Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey

Following the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement, much has been written on the potential costs and benefits of stronger Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) protection in terms of its impact on innovation and technology transfer, as well as economic growth and welfare. This paper documents the development of IPR regimes within countries and internationally, before surveying the theoretical and empirical literature linking the protection of IPRs to economic growth, innovation and technology diffusion.Intellectual Property Rights; Innovation; Economic Growth; Technology Diffusion

Markets for technology (why do we see them, why don't we see more of them and why we should care)

This essay explores the nature, the functioning, and the economic and policy implications of markets for technology. Today, the outsourcing of research and development activities is more common than in the past, and specialized technology suppliers have emerged in many industries. In a sense, the Schumpeterian vision of integrating R&D with manufacturing and distribution is being confronted by the older Smithian vision of division of labor. The existence and efficacy of markets for technology can profoundly influence the creation and diffusion of new knowledge, and hence, economic growth of countries and the competitive position of companies. The economic and managerial literatures have touched upon some aspects of the nature of these markets. However, a thorough understanding of how markets for technology work is still lacking. In this essay we address two main questions. First, what are the factors that enable a market for technology to exist and function effectively? Specifically we look at the role of industry structure, the nature of knowledge, and intellectual property rights and related institutions. Second, we ask what the implications of such markets are for the boundaries of the firm, the specialization and division of labor in the economy, industry structure, and economic growth. We build on this discussion to develop the implications of our work for public policy and corporate strategy

Overcoming India’s Food Security Challenges: The Role of Intellectual Property Management and Technology Transfer Capacity Building

The growth of the Indian economy after Independence has had little impact on the food security of the country. The paper analyses the development of advanced crop varieties through the use of agricultural technologies (hereinafter agbiotech ) within the technology transfer system, a framework which comprises of the interactions of intellectual property rights law and agricultural research and development in India. Through this, the author argues that agricultural innovation in India is failing due to the absence of connections within the technology transfer system and advocates for the creation of a national program aimed at advancing IP and tech-transfer capacity in agbiotech

Standard-Setting and Knowledge Dynamics in Innovation Clusters

Extensive research has been conducted on how firms and regions take advantage of spatially concentrated assets, and also why history matters to regional specialisation patterns. In brief, it seems that innovation clusters as a distinctive regional entity in international business and the geography of innovation are of increasing importance in STI policy, innovation systems and competitiveness studies. Recently, more and more research has contributed to an evolutionary perspective on collaboration in clusters. Nonetheless, the field of cluster or regional innovation systems remains a multidisciplinary field where the state of the art is determined by the individual perspective (key concepts could, for example, be industrial districts, innovative clusters with reference to OECD, regional knowledge production, milieus & sticky knowledge, regional lock-ins & path dependencies, learning regions or sectoral innovation systems). According to our analysis, the research gap lies in both quantitative, comparative surveys and in-depth concepts of knowledge dynamics and cluster evolution. Therefore this paper emphasises the unchallenged in-depth characteristics of knowledge utilisation within a cluster's collaborative innovation activities. More precisely, it deals with knowledge dynamics in terms of matching different agents´ knowledge stocks via knowledge flows, common technology specification (standard-setting), and knowledge spillovers. The means of open innovation and system boundaries for spatially concentrated agents in terms of knowledge opportunities and the capabilities of each agent await clarification. Therefore, our study conceptualises the interplay between firm- and cluster-level activities and externalities for knowledge accumulation but also for the specification of technology. It remains particularly unclear how, why and by whom knowledge is aligned and ascribed to a specific sectoral innovation system. Empirically, this study contributes with several descriptive calculations of indices, e.g. knowledge stocks, GINI coefficients, Herfindahl indices, and Revealed Patent Advantage (RPA), which clearly underline a high spatial concentration of both mechanical engineering and biotechnology within a European NUTS2 sample for the last two decades. Conceptually, our paper matches the geography of innovation literature, innovation system theory, and new ideas related to the economics of standards. Therefore, it sheds light on the interplay between knowledge flows and externalities of cluster-specific populations and the agents' use of such knowledge, which is concentrated in space. We find that knowledge creation and standard-setting are cross-fertilising each other: although the spatial concentration of assets and high-skilled labour provides new opportunities to the firm, each firm's knowledge stocks need to be contextualised. The context in terms of 'use case' and 'knowledge biography' makes technologies (as represented in knowledge stocks) available for collaboration, but also clarifies relevance and ownership, in particular intellectual property concerns. Owing to this approach we propose a conceptualisation which contains both areas with inter- and intra-cluster focus. This proposal additionally concludes that spatial and technological proximity benefits standard-setting in high-tech and low-tech industries in very different ways. More precisely, the versatile tension between knowledge stocks, their evolution, and technical specification & implementation requires the conceptualisation and analysis of a non-linear process of standard-setting. Particularly, the use case of technologies is essential. Related to this approach, clusters strongly support the establishment of technology use cases in embryonic high-tech industries. Low-tech industries in contrast rather depend on approved knowledge stocks, whose dynamics provide better and fast accessible knowledge inputs within low-tech clusters.innovation clusters, standard-setting, knowledge externalities and flows, knowledge alignment, mechanical engineering, biotechnology

