Difference between revisions of "Watt (2009)"
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
|||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?, 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption), | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?, 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption), | ||
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability), | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability), | ||
− | |Discipline= | + | |Discipline=F63: Economic Development, L13: Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets, O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital |
|Intervention-Response=This paper reviews the empirical literature on the use of appropriability strategies, including the determinants of the propensity to patent, with a view to highlighting the main findings. It analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the research that has been carried out so far on the subject and suggests a research agenda both for developed as well as for developing countries. | |Intervention-Response=This paper reviews the empirical literature on the use of appropriability strategies, including the determinants of the propensity to patent, with a view to highlighting the main findings. It analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the research that has been carried out so far on the subject and suggests a research agenda both for developed as well as for developing countries. | ||
|Description of Data=Literature review, analysing low and high enforcement models. | |Description of Data=Literature review, analysing low and high enforcement models. | ||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
|Sample Size=2 | |Sample Size=2 | ||
|Level of Aggregation=Copyright enforcement models, | |Level of Aggregation=Copyright enforcement models, | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
|Data Material Year=1998 to 2009 | |Data Material Year=1998 to 2009 | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 07:27, 15 April 2016
Contents
Source Details
Watt (2009) | |
Title: | An Empirical Analysis of the Economics of Copyright: How Valid are the Results of Studies in Developed Countries for Developing Countries? |
Author(s): | Richard Watt |
Year: | 2009 |
Citation: | Watt, Richard. An Empirical Analysis of the Economics of Copyright: How Valid are the Results of Studies in Developed Countries for Developing Countries?. The Economics of Intellectual Property (2009): 65. |
Link(s): | , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | Literature review, analysing low and high enforcement models. |
Data Type: | Secondary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | No |
Comparative Study?: | Yes |
Literature review?: | Yes |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
In this paper I attempt to provide a synopsis of the empirical literature, in the field of economics, concerning copyright. The paper is not intended to be a full literature survey, but rather attempts to identify the main areas that have been studied, and to offer an overview of what the literature says by means of an analysis of representative publications. The principal objective is to attempt to provide guidance to economists interested in undertaking empirical research on the economics of copyright, particularly in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. I shall attempt to provide an identification of areas for further research and suitable methodological approaches that could be followed by economists, especially in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, to study the economics of copyright empirically. To that end, the paper will address the following general topics: (1) papers dealing specifically with supply side effects (earnings from copyright royalties, the effect of copyright law on creativity, collective management of copyright); (2) papers dealing specifically with demand side effects (willingness to pay by consumers of copyright products, copyright infringement or piracy); (3) papers concerning emerging mechanisms for exercising rights over protected works. The paper concludes with a section that addresses directly the issue of copyright for developing countries.
Main Results of the Study
- Firms tend to employ different appropriability mechanisms. Sometimes they do it sequentially – e.g. an invention is protected by secrecy at a early stage and later on is patented – and at other times simultaneously – e.g. because an invention comprises many elements that can be protected through different appropriability tools.
- Lead time and secrecy seem to be the most relevant appropriability devices for most sectors and innovation types. Manufacturing and marketing capabilities – an appropriability mechanism which is not always considered in the studies surveyed – also provide a very relevant tool for protecting innovations.
- Large firms have a higher propensity to patent and they judge patents as a more effective appropriability method than do SMEs. However, this does not necessarily mean that, once they decide to apply for patents, they have more patents than SMEs (since some studies show that larger firms have more patents than patenting SMEs, while others fail to find that result).
- Although patents are not the most effective method for protecting innovations, many firms employ them anyway, be it jointly with other appropriability methods or not only as a means to protect their innovations but to achieve other objectives – i.e. “strategic patenting” (patent blocking, prevention of suits, reputation enhancing, cross-licensing, attracting venture capital, etc.).
- Disclosure and ease of inventing-around are the most important reasons for not patenting.
- Patents are more relevant as an appropriability mechanism for product than for process innovations and for some sectors such as chemicals (especially pharmaceuticals), some machinery industries and biotechnology.
- SMEs that display aggressive patent strategies often do not have the intention of exploiting their inventions but aim to license or sell them, among other factors, because they lack the production and marketing capabilities (complementary assets) needed for successfully commercializing these inventions.
- There seem to be “patenting clubs” among manufacturing firms. That is, firms that have more patents and/or perceive patents as an effective appropriability device, tend to have higher patent propensities – in other words, patenting decisions would be related to the firm’s patenting history and its perception of the strength of patents as a protection tool.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
This paper reviews the empirical literature on the use of appropriability strategies, including the determinants of the propensity to patent, with a view to highlighting the main findings. It analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the research that has been carried out so far on the subject and suggests a research agenda both for developed as well as for developing countries.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 2 |
Level of aggregation: | Copyright enforcement models |
Period of material under study: | 1998 to 2009 |