IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/tuedps/296.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Losing the lead: Patents and the disclosure requirement

Author

Listed:
  • Zaby, Alexandra K.

Abstract

This paper analyzes the patenting decision of a successful inventor in a model of dynamic technology adoption with asymmetric firms. We show that the extent of the inventor's technological headstart is decisive for his patenting behavior. The overall patenting effect consists of two parts, a protective and a disclosure effect. If the technological headstart is high the negative disclosure effect may overcompensate the positive protective effect of a patent.In this case the inventor prefers secrecy. Welfare considerations show that a patent may be socially desirable even though it delays the first adoption of a new technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Zaby, Alexandra K., 2005. "Losing the lead: Patents and the disclosure requirement," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 296, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:tuedps:296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/40301/1/558782515.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Dijk, Theon, 1996. "Patent Height and Competition in Product Improvements," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 151-167, June.
    2. Ulrich Lehmann-Grube, 1997. "Strategic Choice of Quality When Quality is Costly: The Persistence of the High-Quality Advantage," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(2), pages 372-384, Summer.
    3. Denicolo, Vincenzo & Franzoni, Luigi Alberto, 2003. "The contract theory of patents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 365-380, December.
    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. Hager, Svenja & Schöbel, Rainer, 2006. "Deriving the dependence structure of portfolio credit derivatives using evolutionary algorithms," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 300, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    2. Zaby, Alexandra K., 2009. "The propensity to patent in oligopolistic markets," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 323, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    3. Felbermayr, Gabriel J. & Toubal, Farid, 2010. "Cultural proximity and trade," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 279-293, February.
    4. Frontczak, Robert & Schöbel, Rainer, 2008. "Pricing American options with Mellin transforms," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 319, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    5. Dymke, Björn M. & Walter, Andreas, 2006. "Insider trading in Germany: Do corporate insiders exploit inside information?," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 309, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    6. Rostek, Stefan & Schöbel, Rainer, 2006. "Risk preference based option pricing in a fractional Brownian market," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 299, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    7. Brandes, Julia & Schüle, Tobias, 2007. "IMF's assistance: Devil's kiss or guardian angel?," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 310, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    8. Heger, Diana & Zaby, Alexandra K., 2009. "The propensity to patent with horizontally differentiated products: An empirical investigation," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 324, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    9. Frontczak, Robert & Schöbel, Rainer, 2009. "On modified Mellin transforms, Gauss-Laguerre quadrature, and the valuation of American call options," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 320, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    10. Maier, Ramona & Merz, Michael, 2008. "Credibility theory and filter theory in discrete and continuous time," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 318, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    11. Yalcin, Erdal, 2007. "The proximity-concentration trade-off in a dynamic framework," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 312, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    12. Heger, Diana & Zaby, Alexandra K., 2009. "The propensity to patent with vertically differentiated products: An empirical investigation," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 325, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    13. Schüle, Tobias, 2006. "Creditor coordination with social learning and endogenous timing of credit decisions," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 307, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    14. Frontczak, Robert, 2009. "Valuing options in Heston's stochastic volatility model: Another analytical approach," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 326, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.

    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. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Low-quality leadership in a vertically differentiated duopoly with Cournot competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 396-398.
    2. Emanuele Bacchiega & Luca Lambertini & Andrea Mantovaini, 2011. "Process And Product Innovation In A Vertically Differentiated Industry," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(02), pages 209-221.
    3. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    4. L. Lambertini & C. Iori, 2000. "Joint Venture for Product Innovation and Cartel Stability under Vertical Differentiation," Working Papers 385, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    5. Alexandra Zaby, 2010. "Losing the lead: the patenting decision in the light of the disclosure requirement," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 147-164.
    6. Nathan H. Miller, 2008. "Competition When Consumers Value Firm Scope," EAG Discussions Papers 200807, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    7. Hattori, Keisuke & Higashida, Keisaku, 2014. "Misleading advertising and minimum quality standards," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-14.
    8. Massimiliano Granieri, 2011. "A Law and Economics Introduction to Patent Law and Procedure," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. L. Lambertini & P. Tedeschi, 2003. "Sequential Entry in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," Working Papers 492, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    10. Esteve-Perez, Silviano, 2005. "Exit with vertical product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(3-4), pages 227-247, April.
    11. Mari Komulainen & Tuomas Takalo, 2013. "Does State Street Lead to Europe? The Case of Financial Exchange Innovations," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 521-557, June.
    12. Corinne Langinier, 2005. "Using patents to mislead rivals," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 520-545, May.
    13. Wang, X. Henry & Yang, Bill Z., 2001. "Mixed-strategy equilibria in a quality differentiation model," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 213-226, January.
    14. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041, July.
    15. Liad Wagman & Vincent Conitzer, 2012. "Choosing fair lotteries to defeat the competition," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(1), pages 91-129, February.
    16. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Sergei Guriev, 2006. "Patents vs. Trade Secrets: Knowledge Licensing and Spillover," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(6), pages 1112-1147, December.
    17. Bouamra-Mechemache Zohra & Chaaban Jad, 2010. "Protected Designation of Origin Revisited," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-29, August.
    18. Emmanuel Combe & Etienne Pfister, 2000. "Patents against imitators: an empirical investigation on French data," Post-Print halshs-03724865, HAL.
    19. L. Colombo & L. Lambertini, 2003. "Dynamic Advertising Under Vertical Product Differentiation," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 261-280, November.
    20. Siebert, Ralph, 2003. "The Impact of R&D Subsidies on the Introduction of New Products by Incumbent Firms," CEPR Discussion Papers 4090, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    patenting decision; Secrecy; disclosure requirement; technology adoption; patent height;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:zbw:tuedps:296. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wftuede.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.