R&D in China and the implications for industrial restructuring

The nation-wide introduction of foreign technology in China has been going on for over 20 years. This paper examines the R&D incentive of the Chinese innovators by analyzing the patent data for the period from 1985 to 1999. The following findings were obtained. First, individual innovators, as opposed to industrial enterprises and research institutes, have been supplying over 70% of all patent applications filed domestically. Second, innovators in China, including the industrial enterprises, have been devoting their R&D resources disproportionately to small innovations, rather than major ones. Third, the large and medium-sized enterprises are not yet the main force for innovation in China. The impacts of industrial structure on R&D incentive are emphasized. Regression analysis for 37 manufacturing industries in China shows that R&D output, measured by the number of patents per firm, is positively related to the eight-firm concentration ratio. I also analyze the microeconomic channels through which the vertical structure of an industry affects firm incentive to absorb imported technologies. “Excessive competition” and a low degree of vertical integration in Chinese industries are major factors leading to small-scale innovation, high propensity to purchase foreign technologies, and low propensity to absorb them. Establishing enterprise groups that are truly subject to market discipline can speed up the “imitation-first-and-then-innovate” process

Intellectual property rights in a knowledge-based economy

Intellectual property rights (IPR) have been created as economic mechanisms to facilitate ongoing innovation by granting inventors a temporary monopoly in return for disclosure of technical know-how. Since the beginning of 1980s, IPR have come under scrutiny as new technological paradigms appeared with the emergence of knowledge-based industries. Knowledge-based products are intangible, non-excludable and non-rivalrous goods. Consequently, it is difficult for their creators to control their dissemination and use. In particular, many information goods are based on network externalities and on the creation of market standards. At the same time, information technologies are generic in the sense of being useful in many places in the economy. Hence, policy makers often define current IPR regimes in the context of new technologies as both over- and under-protective. They are over-protective in the sense that they prevent the dissemination of information which has a very high social value; they are under-protective in the sense that they do not provide strong control over the appropriation of rents from their invention and thus may not provide strong incentives to innovate. During the 1980s, attempts to assess the role of IPR in the process of technological learning have found that even though firms in high-tech sectors do use patents as part of their strategy for intellectual property protection, the reliance of these sectors on patents as an information source for innovation is lower than in traditional industries. Intellectual property rights are based mainly on patents for technical inventions and on copyrights for artistic works. Patents are granted only if inventions display minimal levels of utility, novelty and non-obviousness of technical know-how. By contrast, copyrights protect only final works and their derivatives, but guarantee protection for longer periods, according to the Berne Convention. Licensing is a legal aid that allows the use of patented technology by other firms, in return for royalty fees paid to the inventor. Licensing can be contracted on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis, but in most countries patented knowledge can be exclusively held by its inventors, as legal provisions for compulsory licensing of technologies do not exist. The fair use doctrine aims to prevent formation of perfect monopolies over technological fields and copyrighted artefacts as a result of IPR application. Hence, the use of patented and copyrighted works is permissible in academic research, education and the development of technologies that are complimentary to core technologies. Trade secrecy is meant to prevent inadvertent technology transfer to rival firms and is based on contracts between companies and employees. However, as trade secrets prohibit transfer of knowledge within industries, regulators have attempted to foster disclosure of technical know-how by institutional means of patents, copyrights and sui-generis laws. And indeed, following the provisions formed by IPR regulation, firms have shifted from methods of trade secrecy towards patenting strategies to achieve improved protection of intellectual property, as well as means to acquire competitive advantages in the market by monopolization of technological advances.economics of technology ;

UNH Law Alumni Magazine, Winter 2009

https://scholars.unh.edu/alumni_mag/1009/thumbnail.jp

Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Development: A Better Set of Approaches for the 21st Century

This paper aims to provide an intellectual basis to think about the relationship between development, intellectual property and innovation; where we currently are and what alternatives are available. For the most part, we are concerned less with the implications of current IP laws for the advanced countries as we are with their impact on developing countries. We focus here not only on the current pathologies of the system and on potential alternative ways to tackle its most egregious excesses; but on a more positive note, on what kind of "system" would best promote development and well-being in the developing world. We are looking for a world with new and better rules for intellectual property. Just as some have begun to think about re-writing the rules of the American economy to ensure a more just and efficient system, the time is ripe for doing the same for the global economy, especially with regard to the IP system

Intellectual property rights and innovation activities in China : evidence from patents and publications

--