Intellectual Property and Development: An Interpretation of the (NEW) Markets for Knowledge

  • Mario Cimoli
  • Annalisa Primi


Patenting activity has intensified in the last few decades. Year after year, patent offices receive a growing number of applications and grant more patents. This growth is registered on a global scale, and despite the fact that the leading economies in technological capacities are those that show the greatest growth, the activity has also intensified in emerging economies and developing countries.1 However, certain stability persists in terms of dominant stakeholders. Today, the United States, Germany, and Japan account for 80% of the patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),2 which, together with the offices of the European Union and Japan, continues to be the world’s most important patent office.


Intellectual Property Patent Activity Intellectual Property Protection Patented Innovation Technological Capacity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott, F. M. (2006), Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements of the United States in the Light of U.S. Federal Law, UNCTAD-ICTSD, issue paper 12 (
  2. Aboites, J. and M. Cimoli (2002), “Intellectual property rights and national innovation systems. Some lessons from the Mexican experience”, Revue d’ Economie Industrielle, N° 99, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adelman, M. J. (1987), The new world of patents created by the court of appeals for the federal circuit, University of Michigan, Journal of Law Reform 20, 979–1007.Google Scholar
  4. Amsden, A. (1989), Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and the Last Industrialization, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri and A. Gambardella (2001), “Markets for technology: why do we see them, why we don’t see more of them and why should we care”, Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy, Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K. (1962), “Economic welfare and allocation of resources for inventions”, in R. R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Arundel, A. (2001), “The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation”, Research Policy 30, 4, 611–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arundel, A., G. van de Paal and L. Soete (1995), Innovation strategies of Europe’s largest industrial firms: Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations and government programs, Directorate General XIII, European Commission, EIMS Publication 23.Google Scholar
  9. Arundel, A. and I. Kabla (1998), “What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms”, Research Policy 27, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atkinson, A. B. and J. E. Stiglitz (1969), “A new view of technological change”, Economic Journal, September, 79, 315, 573–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Besen, S. M. (1998), “Intellectual property”, in P. Newman (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, Vol. 2, London, Macmillan, pp. 348–52.Google Scholar
  12. Besen, S. M. and L. J. Raskind (1991), “An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, N°1, winter, 3-27.Google Scholar
  13. Bessen, J. and R. H. Hunt (2004), “An empirical look at software patents”, WP, 03/17R, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (
  14. Cesaroni, F. and P. Giuri (2005), “Intellectual property rights and market dynamics”, LEM Working Paper Series, 2005/10.Google Scholar
  15. Choen, J. E. and M. A. Lemely (2001), “Patent scope and innovation in the software industry”, Columbia Law Review, 89(1), 1–57.Google Scholar
  16. Cimoli, M. (ed.) (2005), Heterogeneidad estructural, asimetrías tecnológicas y crecimiento en América Latina, (LC/W.35) CEPAL-BID, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  17. Cimoli, M., B. Coriat and A. Primi (2006), “The resilience of the patent controversy and the catching-up dilemma in the post-TRIPS scenario”, IPD Working Paper, Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  18. Cimoli, M., G. Porcile, A. Primi and S. Vergara (2005), “Cambio estructural, heterogeneidad productiva y tecnología en América Latina”, in M. Cimoli (ed.), Heterogeneidad estructural, asimetrías tecnológicas y crecimiento en América Latina, (LC/W.35) CEPAL-BID, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson and J. P. Walsh (2000), “Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not)”, NBER, Working Paper, 7552.Google Scholar
  20. Dasgupta, P. and P. David (1994), “Toward a new economics of science”, Research Policy 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. David, P. A. (1993), “Intellectual property institutions and the Panda’s thumb: patents, copyrights and trade secrets in economic theory and history”, in M. B. Wallerstein, M. E. Mogee and R. A. Schoen (eds.), Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, Washington DC, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dosi, G. (1982), “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinant and direction of technological change”, Research Policy 11, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drahos, P. (1999), “The universality of intellectual property rights: origins and development”, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, London, WIPO Publication 762(E).Google Scholar
  24. Eaton, J. and S. Kortum (1996), “Trade in ideas: patenting and productivity in the OECD”, Journal of International Economics 40, 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fink, C. and P. Reichenmiler (2005), “Tightening TRIPS: The intellectual property provisions of recent US free trade agreements”, World Bank Trade Note, N° 20, February.Google Scholar
  26. Gallini, N. (2002), “The economics of patents: lessons from the recent US patent reform”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilbert, R. and C. Shapiro (1990), “Optimal patent length and breadth”, RAND Journal of Economics 21, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graham, S. and D. C. Mowery (2003), “Intellectual property protection in the US software industry”, in W. M. Cohen and S. Merrill (eds.), Patents in the Knowledge Based Economy, Washington, DC, National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Granstrand, O. (1999), The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Grilliches, Z. (1990), “Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey”, Journal of Economic Literature 28, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  31. Grindley, P. C. and D. J. Teece (1997), “Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics”, California Management Review 29, 8–41.Google Scholar
  32. Guellec, D., J. Sheehan, and C. Martínez (2004), “Understanding business patenting and licensing: results of a survey” in OECD conference proceedings, Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, B. H. (2003), “Business methods patents, innovation and policy”, Economics Department, University of California Berkeley, Working Paper E03–331.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, B. H. (2004), “Exploring the patent explosion”, NBER Working Paper No. 10605.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, B. H. and R. H. Ziedonis (2001), “The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995”, RAND Journal of Economics 32, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harabi, N. (1995), “Appropriability of technical innovations: an empirical analysis”, Research Policy 24, 981–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harter, J. F. R. (1993), “The propensity to patent with differentiated products”, Southern Economic Journal 61, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heller, M. and R. S. Eisenberg (1998), “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research”, Science 28, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Horstman, I., G. M. MacDonald, and A. Slivinski (1985), “Patents as information transfer mechanisms: to patent or (maybe) not to patent”, Journal of Political Economy 93, 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hunt, R. M. (2001), “You can patent that? Are patents on computer programs and business methods good for the new economy?”, Business Review, Q1, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, United States.Google Scholar
