Intellectual Property and S&T Policy. Outline Economic perspective on S&T policy –Science, technology, information as economic resources –Market failure.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Innovative Firms and Markets Outline Entrepreneurship and new firms Innovation and firms Markets and innovation Empirical evidence on returns to innovation.
Advertisements

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF NEW TRENDS IN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER John H. Barton
Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth Lecture outline: Overview of course Introduction to innovation Definitions Nature of innovation.
COMPETITION POLICY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION AT CUTS-ARC CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP, LUSAKA 7 TH MARCH, 2011 BY SAJEEV NAIR, COMPETITION POLICY.
Innovation and Technology. 2 R&D and market structure Technological development contributes decisively to economic growth. Modern economic growth relies.
IP System and Economic Development: Empirical Evidence from China Qi Su IP Institute, Tong Ji University Dec 04, TongJi Global Intellectual Property.
The Production and Consumption of Knowledge in Business and Academia Roger Elliott ALLEA.
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980: Policy Model for Other Industrial Economies? David C. Mowery Haas School of Business U.C. Berkeley & NBER Bhaven N. Sampat University.
Trade-Offs by Harold Winter
Owning Ideas Social Implications of Computers. Who is Elisha Gray?
Science and Technology Policy I Do Patents Reflect the Useful Research Output of Universities? João Silva Ricardo Manso SPRU Electronic Working Papers.
National symposium on Competition law: Evolution and Transition, 2012 Competition Policy for IP Issues Pradeep S Mehta Secretary General, CUTS International.
Universities and Patents From Open Science to Open Innovation Gilles Capart Chairman of ProTon Europe.
THE ROLE OF TRADE AND THE WTO IN ENSURING FOOD SECURITY Trócaire Development Review 2010 Launch Friday November 12th 2010.
Adapted from David G Kay -- SIGCSE 2003 Intellectual Property.
Ownership of Computer Software Ethical Questions and Concerns.
Big Science and Big Funding Some big projects: Super collider in Texas, $7b Space Station, $100bDRUGS?! $0.8b Gravity Probe X, Some reorganizations we.
Intellectual Property An intangible asset, considered to have value in a market, based on unique or original human knowledge and intellect. Intellectual.
Intellectual Property Patent Primer Michael Pratt Executive Director, Business Development November 1, 2011.
© Suzanne Scotchmer 2004 from Innovation and Incentives Intellectual Property in the International Arena: E ntanglement of incentives and politics.
Vilnius Lithuania BSc.: Biochemistry Neuropsychology J.D.: University of Oregon LL.M.:University College London Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Innovation Policy, Environment and Growth: Basic Comments Keith Maskus University of Colorado at Boulder Prepared for CIES Workshop Graduate Institute,
Bringing Knowledge to the Market: IPR, Licensing and Collaborative Research Regions for economic change : innovating through EU regional policy Brussels.
Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer Keith E. Maskus WIPO-WTO Joint Workshop 17 November 2003.
OM 석사 2 학기 이연주 Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy Arora et al. (2001)
 Don’t Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms Ziedonis, Rosemarie H. Management Science, 50 (6):
1 Lecture 13: Makers, Keepers: Professor Victoria Meng Does information want to be free?
Ida Kubiszewski Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University Managing Editor Solutions Managing Editor Reviews in Ecological Economics.
Management of Intellectual Property at Iowa State University Contributing to Economic Development Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State.
TOWARDS A PRO- DEVELOPMENT AND BALANCED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Ministerial Conference on Intellectual.
The WIPO Development Agenda: An Overview Geneva May, 2009 Esteban Burrone World Intellectual Property Organization.
THEORIES OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE Definitions and Concepts.
1 Economics of Innovation Innovation and market structure: Introduction Manuel Trajtenberg.
Investing in research, making a difference. Patent Basics for UW Researchers Leah Haman Intellectual Property Associate WARF 1.
1 National innovation systems Sub-regional seminar on the commercialization and enforcement of intellectual property rights Skopje, Macedonia April.
1 ISSUES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY AND INVESTMENT POLICIES AND THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNCTAD Commercial Diplomacy Programme Assad Omer, DITE UNCTAD.
Innovation and Human Capital Accumulation. Innovation  Endogenous growth imperatives  Technological innovations that increase the productivity of fundamental.
Externalities.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 1: Introduction to Patent Engineering 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 1.
Business Method Patents Marc GratacosMelinda Macauley Holly LiuPete Perlegos Strategic Computing and Communications Technology Fall 2002 In-class debate.
TOWARDS A PRO- DEVELOPMENT AND BALANCED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME Presented to a Conference on Intellectual Property at Columbia June, 2005 Joseph E.
Identifying the Impacts of Technology Transfer Beyond Commercialization FPTT National Meeting, June 12, 2007.
DIS 605 BY DOROBIN AGOTI REG NO: D61/71443/2008 ICT INNOVATION, LEGAL AND PIRACY ISSUES.
A: Copy –Rights – Artistic, Literary work, Computer software Etc. B: Related Rights – Performers, Phonogram Producers, Broadcasters etc. C: Industrial.
11/18/2015Powell Patent Law Associates, LLC1 PATENT BASICS Marvin J Powell, Esquire
Patent Economics I Class Notes: January 16, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
WELFARE IMPACTS OF CROSS- COUNTRY RESEARCH SPILLOVERS Sergio H. Lence and Dermot J. Hayes Iowa State University.
Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property VS Standard of Living Thesis: How to increase your standard of Living through IPR Abstract: Private Vs Government.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship Mark Sanders Utrecht School of Economics Max Planck Institute of Economics.
Academic Technology Transfer Operations and Practice Knowledge Economy Forum IV Istanbul, Turkey March 22-25, 2005 Alistair Brett Oxford Innovation.
Data Governance Patents, Security and Privacy Duke University, November 9, 2015 Ryan Vinelli.
An Introduction to Intellectual Property & Economics Class Notes: January 15, 2004 Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2004 Professor Wagner.
Selected Contemporary Issues in Field of Patents WIPO-UKRAINE SUMMER SCHOOL ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – JULY 2011.
Intellectual Property Law Introduction Victor H. Bouganim WCL, American University.
IP Basics. What is IP? Right to EXCLUDE others from using IP Intangible assets; right to monetize them Agreement between society and creators; knowledges.
1 Teaching Innovation - Entrepreneurial - Global The Centre for Technology enabled Teaching & Learning, N Y S S, India DTEL DTEL (Department for Technology.
Competition and Intellectual Property Protection in the Pharmaceutical Sector Alexey Ivanov Director, HSE-Skolkovo Institute for Law and Development Director,
Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth
Intellectual Property - Patents, Copyrights, and Other Protectionist Barriers CEPR Basic Economics Seminar Dean Baker November 17, 2005.
Technology Transfer Office
Patent and property right
Intellectual Property: History and Basics
Introduction Intellectual property includes the application of property in the areas of trade secrets, patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Microeconomics 1000 Lecture 7 Public Goods.
An Introduction to Intellectual Property & Economics
COMMERCILIZATION ISSUES AND CHALLANGES
Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation
Presentation transcript:

