IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lbo/lbowps/2013_06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent protection under endogenous product differentiation

Author

Listed:
  • Arijit Mukherjee

    (School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, UK)

Abstract

It is generally believed that a weak patent protection makes the consumers and the society better off compared to a strong patent protection by increasing the intensity of competition if the weak patent protection does not affect innovation. We show that this conclusion may not hold if the innovator can take other non-production strategies, such as product differentiation, to reduce the intensity of product-market competition. A weak patent protection may reduce consumer surplus and social welfare by inducing product differentiation by the innovator. We show that the type of product-market competition and the market demand function play important roles in this respect. Hence, there can be an argument for a strong patent protection even if it does not affect innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Arijit Mukherjee, 2013. "Patent protection under endogenous product differentiation," Discussion Paper Series 2013_06, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Jul 2013.
    • Handle: RePEc:lbo:lbowps:2013_06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sbe/RePEc/lbo/lbowps/Wp_2013-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diwan, Ishac & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Patents, appropriate technology, and North-South trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 27-47, February.
    2. Robert M. Hunt, 2006. "When Do More Patents Reduce R&D?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 87-91, May.
    3. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2004. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 415-437, October.
    4. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 1994. "Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-402, August.
    5. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    6. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    7. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    8. Arijit Mukherjee & Enrico Pennings, 2004. "Imitation, patent protection, and welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 715-733, October.
    9. Uday Sinha, 2006. "Patent Enforcement, Innovation and Welfare," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 211-241, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    12. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    13. Marjit, Sugata & Beladi, Hamid, 1998. "Product Versus Process Patents: A Theoretical Approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 193-199, April.
    14. Yang, Lei & Maskus, Keith E., 2009. "Intellectual property rights, technology transfer and exports in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 231-236, November.
    15. Lambertini, Luca & Rossini, Gianpaolo, 1998. "Product homogeneity as a prisoner's dilemma in a duopoly with R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 297-301, March.
    16. Lahiri, Sajal & Ono, Yoshiyasu, 1988. "Helping Minor Firms Reduces Welfare," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(393), pages 1199-1202, December.
    17. Mukherjee, Arijit & Mukherjee, Soma, 2013. "Technology licensing and innovation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 499-502.
    18. Lai, Edwin L. -C., 1998. "International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 133-153, February.
    19. Glass, Amy Jocelyn & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 387-410, March.
    20. Fosfuri, Andrea, 2000. "Patent protection, imitation and the mode of technology transfer," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(7), pages 1129-1149, October.
    21. Taylor, M Scott, 1994. "TRIPs, Trade, and Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(2), pages 361-381, May.
    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. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    2. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    3. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Arijit Mukherjee & Achintya Ray, 2007. "Patents, imitation and welfare," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 227-236.
    5. Maria Pluvia ZUNIGA & Emmanuel COMBE, 2002. "Introducing Patent Protection In The Pharmaceutical Sector:," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 16, pages 191-221.
    6. Arijit Mukherjee & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2013. "Patent Protection, Southern Innovation and Welfare in a North–South Trade Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 248-273, April.
    7. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    8. Pamela J. Smith & Sebastian J. Anti, 2022. "How does TRIPs compliance affect the economic growth of developing countries? Application of the Synthetic Control method," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(12), pages 3873-3906, December.
    9. Arijit Mukherjee & Chiranjib Neogi, 2009. "Vertical technology transfer and the implications of patent protection," Discussion Papers 09/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    10. Jie Li & Xiaohui Xu & Jing Lu, 2015. "Negotiation over Intellectual Property Rights Protection in a Mixed Market," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 759-775, November.
    11. Stephen P. A. Brown & William C. Gruben, 1997. "Intellectual property rights and product effectiveness," Economic and Financial Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q IV, pages 15-20.
    12. Yang, Xuebing, 2013. "Horizontal inventive step and international protection of intellectual property," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 338-355.
    13. Liao, Pei-Cheng & Wong, Kar-yiu, 2009. "R&D subsidy, intellectual property rights protection, and North-South trade: How good is the TRIPS agreement?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 191-201, March.
    14. Gancia, Gino & Bonfiglioli, Alessandra, 2008. "North-South trade and directed technical change," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 276-295, December.
    15. Azevedo, Mónica L. & Afonso, Óscar & Silva, Sandra T., 2014. "Endogenous growth and intellectual property rights: A north–south modeling proposal," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 112-120.
    16. Yang, Lei & Maskus, Keith E., 2009. "Intellectual property rights, technology transfer and exports in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 231-236, November.
    17. Olena Ivus, "undated". "Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights: Theory and Empirics," Working Papers 2009-02, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 03 Feb 2009.
    18. Arghya Ghosh & Jota Ishikawa, 2018. "Trade liberalization, absorptive capacity and the protection of intellectual property rights," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1020, November.
    19. Qiu, Larry D. & Lai, Edwin L. -C., 2004. "Protection of trade for innovation: the roles of Northern and Southern Tariffs," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 449-470, December.
    20. Gilles Koléda, 2005. "Northern and Southern Patent Novelty Requirements Harmonization, Growth and Trade," DEGIT Conference Papers c010_025, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent protection; Product differentiation; Welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lbo:lbowps:2013_06. 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: Huw Edwards (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delbouk.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.