Fragmented Property Rights and Incentives for R&D

References

• Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A.Markets for Technology (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J., Nelson R. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (1962) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) 609–626Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arundel A., Patel P. Strategic patenting. Background report for the Trend Chart Benchmarking Workshop New Trends in IPR Policy (2003) LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
• Bawa R. Will the nanomedicine “patent land-grab” thwart commercialization? Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology. Biol. Medicine (2005) 1:346–350Google Scholar
• Baye M. R., Hoppe H. C. The strategic equivalence of rent-seeking, innovation, and patent-race games. Games Econom. Behav. (2003) 44(2):217–226Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cassiman B., Veugelers R. In search of complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Sci. (2006) 52(1):68–82Link, Google Scholar
• Cho M. K., Illangasekare S., Wever M. A., Leonard D. G. B., Merz J. F. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical testing services. J. Molecular Diagnostics (2003) 5(1):3–8Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark D. J., Konrad K. A. Fragmented property rights and R&D competition. (2006) . GESY Discussion Paper 123, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Denicolo V. Sequential innovation and the patent-antitrust conflict. Oxford Econom. Papers (2002) 54(4):649–668Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenberg R. S.Patenting Research Tools and the Law: Summary of a Workshop on Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology (1996) (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Encaoua D., Guellec D., Martinez C. Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis. Res. Policy (2006) 35:1423–1440Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fershtman C., Markovich S. Patents, imitation and licensing in an asymmetric dynamic R&D race. (2006) . CEPR Discussion Paper 5481, Centre for Economic Policy Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
• Green J. R., Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND J. Econom. (1995) 26(1):20–33Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heller M. A., Eisenberg R. S. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science (1998) 280:698–701Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joly P.-B., de Looze M.-A. An analysis of innovation strategies and industrial differentiation through patent applications: The case of plant biotechnology. Res. Policy (1996) 25:1027–1046Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kingston W. Innovation needs patent reform. Res. Policy (2001) 30:403–423Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kultti K., Takalo T. Optimal fragmentation of intellectual property rights. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (2008) 26:137–149Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kultti K., Takalo T., Toikka J. Cross-licensing and collusive behavior. Homo Oeconomicus (2006) 23:181–193Google Scholar
• Lerner J., Tirole J. Efficient patent pools. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2004) 94(4):691–711Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loury G. C. Market structure and innovation. Quart. J. Econom. (1979) 93(3):395–410Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lux Research Nanotechnology gold rush yields crowded, entangled patents. (2005) April 21). http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=09134Google Scholar
• Merges R. P., Nelson R. R., Jorde T. M., Teece D. J. Market structure and technical advance: The role of patent scope decisions. Antitrust, Innovation and Competitiveness (1992) (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Google Scholar
• Merrill S. A., Levin R. C., Myers M. B.A Patent System for the 21st Century (2004) (National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Nti K. O. Comparative statics of contests and rent-seeking games. Internat. Econom. Rev. (1997) 38(1):43–59Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rahnasto I.Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects and Anti-Trust Law: Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry (2003) (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Google Scholar
• Roycroft R. W., Kash D.The Complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21st Century (1999) (Francis Pinter, London) Google Scholar
• Schaafsma P. E. Patent mapping: A graphical model of patent rights. J. Patent Trademark Office Soc. (1995) 77:953–971Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S. Protecting early innovators: Should second-generation products be patentable? RAND J. Econom. (1996) 27(2):322–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C., Jaffe A., Lerner J., Stern S. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy (2001) 1(MIT press, Cambridge, MA) 119–150Google Scholar
• Siebert R., von Graevenitz G. Jostling for advantage: Licensing and entry into patent portfolio races. (2006) . CEPR Discussion Paper 5753, Centre for Economic Policy Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
• Skaperdas S. Contest success functions. Econom. Theory (1996) 7:283–290Crossref, Google Scholar
• Szidarovszky F., Okuguchi K. On the existence and uniqueness of pure Nash equilibrium in rent-seeking games. Games Econom. Behav. (1997) 18:135–140Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornhill S. Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes. J. Bus. Venturing (2006) 21:687–703Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thumm N. Patents for genetic inventions: A tool to promote technological advance or a limitation for upstream inventions? Technovation (2005) 25:1410–1417Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willison D. J., MacLeod S. M. Patenting of genetic material: Are the benefits to society being realized? Canadian Medical Assoc. J. (2002) 167(3):259–262Google Scholar