Intellectual Property and S&T Policy

Outline Economic perspective on S&T policy –Science, technology, information as economic resources –Market failure theory of S&T policy –Patents vs. Patronage as “Instruments” of S&T Policy Legal requirements for patent protection Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of patents Current policy concerns –Diminished patent “quality” –“Patenting of publicly funded research (Bayh-Dole) –Patents on inputs into subsequent research (Tragedy of the Anticommons) –TRIPs

An Economic Perspective on S&T Policy

Types of Economic Resources YesNo High Private Good: (Lollipop) Low Public Good (Scientific/ Technological Information) Appropriability (or Excludability) Rival

Types of Economic Resources YesNo High Private GoodPatented Public Good Tragedy of the Anti- Commons Low Common Access Resource: Tragedy of the Commons Pure Public Good Appropriability (or Excludability) Rival

Market Failure Theory of Public Policy Private Economic Goods: Markets do a good job allocating resources Public Goods: There are “spillovers” from investments –Spillover gap: Because of limited appropriability, “social returns” exceed “private returns” –Markets tend to under-invest in goods with high spillovers –Government intervention can improve on the market outcome The “market failure” theory of public policy

$5 $50 $10

Standard policy instruments for market failure in the case of (positive) spillovers 1.Internalize the externality –Create a property right in the innovation closing the gap between private and social returns (Patents) 2.Subsidize the activity –Government funding of the research (Patronage)

Instruments of S&T Policy: The Two P’s Patronage: –Direct government funding of research Patents: –Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: “Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” –Social bargain Government grants a 20 year “monopoly” to inventors (gets to “appropriate” the social return for 20 years) Invention goes in public domain after patent term “Schumpeterian tradeoff” between dynamic and static inefficiency Note: Two other P’s too –Procurement and Prizes

Instruments of S&T Policy: Patronage Versus Patents The Good (Benefits) The Bad (Costs) Patronage (Government Funding) Once created, research diffuses widely: Efficiently priced Information asymmetry: Funders lack information about private costs, social benefits; researchers have incentives to exaggerate both Moral hazard: Difficulties in monitoring create incentives for grantees to shirk Patents Incentive compatibility: Researchers will only conduct research where benefits exceed costs Researchers only rewarded for “successful” inventions Inefficiencies from restricted access: “Schumpeterian tradeoff” between dynamic, static efficiency

Legal Requirements for Patentability: The Basics

Legal Requirements for Patentability In assessing whether an invention is patentable, patent examiners assess (among other things): –Utility –Novelty –Non-obviousness Why? Role of “Prior Art”

Empirical Work on the Effectiveness of the Patent System

Empirical Work on the Effectiveness of Patents Levin et al. (1987), Cohen et al. (2000) –In most industries, patents are not important mechanisms for appropriating returns from R&D Lead time, secrecy, “tacit” knowledge more important –Exception: Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Why?

Current Controversies

Current Policy Controversies: Diminished Patent “Quality”? Consider: –peanut butter and jelly patent –how to swing on a swing –one-click check out patent What is wrong with these?

Current Policy Controversies: Diminished Patent “Quality”? Resource starved PTO examiners increasingly granting patents on inventions that fail novelty/non-obviousness tests Particularly salient in “new” fields (e.g. software, nanotech) where examiners lack ability to effectively search for prior art Solutions?

Current Policy Controversies: Patenting of Publicly Funded Research Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the growth of academic patenting Potential benefit: –Academic patents facilitate technology transfer Potential costs: –Universities patenting inventions that would be “transferred” anyhow –Distortion of research agendas away from “basic” research –Growth of secrecy, publication delays, etc. –Universities patenting research tools and inputs to science Tragedy of the anti-commons?

Current Policy Controversies: TRIPs Trade related intellectual property rights (TRIPs) agreement –Part of the 1995 Uruguay Round trade negotiations Requires harmonization of patent regimes across countries Exogenous “strengthening” of patent regimes in developing countries –Previously, most had lax patent regimes –Historically, most “developing” countries stole knowledge from developed countries –Will this make development more costly? –Note: Much of the current concern is about ARV pharmaceuticals in India