View More View Less
  • 1 Cerna Mines ParisTech, 60 Boulevard Saint Michel, 75006 Paris, France Henry.Delcamp@ensmp.fr
Restricted access

Abstract

This article analyzes the relationship between private and social value of patents, comparing discrete and cumulative innovation. Indicators of the social value of patents are known to be less correlated with measures of private value in technological fields where innovation is more cumulative. We test whether this is because the link between private and social value is weaker, or because the indicators are less informative of the underlying concepts of value. Furthermore we analyze whether these differences between technological fields are really due to cumulativeness. We observe cumulative innovation by making use of databases of patents declared essential for technological standards. Using factor analysis and a set of patent quality indicators, we test the relevance of social value for predicting the private value of a patent measured by renewal and litigation. Whereas we establish a robust and significant link for discrete technologies; neither common factors nor any indicator of social value allows predicting the private value of essential, very cumulative patents. Nevertheless, this result cannot be generalized to whole technological classes identified as “complex” by the literature.

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, NBER Chapters. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Berger F. , Blind K., & Thumm N. (2012). Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards. Research Policy, forthcoming.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bessen, J. (2004). Patent thickets: Strategic patenting of complex technologies. Research on Innovation Working Paper.

  • Bessen, J. (2006). The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research on Innovation Working Paper.

  • Bessen, J., & Hunt R. (2003). An Empirical Look at software patents. Research on Innovation Working Paper No. 03-17/R.

  • Bessen, J., & Maskin, E. (2006). Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. MIT Deptaerment of Economics Working Paper No. 00-01.

  • Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2010). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Working Paper.

  • Cohen W. , Nelson R., & Walsh J. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working paper.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Giummo, J 2003 Should all patentable inventions receive equal protection? Identifying the sources of heterogeneity in patent value. Discussion paper University of California Berkeley.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griliches, Z 1990 Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28 4 16611707.

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: Determinants of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-95. Rand Journal of Economics, 32 (1), 101128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall, BH, Jaffe, A, Trajtenberg, M 2005 Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics 36:1638.

  • Harhoff, D, Narin, F, Scherer, FM, Vopel, K 1999 Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics 81:511515 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harhoff, D., von Graevenitz, G., & Wagner, S. (2008). Incidence and growth of patent thickets—The impact of technological opportunities and complexity. CEPR Discussion Papers 6900.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jaffe, A, Lerner, J 2004 Innovation and its discontents Princeton University Press Princeton.

  • Lanjouw, J, Pakes, A, Putnam, J 1998 How to count patents and value intellectual property: Uses of patent renewal and application data. Journal of Industrial Economics 13 4 405433 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1999). The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working Paper, Cambridge, MA.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lanjouw, J, Schankerman, M 2004 Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal 114 495 441465 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Special Issue on Microeconomics, 3, 783831.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, K, Arthurs, J, Cullen, J, Alexander, R 2008 Internal sequential innovations: How does interrelatedness affect patent renewal?. Research Policy 37 5 946953 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Merges, RP, Nelson, R 1990 On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90 4 839916 .

  • Nagaoka, S., (2005). Patent quality, cumulative innovation and market value: Evidence from Japanese firm level panel data. IIR Working Paper 05-06. Institute of Innovation Research. Hitotsubashi University: Tokyo.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Noel, M., & Schankerman, M. (2006). Strategic patenting and software innovation, LSE Research Paper No. EI43.

  • Parchomovsky, G., Polk Wagner, R. (2005). Patent Portfolios. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154 (1), 177.

  • Rysman, M, Simcoe, T 2008 Patents and the performance of voluntary standard setting organizations. Management Science 54 11 19201934 .

  • Salant, D 2009 Formulas for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory royalty determination. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research 7 1 6675 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shapiro, C 2001 Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy 1:119150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Swanson, D., & Baumol, W. (2005). Reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalties, standards selection, and control of market power. Antitrust Law Journal, 73 (1), 5156.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomas, P 1999 The Effect of technological impact upon patent renewal decisions. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 11 2 181197 .

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990a). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1), 172187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990b). Economic analysis of product innovation: The case of CT scanners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Trajtenberg, M, Henderson, R, Jaffe, A 1997 University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 55 1 1950 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • N van Zeebroeck B de la Potterie 2011 The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 20 3 283308 .

  • G Von Graevenitz Wagner, S, Harhoff, D 2009 How to measure patent thickets: a novel approach. Discussion papers in business administration 10962 University of Munich, School of Management Mannheim.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation