Appropriation Strategy and the Motivations to use the Patent System: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing

  • Emmanuel Duguet
  • Isabelle Kabla


This paper studies the determinants of both the percentage of innovations that are patented and the number of European patent applications by industrial firms, using data from the French survey on appropriation (EFAT). We build a two equations model including count and interval dependent variables and estimate it by asymptotic least squares. Controlling for the traditional determinants of innovation, like research and development expenditures, we find that patent disclosure is the main reason why firms do not patent all their innovations. Moreover, once we control for the differences in the propensity to patent, patent disclosure also reduces the number of patents applications. On the other hand, the will of firms to acquire a stronger position in technology negotiations and to avoid trials increases the number of patent applications.


Patent Application Patent System Patent Document Order Probit Model Industry Dummy 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K. (1962). — “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”. In R. Nelson ed., The rate and direction of economic activity, New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arundel, A., Van de Paal, Soete, L. (1995). — Innovation Strategies of Europe’s Largest Industrial Firms. MERIT, Maastricht, June.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, R. (1986). — “Does Competitive Dissipation Require a Short Patent Life?” Research in Law and Economics, vol. 8, pp. 121–129.Google Scholar
  4. Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Windmeier, F. (1995). — “Individual Effects and Dynamics in Count Data Models”. Institute for Fiscal Studies working paper.Google Scholar
  5. Bussy, J.-C., Kabla, I., Lehoucq, T. (1994). — “La protection technologique dans l’industrie”. Le 4 Pages du SESSI, n° 34.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, W., Levin, R. (1989). — “Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure”. In Schmalensee R. and R. Willig eds, Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 2, ch. 18, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., Walsh, J. (1997). — “Appropriability Conditions and why Firm Patent and why they do not in the American Manufacturing Sector”. Mimeo, June.Google Scholar
  8. Crampes, C. (1986). — “Les inconvénients d’un dépôt de brevet pour une entreprise innovatrice”. L’Actualité Economique, vol. 62, pp. 521–534.Google Scholar
  9. Crépon, B., Duguet, E. (1995a). — “Innovation: Measurement, Returns and Competition”. Insee studies in Economics and Statistics, 1995, 1, pp. 82–95.Google Scholar
  10. Crépon, B., Duguet, E. (1995b). — “Une bibliothèque de macro commandes pour l’économétrie des données de comptage et des variables qualitatives”. CREST working paper 9525.Google Scholar
  11. Crépon, B., Duguet, E. (1997a). — “Research and Development, Competition and Innovation: Pseudo Maximum Likelihood and Simulated Maximum Likelihood Methods Applied to Count Data Models with Heterogeneity”. Journal of Econometrics, 79, pp. 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crépon, B., Duguet, E. (1997b). — “Estimating the Innovation Function from the Patent Numbers: GMM on Count Panel Data”. Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 12, pp. 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crépon, B., Duguet, E., Kabla, I. (1996). — “A Moderate Support to Schumpeterian Conjecture from Various Innovation Measures”. In A. Kleinknecht éd., Innovation: The Message From New Indicators. Mac Millan, London.Google Scholar
  14. De Brock, L. (1985). — “Market Structure, Innovation and Optimal Patent Life”. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XXVIII, April, pp. 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duguet, E. (1995). — “Technical Cooperation through European Joint Patents”. Insee studies in Economics and Statistics, n° 1, pp. 96–111.Google Scholar
  16. Duguet, E., Iung, N. (1997). — “R&D Investment, Patent Life and Patent Value: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level”. INSEE Working paper G9705.Google Scholar
  17. Gallini, N. (1992). — “Patent Policy and Costly Imitation”. Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 23, n° 1, Spring, pp. 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, R., Shapiro, C. (1990). — “Optimal Patent Length and Breadth”. Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 21, n° 1, Spring, pp. 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gouriéroux, C., Monfort, A. (1996). — Statistics and Econometric Models. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gouriéroux, C., Monfort, A., Trognon, A. (1984a). — “Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Application to Poisson Models”. Econometrica 52 (3), pp. 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gouriéroux, C., Monfort, A., Trognon, A. (1984b). — “Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Theory”. Econometrica 52 (3), pp. 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griliches, Z. (1990). — “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey”. Journal of Economic Litterature, vol. XXVIII, pp. 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  23. Hausman, J., Hall, B., Griliches, Z. (1984). — “Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patent-R&D Relationship”. Econometrica 42 (3), pp. 909–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horstmann, I., Mc Donald, G., Slivinski, A. (1985). — “Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: to Patent or (maybe) not to Patent”. Journal of Political Economy, 93, pp. 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kabla, I. (1997). — “Easiness of Imitation, Patent Disclosure and the Optimal Patent Scope”. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  26. Kamien, M., Schwartz, N. (1982). — Market structure and innovation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klemperer, P. (1990). — “How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection be?” Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 21, n° 1, Spring, pp. 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, L.-F. (1981). — “Simultaneous Equations Models with Discrete and Censored Dependent Variables”. In C. Manski and Mc Fadden D. eds, Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. MIT Press, pp. 346–364.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, T., Wilde, L. (1981). — “Market Structure and Innovation: a Reformulation”. Quaterly Journal of Economics, 94, pp. 429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S. (1987). — “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 783–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loury, G. (1979). — “Market Structure and Innovation”. Quaterly Journal of Economics, 93, pp. 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maddala, G. S. (1992). — Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Econometric Society Monograph, n° 3, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Malinvaud, E. (1970). — Statistical Methods of Econometrics. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  34. Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., Wagner, S. (1981). — “Imitation Costs and Patents: an Empirical Study”. Economic Journal, 91, pp. 907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mansfield, E. (1985). — “How Rapidly does New Industrial Technology Leak Out”. Journal of Industrial Economics, 34 (2) pp. 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nordhaus, W. (1969). — Invention, growth and welfare: a theoretical treatment of technological change. Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pakes, A., Shankerman, M. (1986). — “Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries during the post 1950 Period”. The Economic Journal, December, pp. 1052–1076.Google Scholar
  38. Scherer, F. (1983). — “The Propensity to Patent”. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1, pp. 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scotchmer, S. (1991). — “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), pp. 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scotchmer, S., Green, J. (1990). — “Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law”. Rand Journal of Economics, 21, n° 1, Spring, pp. 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tandon, P. (1982). — “Optimal Patents with Compulsory Licensing”. Journal of Political Economy, 90, n° 3, pp. 470–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor, Sylberston (1973). — The Economic Impact of the Patent System. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Van Dijk, T. (1994). — The limits of patent protection. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel Duguet
    • 1
  • Isabelle Kabla
    • 2
  1. 1.CEMEUniversité de Paris I et INSEE-DMSEFrance
  2. 2.INSEEFrance

Personalised recommendations