Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Knowledge-Specific Patents and the Additionality Constraint

  • Cristiano Antonelli
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_734-1

Abstract

The appreciation of the joint effects of the limited exhaustibility of knowledge and of the knowledge appropriability trade-off calls for the design of a new knowledge policy framework based upon the differentiation of both public subsidies with respect to their actual additionality and intellectual property rights with respect to terms and levels of exclusivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Antonelli C (2007) Knowledge as an essential facility. J Evol Econ 17:451–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonelli C (2013) Compulsory licensing: the foundations of an institutional innovation. WIPO J 4:157–174Google Scholar
  3. Antonelli C (2017) Endogenous innovation. Thee conomics of an emergent system property, Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonelli C, Crespi F (2013) The “Matthew effect” in R&D public subsidies: the case of Italy. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80:1523–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonelli C, David PA (eds) (2015) The economics of knowledge and the knowledge driven economy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonelli C, Link A (eds) (2015) Handbook of the economics of knowledge. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Antonelli C, Barbiellini Amidei F, Fassio C (2014) The mechanisms of knowledge governance: state owned corporations and Italian economic growth, 1950–1994. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 31:43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson RR (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors. Princeton University Press for NBER, Princeton, pp 609–625Google Scholar
  9. Clarysse B, Wright M, Mustar P (2009) Behavioral additionality of R&D subsidies: a learning perspective. Res Policy 38:1517–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David PA, Hall BH (2006) Property and the pursuit of knowledge: IPR issues affecting scientific research. Res Policy 35:776–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David PA, Hall HB, Toole AA (2000) Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Res Policy 29:497–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert R, Shapiro C (1990) Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND J Econ 21:106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griliches Z (1979) Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth, Bell J Econ 10(1):92–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helpman E (ed) (1998) General purpose technologies and economic growth. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Mosel M (2011) Competition imitation, and R&D productivity in a growth model with industry-specific patent protection. Rev Law Econ 7:601–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weitzman ML (1996) Hybridizing growth theory. Am Econ Rev 86:207–212Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia e Statistica “Cognetti de Martiis”Università di Torino, Collegio Carlo AlbertoTorinoItaly