The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Intellectual Property

  • Michele Boldrin
  • David K. Levine
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2546

Abstract

Intellectual property refers to patents, copyrights, trademarks and other forms of ownership of ideas. It results in monopoly power that has significant consequences for discouraging as well as encouraging innovation and growth. The discouragement effect is especially important when ideas are used as building blocks for other ideas. The economics literature has examined the need for intellectual property; optimal systems of intellectual property; the optimal duration of intellectual property; how innovation takes place in the absence of intellectual property; and the rent-seeking behaviour induced by intellectual property.

Keywords

Arrow, K. Copyright Dynamic vs static efficiency First-mover advantage Innovation, competitive Monopoly vs incentive to innovate No-compete contract clauses Non-disclosure agreements Patent law Patent races Patents Plant, A. Rent seeking Schumpeter, J. Shrink-wrap agreements Stigler, G. Trademarks Transaction costs 

JEL Classifications

O3 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Aghion, P., and P. Howitt. 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60: 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anton, J., and D. Yao. 1994. Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. American Economic Review 84: 190–209.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity, ed. R. Nelson. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baccara, M., and R. Razin. 2004. From thought to practice: Appropriation and endogenous market structure with imperfect intellectual property rights. Discussion Paper No. 4419. London: CEPR.Google Scholar
  5. Bessen, J., and R. Hunt. 2003. An empirical look at software patents. Working paper No. 2003–17. Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  6. Boldrin, M., and D. Levine. 2003. Perfectly competitive innovation. Mimeo. University of Minnesota and UCLA. http://www.econ.umn.edu/~mboldrin/Papers/pci39.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.
  7. Boldrin, M., and D. Levine. 2005a. IP and market size. Mimeo. University of Minnesota and UCLA. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/scale22.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.
  8. Boldrin, M., and D. Levine. 2005b. The economics of ideas and intellectual property. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 1252–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chari, V., and L. Jones. 2000. A reconsideration of the problem of social cost: Free riders and monopolists. Economic Theory 16: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, D. 1994. Standards as intellectual property: An economic approach. University of Dayton Law Review 19: 1109–1129.Google Scholar
  11. Fudenberg, D., R. Gilbert, J. Stiglitz, and J. Tirole. 1983. Preemption, leapfrogging and competition in patent races. European Economic Review 22: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallini, N. 1992. Patent policy and costly imitation. RAND Journal of Economics 23: 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallini, N., and S. Scotchmer. 2001. Intellectual property: When is it the best incentive system? Economics Working Papers E01–303. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, R., and C. Shapiro. 1990. Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND Journal of Economics 21: 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman, G., and E. Helpman. 1991. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies 58: 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grossman, G., and E.L.-C. Lai. 2004. International protection of intellectual property. American Economic Review 94: 1635–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris, C., and J. Vickers. 1985. Patent races and the persistence of monopoly. Journal of Industrial Economics 33: 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hellwig, M., and A. Irmen. 2001. Endogenous technical change in a competitive economy. Journal of Economic Theory 101: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrera, H., and E. Schroth. 2002. Profitable innovation without patent protection: The case of derivatives. Mimeo. Mexico, D.F.: Department of Economics, ITAM. http://ciep.itam.mx/~helios/deriv.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.
  20. Herrera, H., and E. Schroth. 2003. Developer’s expertise and the dynamics of financial innovation: Theory and evidence. Mimeo. Mexico, D.F.: Department of Economics, ITAM. http://ciep.itam.mx/~helios/express.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2005.
  21. Hirshleifer, J. 1971. The private and social value of information and the reward to inventive activity. American Economic Review 61: 561–574.Google Scholar
  22. Hopenhayn, H., and M. Mitchell. 2001. Innovation variety and patent breadth. RAND Journal of Economics 32: 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ian, E., and M. Waldman. 1984. The effects of increased copyright protection: An analytic approach. Journal of Political Economy 92: 236–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamoreaux, N., and K. Sokoloff. 2001. Market trade in patents and the rise of a class of specialized inventors in the nineteenth-century United States. American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings 91: 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Legros, P. 2005. Art and internet: Blessing the curse? Mimeo. Bruxelles: ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  26. Lessig, L. 2004. Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  27. Liebowitz, S.J. 1985. Copying and indirect appropriability: Photocopying of journals. Journal of Political Economy 93: 945–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moser, P. 2002. How do patent laws influence innovation? Evidence from nineteenth century world fairs. Mimeo. Sloan School of Management, MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Pakes, A.S. 1986. Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks. Econometrica 54: 755–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plant, A. 1934. The economic aspect of copyright in books. Economica 1: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quah, D. 2002. 24/7 Competitive innovation. Mimeo. London School of Economics. http://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/dquah/p/0204-247.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2005.
  32. Romer, P. 1986. Increasing returns and long run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94: 1002–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98: S71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shapiro, C. 2001. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting. In Innovation policy and the economy, ed. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press for the NBER.Google Scholar
  35. Schumpeter, J. 1911. The theory of economic development, 1934. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  37. Scotchmer, S. 1991. Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stigler, G. 1956. Industrial organization and economic progress. In The state of the social sciences, ed. L. White. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tofuno, P. 1989. First mover advantages in financial innovation. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 350–370.Google Scholar
  40. Vaidhyanathan, S. 2003. Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Boldrin
    • 1
  • David K. Levine
    • 1
  1. 1.