IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rii/riidoc/62.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

brevet, gène et logiciel,les débats en Europe et aux Etats-Unis (Patent, gene and software debates in europe and in the united states)

Author

Listed:
  • Blandine Laperche

    (labrii, ULCO)

Abstract

s'est diffusé au cours des siècles suivants aux pays industriels, c'est aujourd'hui à partir des États-Unis que se diffusent les nouvelles normes de brevetabilité. De nouveaux champs scientifiques et techniques ont été ouverts aux brevets, notamment les biotechnologies et les technologies de l'information avec leurs produits phares : les inventions génétiques et logicielles. En Europe, l'adaptation du cadre juridique est sujette à de multiples controverses, et sa fragmentation nuit à la compétitivité européenne et au rattrapage du retard déjà accumulé sur les États-Unis. Pourtant, l'adaptation du régime européen de propriété industrielle, plus ou moins inspiré du modèle américain, est-elle pertinente ? Cette adaptation pose la question du véritable rôle du brevet (incite-t-il vraiment l'innovation ?). D'autre part, un cadre juridique unifié en matière de propriété industrielle en Europe n'aura-t-il pas pour effet de renforcer les écarts entre les pays qui pourront breveter et ceux… qui ne le pourront pas ? Whereas industrial property right was born in the 16th century in Italy and then, in course of the following centuries, spread through industrial countries, today's new standards of patentability are coming from the US. New scientific and technical fields have been opened to patents, notably biotechnology and Information and communication technology with their key products : genetic and software inventions. In Europe, the adaptation of the legal framework is subject to many debates, and its fragmentation hinders european competitiveness and the catching up of the US development level. However, is it worth adapting the european regime of industrial property on the US model ? Such an adaptation questions the real role of patent (is it really an incitation to innovate ?). In the other hand, isn't this unified legal framework going to reinforce the gap between countries which will be able to patents and those which won't be able to ?

Suggested Citation

  • Blandine Laperche, 2003. "brevet, gène et logiciel,les débats en Europe et aux Etats-Unis (Patent, gene and software debates in europe and in the united states)," Working Papers 62, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
    • Handle: RePEc:rii:riidoc:62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://riifr.univ-littoral.fr/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/doc62.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    2. Maurice Cassier & Dominique Foray, 2001. "Économie de la connaissance : le rôle des consortiums de haute technologie dans la production d'un bien public," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 107-122.
    3. Maurice Cassier & Dominique Foray, 2001. "Économie de la connaissance : le rôle des consortiums de haute technologie dans la production d'un bien public," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 150(4), pages 107-122.
    4. Etzkowitz, Henry, 1998. "The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 823-833, December.
    5. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Where Does State Street Lead? A First Look at Finance Patents, 1971 to 2000," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 901-930, April.
    6. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    7. Henrekson, Magnus & Rosenberg, Nathan, 2001. "Designing Efficient Institutions for Science-Based Entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 207-231, June.
    8. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
    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. Wang, Jun, 2023. "Motivations for the restructuring of China’s patent court system," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    3. Blandine Laperche, 2002. "Facteurs de valorisation de la recherche publique quelles perspectives pour une jeune université dans un contexte de crise ? (Incentive factors for the exploitation of public research prospects for a ," Working Papers 53, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
    4. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    5. Blandine LAPERCHE & Dimitri UZUNIDIS, 2010. "La valorisation de la recherche publique en France et la question de l’université (The commercialization of public research in france and the issue of university)," Working Papers 16, Réseau de Recherche sur l’Innovation. / Research Network on Innovation.
    6. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.
    7. Jonathan Trerise, 2016. "The influence of patents on science," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 424-450, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    10. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Ham Ziedonis, Rosemarie, 1999. "Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1rg1088v, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    11. Forero-Pineda, Clemente, 2006. "The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 808-824, July.
    12. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1999. "What is behind the recent surge in patenting?1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-22, January.
    13. Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2012. "“But Peter’s in it for the money” – the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20120323, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    14. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Anne Duchêne, 2017. "Patent Litigation Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 84(2), pages 631-660, June.
    16. Shiyuan Pan & Mengbo Zhang & Heng-fu Zou, 2011. "Patent Protection, Financial Development and Economic Growth," CEMA Working Papers 589, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    17. Shane, Scott, 2004. "Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 127-151, January.
    18. Nicola Baldini & Rosa Grimaldi & Maurizio Sobrero, 2007. "To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 333-354, February.
    19. Nahuis, Richard & Smulders, Sjak, 2002. "The Skill Premium, Technological Change and Appropriability," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 137-156, June.
    20. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Brevet; gène; logiciel; Europe; Etats Unis/Patente; gene; software; Europe; United states;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O00 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - General - - - General

    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:rii:riidoc:62. 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: Philippe Chagnon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rilitfr.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.