IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v8y2017i2d10.1007_s13132-016-0418-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coordination of Inventions and Innovations Through Patent Markets with Prices

Author

Listed:
  • Eskil Ullberg

    (George Mason University)

Abstract

This article examines the coordination of inventor, trader, and innovator decisions through a market in contracts on patents with prices, focusing on the willingness to search (WTS) for new and uncertain patentable technology, using a controlled laboratory experiment. Typically an implicit hierarchical approach, i.e., coordinating inventor and innovator decisions in a single firm, is assumed or used in analyzing these relationships, in particular in Arrow (1962) where allocation of resources for invention is discussed under neoclassical conditions of perfect information and competitive commodity (not technology) markets. Schumpeter also assumes a hierarchy as coordinating mechanism, as entrepreneurial firms disrupt incumbents (1934) or intrapreneurs create disruptive product and service innovations within firms ( 1942) treating technology as an exogenous force. In this analysis, coordination takes place between specialized agents through a design market based on the principles and practices of real world patent systems. WTS is compared between three institutional designs with different demand side bidding language, in environments with “weak” and “strong” patents in a 3 × 2 design. Technology “tastes” is here a learning process through prices (“price signals”) and can be altered (discovered) by the inventor agent within a searchable area. The results indicate that WTS appears more sensitive to mechanisms (institutional design) than patent validity (environment) in this dynamic economic system. This main finding thus suggests that policy efforts ought to be placed on institutional mechanisms together with environment such as enforcement, where the mechanisms with richer demand-side bidding language appear to matter more than enforcement in explaining WTS, i.e., risk taking. Regarding economic performance, patent validity was (naturally) of major importance, but (surprisingly) no significant effect of institutions (at least long run). These results may provide elements to expand economic theory of the patent system when it comes to treatment of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Eskil Ullberg, 2017. "Coordination of Inventions and Innovations Through Patent Markets with Prices," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(2), pages 704-738, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:8:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-016-0418-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-016-0418-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-016-0418-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-016-0418-0?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. Zvi Griliches, 1989. "Patents: Recent Trends and Puzzles," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 20(1989 Micr), pages 291-330.
    2. Ullberg, Eskil, 2010. "FROM PERSONAL TO IMPERSONAL EXCHANGE IN IDEAS: An Experimental Study of Patent Markets with Transparent Prices," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 230, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    3. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    4. Robinson, Joan, 1977. "What Are the Questions?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1318-1339, December.
    5. Alberto Di Minin & Mario Benassi, 2008. "Playing In Between: Patents’ Brokers In Markets For Technology," Working Papers 200802, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "Market Value, R&D, and Patents," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 249-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    8. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1.
    10. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Eskil Ullberg, 2012. "Trade in Ideas," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, Springer, number 978-1-4614-1272-4, December.
    12. Eskil Ullberg, 2010. "The Problem of Trading Patents in Organized Markets: A Dynamic Experimental Microeconomic System Model and Informal Price Theory," Working Papers 1016, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    13. Nordhaus, William D, 1969. "An Economic Theory of Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 18-28, May.
    14. Kenneth L. Sokoloff & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2001. "Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the 19th-Century United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 39-44, May.
    15. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2002. "Racing with uncertainty: a patent race experiment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 877-902, June.
    16. Kamien, Morton I., 1992. "Patent licensing," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 331-354, Elsevier.
    17. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1986. "Rationality of Self and Others in an Economic System," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 385-399, October.
    18. Karen Ilse Horn, 2009. "Roads to Wisdom, Conversations with Ten Nobel Laureates in Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13646.
    19. Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Patent Licensing and R&D Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 25-30, May.
    20. Damiano Silipo, 2005. "The Evolution of Cooperation in Patent Races:Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 85(1), pages 1-38, July.
    21. Kamien, Morton I. & Oren, Shmuel S. & Tauman, Yair, 1992. "Optimal licensing of cost-reducing innovation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 483-508.
    22. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869.
    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. Dung Phuong Hoang & Lan Khanh Chu, 2023. "Progression to Higher Economic Complexity: The Role of Institutions," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 4339-4366, 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. Ullberg, Eskil, 2015. "Coordination of Inventions and Innovations through patent markets with prices," Ratio Working Papers 260, The Ratio Institute.
    2. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    3. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    4. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    5. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2010. "Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 735-742, August.
    6. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    7. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2009. "Drastic innovations and multiplicity of optimal licensing policies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 7-10, October.
    8. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    9. Douglas Hanley, 2014. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," Working Paper 533, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2014.
    10. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2015. "R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 465-485, October.
    12. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    13. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    14. Ma, Siyu & Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2022. "Optimal patent licensing: from three to two part tariffs," MPRA Paper 111624, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Gallardo, R. Karina & McCluskey, Jill J. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B., 2016. "Assessing Innovator and Grower Profit Potential under Different New Plant Variety Commercialization Strategies," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235940, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    17. Tauman, Yair & Weng, Ming-Hung, 2012. "Selling patent rights and the incentive to innovate," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 241-244.
    18. Grant Fleming & Frank Liu & David Merrett & Simon Ville, 2022. "Patents, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Australia, 1860-2010," CEH Discussion Papers 08, Centre for Economic History, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    19. Douglas Hanley, 2015. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," 2015 Meeting Papers 1491, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer, 2018. "Measuring Competitiveness," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 60838, April.

    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:spr:jknowl:v:8:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-016-0418-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.