IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19554.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Intellectual Property Rights on Research Tools: Incentives or Barriers to Innovation?

Author

Listed:
  • Pray, Carl E.
  • Naseem, Anwar

Abstract

This paper examines the role of patents in the development and use of two platform technologies for plant biotechnology - plant transformation techniques and structural genomics. We find that patents were important in inducing private firms to develop these platform technologies. There development led to the commercialization of more GM varieties, more rapidly than would have been the case otherwise. We did identify a number of examples of GM varieties that were slowed down by the patents on tools. However, our preliminary assessment of the evidence suggests that the benefits from patents on tools outweigh the costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Pray, Carl E. & Naseem, Anwar, 2005. "Intellectual Property Rights on Research Tools: Incentives or Barriers to Innovation?," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19554, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19554
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19554/files/sp05pr02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19554?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. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Gianfranco, Frisio & Giovanni, Ferrazzi & Vera, Ventura & Mauro, Vigani, 2010. "Public Vs Private Agbiotech Research: Role And Pathways Through An Analysis Of Epo And Ustpo Patents 2002-2009," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188093, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    2. Pénin, Julien & Wack, Jean-Pierre, 2008. "Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1909-1921, 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. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    2. Block, Jörn H. & Fisch, Christian O. & Hahn, Alexander & Sandner, Philipp G., 2015. "Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1915-1930.
    3. Nahuis, Richard & Smulders, Sjak, 2002. "The Skill Premium, Technological Change and Appropriability," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 137-156, June.
    4. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    5. Andreas Reinstaller & Gerhard Schwarz, 2012. "Die wirtschafts- und forschungspolitische Bedeutung der Umsetzung der Biopatentrichtlinie im österreichischen Patentgesetz," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 44635.
    6. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Languages, Fees and the International Scope of Patenting," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 10456, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    7. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti, 2022. "Patent portfolios and firms’ technological choices," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 97-120, October.
    8. Emeric Henry & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Keeping Secrets: The Economics of Access Deterrence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 95-118, August.
    9. Francois, P. & Lloyd-Ellis, H., 2003. "Co-movement, Capital and Contracts : 'Normal' Cycles Through Creative Destruction," Discussion Paper 2003-62, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. de la Tour, Arnaud & Glachant, Matthieu & Ménière, Yann, 2011. "Innovation and international technology transfer: The case of the Chinese photovoltaic industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 761-770, February.
    11. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    12. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    13. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "The Disciplinary Effect of Post-Grant Review," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 155, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Michael Fritsch & Viktor Slavtchev, 2011. "Determinants of the Efficiency of Regional Innovation Systems," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(7), pages 905-918.
    16. Svensson, Roger, 2007. "Commercialization of patents and external financing during the R&D phase," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1052-1069, September.
    17. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    18. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    19. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    20. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.

    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:ags:aaea05:19554. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.