IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_1994_num_275_1_5895.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

La coopération technique au travers des co-brevets européens

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel Duguet

Abstract

[fre] La coopération technique au travers des co-brevets européens . La coopération technique favorise l'innovation : elle facilite le financement de la recherche, autorise le partage et la gestion des risques et accroît les connaissances techniques. Elle rend aussi la recherche plus efficace. Les dépôts de brevet européen en commun, ou co-dépôts, permettent de mesurer l'étendue de la coopération technique. . Sur la décennie quatre-vingt, 1 5 % des brevets impliquant une firme française ont fait l'objet d'un co-dépôt, dont la moitié avec un (ou plusieurs) partenaire(s) ne résidant pas en France. Les brevets déposés en commun par des entreprises implantées en France concernent presque toujours seulement deux partenaires, appartenant trois fois sur quatre au même secteur. . Dans l'ensemble des entreprises industrielles, à peine une sur trente ont déposé des brevets en commun. Mais ces très grandes entreprises (plus de 5 000 salariés), réalisent près de 1 5 % de la valeur ajoutée et 40 % des dépenses totales de recherche et développement. Leurs activités sont concentrées sur les secteurs de moyenne et haute technologie. Leurs performances à l'innovation les distinguent des autres entreprises, y compris de celles qui déposent seules des brevets. [eng] Technological Co-operation through European Co-Patents . Technological co-operation encourages innovation: it makes financing research easier, permits risk sharing and risk management, and enhances technological know-how. It also makes research more efficient. The extent of technological co-operation can be measured by studying the joint European patents, or co-patents, taken out. . In the 1980s, 15% of patents involving a French firm were co-patents and half of these were taken out with one or more partners established outside of France. Joint patents taken out by companies established in France nearly . always concerned just two partners, who belonged to the same sector in three-quarters of the cases. . Barely one out of every thirty industrial firms took out joint patents. Yet these extremely large companies of over 5,000 employees account for nearly 15% of added value and 40% of total research and development expenditure. Their activities are concentrated in the medium- and high-technology sectors. Their innovative performances set them apart from the other companies, including those that take out patents alone. [spa] La cooperaciôn desde el enfoque de las copatentes europeas . La cooperaciôn técnica estimula la innovaciôn : favorece la financiaciôn de la investigaciôn, autoriza el reparto y la gestion de los riesgos e incrementa los conocimientos técnicos. También contribuye a que sea mâs eficiente la investigaciôn. Los registros de patente europea en comûn, o sea el coregistro, permiten medir el campo ocupado por la cooperaciôn técnica. . En la década del 80, el 1 5 % de las patentes en las que era participe una firma francesa, lo fueron mediante el coregistro ; y la mitad de ellas con un (o varios) socio(s) no residente(s) en Francia. Las patentes registradas en comûn por unas empresas implantadas en Francia conciernen casi siempre tan solo a dos socios, que pertenecen en très de cada cuatro casos al mismo sector. . En el conjunto de las empresas industriales, apenas una de cada treinta registre patentes en comûn. Pero estas grandes empresas (con mâs de 5000 asalariados) contribuyen en un 1 5 % del valor anadido y en un 40 % de la totalidad de los gastos en I+D. Sus actividades se concentran en los sectores de media y alta tecnologfa. Su actuation en cuanto a innovaciôn se senalan respecta a las demâs empresas, e incluso respecta a las que solo se dedican a registrar patentes.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel Duguet, 1994. "La coopération technique au travers des co-brevets européens," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 275(1), pages 135-148.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1994_num_275_1_5895
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.1994.5895
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.1994.5895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.1994.5895
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_1994_num_275_1_5895
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.1994.5895?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. Jacquemin, Alexis, 1988. "Cooperative agreements in R&D and European antitrust policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 551-560, March.
    2. David Encaoua & Pierre Mohnen & Emmanuel Duguet & Bruno Crépon, 1993. "Diffusion du savoir et incitation à l'innovation : le rôle des accords de coopération en recherche et développement," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 47-63.
    3. Scherer, F M, 1992. "Schumpeter and Plausible Capitalism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1416-1433, September.
    4. Jorde, Thomas M & Teece, David J, 1990. "Innovation and Cooperation: Implications for Competition and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 75-96, Summer.
    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. Fosfuri, A. & Helmers, C. & Roux, C., 2012. "Are joint patents collusive? Evidence from the US and Europe," Discussion Paper 2012-035, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.

    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. Tombak, Mihkel & Röller, Lars-Hendrik & Siebert, Ralph, 2000. "Strategic Choice of Partners: Research Joint Ventures and Market Power," CEPR Discussion Papers 2617, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Andrea Fosfuri & Christian Helmers & Catherine Roux, 2017. "Shared Ownership of Intangible Property Rights: The Case of Patent Coassignments," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 339-369.
    3. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Cassiman, Bruno, 2000. "Research joint ventures and optimal R&D policy with asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 283-314, February.
    5. Röller, Lars-Hendrik & Siebert, Ralph & Tombak, Mihkel, 1997. "Why Firms Form Research Joint Ventures: Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 1654, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Lars-Hendrik Röller & Mihkel M. Tombak & Ralph Siebert, 1998. "The Incentives to Form Research Joint Ventures: Theory and Evidence," CIG Working Papers FS IV 98-15, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    7. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    8. Kaiser, Ulrich, 2002. "An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation: evidence for the German service sector," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 747-774, June.
    9. Aikaterini KOKKINOU, 2010. "Economic growth, innovation and collaborative research and development activities," Management & Marketing, Economic Publishing House, vol. 5(1), Spring.
    10. Sakakibara, Mariko, 1997. "Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 447-473, December.
    11. Alhassan Abdul-Wakeel Karakara & Evans Osabuohien, 2020. "ICT adoption, competition and innovation of informal firms in West Africa: a comparative study of Ghana and Nigeria," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(3), pages 397-414, June.
    12. Levy, Nadav, 2012. "Technology sharing and tacit collusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 204-216.
    13. Aidan Hollis, 2003. "Industrial Concentration, Output, and Trade: An Empirical Exploration," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 22(2), pages 103-119, March.
    14. Hagedoorn, John & Carayannis, Elias & Alexander, Jeffrey, 2001. "Strange bedfellows in the personal computer industry: technology alliances between IBM and Apple," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 837-849, May.
    15. Rama, Ed & Sabourin, David & Baldwin, John R., 1999. "Croissance de l'utilisation des technologies de pointe dans le secteur canadien de la fabrication durant les annees 90," Direction des études analytiques : documents de recherche 1999105f, Statistics Canada, Direction des études analytiques.
    16. Michelle Sovinsky Goeree & Jeroen Hinloopen, 2005. "Cooperation in the Classroom: Experimenting with Research Joint Ventures," General Economics and Teaching 0503005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2022. "The evolution of regional entrepreneurship policies: “no one size fits all”," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 585-610, December.
    18. Ferdaws Ezzi & Mohamed Ali Azouzi & Anis Jarboui, 2015. "Environmental performance indicators of Tunisian companies: Analysis via the decision tree," Asian Journal of Empirical Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(8), pages 114-127, August.
    19. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    20. Lin, Chen & Lin, Ping & Song, Frank, 2010. "Property rights protection and corporate R&D: Evidence from China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 49-62, September.

    More about this item

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1994_num_275_1_5895. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.