IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/wfo/wstudy/36041.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Eine qualitative Abschätzung der Auswirkungen der Biopatentrichtlinie auf die Wirtschafts- und Forschungspolitik in Österreich

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus S. Friesenbichler
  • Gerhard Schwarz

Abstract

Mit der Umsetzung der "Biopatentrichtlinie" wurde mit Wirkung vom 10. Juni 2005 eine der – neben "Softwarepatenten" – vermutlich meistdiskutierten Materien des Patentrechts in Österreich übernommen. Anhand von zehn Tiefengesprächen mit Vertretern der Biotechnologie wurden die Auswirkungen auf Wirtschaft und Forschung qualitativ aufgearbeitet. Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie ist wegen der Konkretisierung bestehender Graubereiche und als Signal für den Biotechnologie-Standort zu begrüßen. Wirtschaftspolitische Ansatzpunkte sieht die Studie vor allem in einer rationaleren Betrachtung von Bioethik, der Berücksichtigung strategischer Patentierung in der Wettbewerbspolitik und der Verbesserung der Patenterteilungspraxis zur Minderung eines wahrgenommenen "Patentdickichts".

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus S. Friesenbichler & Gerhard Schwarz, 2009. "Eine qualitative Abschätzung der Auswirkungen der Biopatentrichtlinie auf die Wirtschafts- und Forschungspolitik in Österreich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 36041.
    • Handle: RePEc:wfo:wstudy:36041
    Note: With English abstract.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/36041
    File Function: abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Dosi & Patrick Llerena & Mauro Sylos Labin, 2005. "Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ”European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe," Working Papers of BETA 2005-11, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Levin, Sharon G & Stephan, Paula E, 1991. "Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 114-132, March.
    3. Don E Kash & William Kingston, 2001. "Patents in a world of complex technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 11-22, February.
    4. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, October.
    5. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2008_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2009. "Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 26-34, February.
    7. Werner Hölzl, 2007. "Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and European IPR Policy," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 12(1), pages 71-82, May.
    8. Knut Blind & Andre Jungmittag, 2008. "The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: a panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 51-60, February.
    9. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents' Innovative Activity," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 373-376, Oct-Dec.
    10. Jeannette Colyvas & Michael Crow & Annetine Gelijns & Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson & Nathan Rosenberg & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2002. "How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 61-72, January.
    11. Nordhaus, William D, 1972. "The Optimum Life on a Patent: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 428-431, June.
    12. Sanghoon Ahn, 2001. "Firm Dynamics and Productivity Growth: A Review of Micro Evidence from OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 297, OECD Publishing.
    13. 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.
    14. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 171-180, August.
    15. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    16. repec:bla:kyklos:v:42:y:1989:i:2:p:171-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    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. Andreas Reinstaller & Gerhard Schwarz, 2012. "Die wirtschafts- und forschungspolitische Bedeutung der Umsetzung der Biopatentrichtlinie im österreichischen Patentgesetz," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 44635.

    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. Gamba, Simona, 2017. "The Effect of Intellectual Property Rights on Domestic Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 15-27.
    2. René Carraz, 2013. "Academic patenting and the scientific enterprise: Lessons from a Japanese university," Working Papers of BETA 2013-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Doherr, Thorsten & Hussinger, Katrin & Schliessler, Paula & Toole, Andrew A., 2016. "Knowledge Creates Markets: The influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 131-146.
    4. Jörn Block & Christian Fisch & Kenta Ikeuchi & Masatoshi Kato, 2022. "Trademarks as an indicator of regional innovation: evidence from Japanese prefectures," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 190-209, February.
    5. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    6. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Raven, Michael & Blind, Knut, 2017. "The characteristics and impacts of scientific publications in biotechnology research referenced in standards," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-179.
    8. James Bessen, 2010. "Communicating Technical Knowledge," Working Papers 1001, Research on Innovation.
    9. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    10. Leslie Williams & Stephen McGuire, 2010. "Economic creativity and innovation implementation: the entrepreneurial drivers of growth? Evidence from 63 countries," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 391-412, May.
    11. Jerry Thursby & Marie Thursby, 2010. "University Licensing: Harnessing or Tarnishing Faculty Research?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 10, pages 159-189, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2004. "Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University–Industry Licensing," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(2), pages 162-178, April.
    13. Réjean Landry & Nabil Amara & Malek Saïhi, 2007. "Patenting and spin-off creation by Canadian researchers in engineering and life sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 217-249, June.
    14. Nicola Baldini, 2008. "Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 289-311, May.
    15. Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2008. "Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 69-89, February.
    16. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    17. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2005. "University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-320, April.
    18. Malwina Mejer, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Scientists and their Publication Performance. An Insight from Belgium," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2011-017, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    20. Goethner, Maximilian & Obschonka, Martin & Silbereisen, Rainer K. & Cantner, Uwe, 2012. "Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 628-641.

    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:wfo:wstudy:36041. 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: Florian Mayr (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wifooat.html .

    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.