  41. Jaffe, A. B. (2000), “The US patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process”, Research Policy 29, 532–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jomo, K. S. (1997), Southeast Asia’s Misunderstood Miracle: Industrial Policy and Economic Development in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, Westview Boulder, Colorado, United States.Google Scholar
  43. Kitch, E. W. (1977), “The nature and function of the patent system”, Journal of Law and Economics 20(1), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klemperer, P. (1990), “How broad should the scope of patent protection be?” RAND Journal of Economics 21(1), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koen, M. S. (1991), Survey of small business use of intellectual property protection: report of a survey conducted by MO-SCI Corporation for the Small Business Administration, Rolla, Missouri.Google Scholar
  46. Kortum, S. and J. Lerner (1999), “Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting”, Research Policy 28, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lanjouw, J. O. and J. Lerner (2001), “Tilting the table? The predatory use of preliminary injunctions”, Journal of Law and Economics 44, 573–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lemely, M. A. and C. Shapiro (2005), “Probabilistic patents”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(2), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lerner, J. (1994), “The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis”, RAND Journal of Economics 25(2), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lerner, J. (1995), “Patenting in the shadow of competitors”, Journal of Law and Economics 38, 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levin, R. C., A. K. Klevorick, R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter (1987), “Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 242–279.Google Scholar
  52. Llobet, G. (2003), “Patent litigation when innovation is cumulative”, International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1135–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. López, A. and E. Orlicki (2006), “Innovación y mecanismos de apropiabilidad en el sector privado en América Latina”, en Sistemas de Propiedad Intelectual y Gestión Tecnológica en Economías Abiertas: Una Visión Estratégica para América Latina y el Caribe, Estudio OMPI-CEPAL, mimeo.Google Scholar
  54. Machlup, F. (1958), “An economic review of the patent system: Study of the subcommittee on patents, trademarks and copyrights” of the Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, 85th Congress, Second Session, Study 15, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, pp. 1–86.Google Scholar
  55. Machlup, F. and E. Penrose (1950), “The patent controversy in the nineteenth century”, Journal of Economic History X (1), in Towse R. and R. Holzhaner, eds., 2002, The Economics of Intellectual Property, vol. II, Elgar Reference Collection.Google Scholar
  56. Mansfield, E. (1986), “Patents and innovation: an empirical study”, Management Science 32, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mazzoleni, R. and R. Nelson (1998), “The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate”, Research Policy 27, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazzucato, M. and G. Dosi (2006), Knowledge Accumulation and Industry Evolution: The Case of Pharma-Biotech, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  59. Merges, R. P. (1992), Patent Law and Policy, Charlottesville, Michie.Google Scholar
  60. Moncayo, A. (2006), “Bilateralismo y multilateralismo en materia de patentes de invención: una interacción compleja”, in Sistemas de Propiedad Intelectual y Gestión Tecnológica en Economías Abiertas: Una Visión Estratégica para América Latina y el Caribe, Estudio OMPI-CEPAL, mimeo.Google Scholar
  61. Montobbio, F. (2006), “Patenting Activity in Latin American and Caribbean Countries”, in Sistemas de Propiedad Intelectual y Gestión Tecnológica en Economías Abiertas: Una Visión Estratégica para América Latina y el Caribe, Estudio OMPI-CEPAL, mimeo.Google Scholar
  62. Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. N. Sampat, and A. A. Ziedonis (2004), The Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh Dole Act, California, Stanford University Press, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  63. Mowery, D. C. and B. N. Sampat (2005), “Universities in national innovation systems”, in J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  64. Plant, A. (1934), “The economic theory concerning patents for inventions”, in Selected Economic Essays and Addresses, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
  65. Primi, A. and S. Rovira (2007), “Mapping innovation in the Colombian manufacturing industry: evidence from the National Innovation Survey”, ECLAC-DDPE, unpublished.Google Scholar
  66. Rai A. K. (2001), “Fostering cumulative innovation in biopharmaceutical industry: the role of patents and antitrust”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 16, N° 2.Google Scholar
  67. RICYT (Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología) (2004), El estado de la ciencia. Principales indicadores de ciencia y tecnología iberoamericanos–interamericanos, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  68. Scherer, F. M. (2001), “The innovation lottery”, in Rochelle Dreyfuss, Diane L. Zimmerman, and Harry First (ed.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Scherer, F. M. (1977), The Economic Effects of Compulsory Patent Licensing, Graduate School of Business Administration, Center for the Study of Financial Institutions, NY, United States.Google Scholar
  70. Scherer, F. M. (1965), “Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions”, American Economic Review, Vol. 55, No. 5, Part 1, 1097–1125.Google Scholar
  71. Scherer, F. M. (1983), “The propensity to patent”. International. Journal of Industrial Organization 1, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shapiro, C. (2001), “Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting”, University of California Berkeley, Working Paper (∼shapiro/thicket.pdf).
  73. Shapiro, C. (2003), “Antitrust limits to patent settlements”, RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2), 391-411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thurow, L. C. (1997), “Needed: a system of intellectual property rights”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 5, Sep–Oct., 95–103.Google Scholar
  75. Wade, R. (1990), Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Commission for Latin America and the CaribbeanSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentParisFrance

Personalised recommendations