57, Spring.
    16. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1976. "Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 249-307, August.
    17. George L. Mullin & Joseph C. Mullin & Wallace P. Mullin, 1995. "The Competitive Effects of Mergers: Stock Market Evidence from the U.S. Steel Dissolution Suit," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 314-330, Summer.
    18. Cohen, Wesley M. & Goto, Akira & Nagata, Akiya & Nelson, Richard R. & Walsh, John P., 2002. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1349-1367, December.
    19. Bhattacharyya, Sugato & Nanda, Vikram, 2000. "Client Discretion, Switching Costs, and Financial Innovation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 1101-1127.
    20. Anderson, Ronald W & Harris, Christopher J, 1986. "A Model of Innovation with Application to New Financial Products," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 203-218, Suppl. No.
    21. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 4(1), pages 141-168, January.
    22. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law - Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2475, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jan 2002.
    23. Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, May.
    24. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    25. Levin, Richard C, 1986. "A New Look at the Patent System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 199-202, May.
    26. 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.
    27. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    28. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part II: Empirical Studies of Corporate Law," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 4(2), pages 380-423.
    29. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, "undated". "Event Studies and the Law: Part II--Empirical Studies and Corporate Law," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1019, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    30. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, "undated". "Event Studies and the Law--Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1021, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    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. Michael Cichello & Douglas Lamdin, 2006. "Event Studies and the Analysis of Antitrust," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 229-245.
    2. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    3. Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J Bommarito II & Tyler Soellinger & James Ming Chen, 2015. "Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making," Papers 1508.05751, arXiv.org, revised May 2017.
    4. Gokhale, Jayendra & Brooks, Raymond M. & Tremblay, Victor J., 2014. "The effect on stockholder wealth of product recalls and government action: The case of Toyota's accelerator pedal recall," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 521-528.
    5. Unsal, Omer & Kabir Hassan, M. & Zirek, Duygu, 2017. "Corporate lobbying and labor relations: Evidence from employee-level litigations," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 411-441.
    6. Bebchuk, Lucian Arye & Cohen, Alma, 2003. "Firms' Decisions Where to Incorporate," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 383-425, October.
    7. Lin, Chien-Chung & Wu, Huan-Ting, 2019. "How to test an insider trading law and its effectiveness: Price movements and comparative empirical data from Taiwan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-36.
    8. Omer Unsal & M. Kabir Hassan, 2020. "Employee lawsuits and capital structure," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 663-704, June.
    9. Cremers, K. J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2013. "Staggered Boards and Firm Value, Revisited," Working Papers 13-36, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Weiss Center.
    10. Dhammika Dharmapala & Vikramaditya S. Khanna, 2019. "Stock Market Reactions to India's 2016 Demonetization," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 281-317, June.
    11. Belén Díaz Díaz & Rebeca García-Ramos & Myriam García-Olalla, 2017. "Shareholder wealth responses to European legislation on bank executive compensation," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 271-291, July.
    12. Blake Rayfield & Omer Unsal, 2019. "Institutional Monitoring and Litigation Risk: Evidence from Employee Disputes," NFI Working Papers 2019-WP-02, Indiana State University, Scott College of Business, Networks Financial Institute.
    13. Chung, Chune Young & Kim, Incheol & Rabarison, Monika K. & To, Thomas Y. & Wu, Eliza, 2020. "Shareholder litigation rights and corporate acquisitions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    14. T. S. Raghu & Wonseok Woo & S. B. Mohan & H. Raghav Rao, 2008. "Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 61-75, March.
    15. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    16. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    17. Atanasov, Vladimir & Black, Bernard & Ciccotello, Conrad & Gyoshev, Stanley, 2010. "How does law affect finance? An examination of equity tunneling in Bulgaria," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 155-173, April.
    18. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    19. John Jackson & Audrey Kline & Sarah Skinner, 2006. "The Impact of Non-Normality and Misspecification on Merger Event Studies," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 247-264.
    20. Kuang-Hsun Shih & Fu-Ju Yang & Jhih-Ta Shih & Yi-Hsien Wang, 2020. "Patent Litigation, Competitive Dynamics, and Stock Market Volatility," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Business method patent; Innovation; Policy; Intellectual property; Empirical study; Court case;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:eee:ecanpo:v:54:y:2017:i:c:p:26-48. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic-analysis-and-policy .

    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.