1 / 19

Intellectual Property and S&T Policy

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

boaz
Download Presentation

Intellectual Property and S&T Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intellectual Property and S&T Policy

  2. 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

  3. An Economic Perspective on S&T Policy

  4. Types of Economic Resources Rival Appropriability (or Excludability)

  5. Types of Economic Resources Rival Appropriability (or Excludability)

  6. 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

  7. $10 $5 $50

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

  9. 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

  10. Instruments of S&T Policy: Patronage Versus Patents

  11. Legal Requirements for Patentability: The Basics

  12. 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”

  13. Empirical Work on the Effectiveness of the Patent System

  14. 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?

  15. Current Controversies

  16. 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?

  17. 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?

  18. 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?

  19. 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

More Related