First come, first served: an analysis of pioneer and follower firms' market and nonmarket actions in the European mobile telephone industry

This study examines the relationship between erosion of the first-mover's market share and the differences in competitive behaviour of pioneer firms and followers. Particularly, we pay particular attention to market actions related to innovation, pricing and promotion, and to non-market actions related to judicial issues. The empirical study has been carried out with companies that are present in a dynamic context, such as the European mobile telephone industry. Our results show that when followers take more non-market actions than pioneers the negative effect on the firstentrant's advantage is more significant. On the contrary, we have not found a significant impact of innovating and pricing actions

FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED: AN ANALYSIS OF PIONEER AND FOLLOWER FIRMS' MARKET AND NONMARKET ACTIONS IN THE EUROPEAN MOBILE TELEPHONE INDUSTRY

This study examines the relationship between erosion of the first-mover’s market share and the differences in competitive behaviour of pioneer firms and followers. Particularly, we pay particular attention to market actions related to innovation, pricing and promotion, and to non-market actions related to judicial issues. The empirical study has been carried out with companies that are present in a dynamic context, such as the European mobile telephone industry. Our results show that when followers take more non-market actions than pioneers the negative effect on the firstentrant’s advantage is more significant. On the contrary, we have not found a significant impact of innovating and pricing actions.

Working Without Chevron: The PTO as Prime Mover

Through a proliferation of post-issuance administrative proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has become a major player in the fate of patents after their initial examination and grant. In combination with the PTO’s more traditional roles in initial examination and general guidance, new post-issuance proceedings enable the PTO to help steer the development of substantive patent law even without general provision of high-level Chevron deference for the agency’s interpretations of substantive aspects of the U.S. Patent Act. Contrary to some commentators’ suggestions, congressional authorization for new post-issuance proceedings does not appear to have included an implicit delegation of interpretive authority generally warranting Chevron deference on such matters. But the PTO can still accomplish much with lower-level deference and the advantages that its common “first mover” position provides

In Litigation: How Far do the "Haves" Come Out Ahead?

This paper studies the consequences of asymmetric litigation costs. Under three differ- ent protocols: static legal process, dynamic legal process with exogenous sequencing and dynamic legal process with endogenous sequencing, solutions are obtained for the litigation efforts and the expected value of lawsuits on each side. Outcomes are evaluated in terms of two normative criteria: achieving `justice' and minimizing aggregate litigation cost. The theory implies that a moderate degree of asymmetry may improve access to justice. The dynamics of legal process may accentuate or diminish the effect of asymmetry. The en- dogenous sequencing protocol minimizes cost and may improve access to justice.access to justice;endogenous sequencing;dynamics of litigation process;re- source dissipation

In Litigation: How Far do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead

This paper studies the consequences of asymmetric litigation costs. Under three differ- ent protocols: static legal process, dynamic legal process with exogenous sequencing and dynamic legal process with endogenous sequencing, solutions are obtained for the litigation efforts and the expected value of lawsuits on each side. Outcomes are evaluated in terms of two normative criteria: achieving `justice' and minimizing aggregate litigation cost. The theory implies that a moderate degree of asymmetry may improve access to justice. The dynamics of legal process may accentuate or diminish the effect of asymmetry. The en- dogenous sequencing protocol minimizes cost and may improve access to justice.access to justice;endogenous sequencing;dynamics of litigation process;re- source dissipation.

Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)

Based on a survey questionnaire administered to 1478 R&D labs in the U.S. manufacturing sector in 1994, we find that firms typically protect the profits due to invention with a range of mechanisms, including patents, secrecy, lead time advantages and the use of complementary marketing and manufacturing capabilities. Of these mechanisms, however, patents tend to be the least emphasized by firms in the majority of manufacturing industries, and secrecy and lead time tend to be emphasized most heavily. A comparison of our results with the earlier survey findings of Levin et al. [1987] suggest that patents may be relied upon somewhat more heavily by larger firms now than in the early 1980s. For the protection of product innovations, secrecy now appears to be much more heavily employed across most industries than previously. Our results on the motives to patent indicate that firms patent for reasons that often extend beyond directly profiting from a patented innovation through either its commercialization or licensing. In addition to the prevention of copying, the most prominent motives for patenting include the prevention of rivals from patenting related inventions (i.e., patent blocking'), the use of patents in negotiations and the prevention of suits. We find that firms commonly patent for different reasons in discrete' product industries, such as chemicals, versus complex' product industries, such as telecommunications equipment or semiconductors. In the former, firms appear to use their patents commonly to block the development of substitutes by rivals, and in the latter, firms are much more likely to use patents to force rivals into negotiations.

Business method patents and U.S. financial services

A decade after the State Street decision, more than 1,000 business method patents are granted each year. Yet only one in ten are obtained by a financial institution. Most business method patents are also software patents. ; Have these patents increased innovation in financial services? To address this question the author constructs new indicators of R&D intensity based on the occupational composition of financial industries. The financial sector appears more research intensive than official statistics would suggest but less than the private economy taken as a whole. There is considerable variation across industries but little apparent trend. There does not appear to be an obvious effect from business method patents on the sector’s research intensity. ; This working paper supersedes Working Paper No. 07-21 and Payment Cards Center Discussion Paper No. 07-10 ; Also issued as Payment Cards Center Discussion Paper No. 08-05Patents ; Financial services industry

Patent Portfolio Races in Concentrated Markets for Technology

Patent application numbers grow exponentially in many industries, a phenomenon that has been linked to high fragmentation of patent ownership. Contradicting these findings and theoretical arguments, we show that such fragmentation is not a precondition for sudden and strong increases in patenting. We describe and analyze a patent portfolio race in an industry with highly concentrated patent ownership, namely the newspaper printing machines oligopoly. Triangulating data from patent analysis, interviews, and document research, we find that patent strategy change by one player triggered a patent portfolio race with its main competitor. Implications for managers are that increasing patent output may yield temporary advantages but, as in a price war, implies the risk of a prisoner’s dilemma-type outcome with potentially severe implications for effectiveness and efficiency of the innovation process.Patent Strategy; Motives to Patent; Intellectual Property; Patent Thickets