Economics and patents

Last updated

Patents are legal instruments intended to encourage innovation by providing a limited monopoly to the inventor (or their assignee) in return for the disclosure of the invention. [1] [2] The underlying assumption is that innovation is encouraged because an inventor can secure exclusive rights and, therefore, a higher probability of financial rewards for their product in the marketplace or the opportunity to profit from licensing the rights to others. The publication of the invention is mandatory to get a patent. Keeping the same invention as a trade secret rather than disclosing it in a patent publication, for some inventions, could prove valuable well beyond the limited time of any patent term but at the risk of unpermitted disclosure or congenial invention by a third party.

Contents

Costs, benefits, risks of the patent system to the public

The patent system is designed to encourage innovation. This is because patents, by conferring rights on the owner to exclude competitors from the market, presumably offer the incentive for people to study new technology.

In some fields, particularly pharmaceuticals, it is also argued that the monopoly of the patent in the market allows the owner to recover the huge expenses invested in the research and development phase. [3]

While patent offices in the economically advanced world have numerous procedures in effect to determine the validity and proper scope of a patent application, nevertheless some patents still issue that are not an advance on the existing state-of-the-art, or would otherwise be invalid if challenged. The system corrects these mistakes by maintaining the right to nullify inappropriately issued patents. However, in part because of high litigation costs, only a very small fraction of patent disputes ever go to court. A study in 2005 showed that among 200,000 patents that are issued every year, only 1.5 percent of patents are ever litigated, and only 0.1 percent of patents are ever litigated to trial. [4] This means the majority of patent disputes are either overlooked or settled privately. While private settlement is a cost-effective way to balance the commercial interests of two firms, the public does not benefit from it. Because of the private nature of such settlements, there is no open discussion that would clarify the scope of rights under a particular patent and the opportunity to invalidate the patent is lost. Other competitors do not benefit, and costs across the industry are not reduced.

Economics of probabilistic patents

Economists Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro argued that the patent granting process should be rethought because there are inherent uncertainties with the system. Uncertainty in patents can be found in the two fundamental dimensions:

  1. uncertainty about the commercial significance of the invention being patented
  2. uncertainty about the validity and scope of the legal right being granted.

Modeling patents as probabilistic rights is helpful in assessing the social costs of the system while continuing to encourage innovation and technology dissemination. [4]

Macroeconomic perspective

More U.S. utility patents have been issued in the most recent thirty years than in the first 200 years in which they were issued (1790-1990). 1976- United States utility patents issued, by year - bar chart.svg
More U.S. utility patents have been issued in the most recent thirty years than in the first 200 years in which they were issued (1790–1990).

The patent system affects the economy as a whole. The benefits of new results, once the research is publicly known, are available to all in the relevant field, thereby bringing advantages to all parties in that field, though reducing the direct return to the party performing the pioneering research. This reduces economic incentive for a party to conduct research and innovate. [ citation needed ]

The effects of patents on a given market may vary widely according to the type of market, and whether there are other barriers to entry (e.g., business methods versus regulated medications).[ citation needed ]

Even in socialist monopole[ clarification needed ] economies, the adherence to international patent laws was or becomes strict, as the effect is reciprocal for public economy, as soon as the level of technology development in these economies creates comparable advantage. [5]

However, since patents essentially encourage innovation by giving owners the right to monopolize the market for a limited time, the public will suffer from the patents that are not innovative by paying a supracompetitive cost.

Another dilemma regarding the patent system's effectiveness is that if the validity and scope were unclear at the issuance, it will always be corrected because other competitors will cause the case to the court and then we could either reevaluate the scope through discussion or invalidate the patent for public good. However, studies of the USPTO data showed that only very few patents are litigated to trial. [4]

Farrell and Merges (2004) pointed out that two reasons have kept individual firms accused of patent infringement from challenging the patent's holders. The first one is the public good problem, which means that once the patent is nullified, the competitors of the accused firm will benefit from the outcome. The other reason is that in many cases they can pass-through the uniform royalty costs in the form of higher prices. [6]

Microeconomic perspective

The economics surrounding a single patent, or group of patents, revolves around the balance between the expense of maintaining the patent(s), and the income derived from owning that/those patents. [7] Similarly the economics of whether to seek a patent present similar concerns with the added up-front costs of obtaining the patent.

The grant of a patent provides the inventor temporarily with an exclusive legal right, thereby securing a means to redeem the costs of research (by charging a higher price for its invention or by license fees from others who wish to practice it).

A patent is an exclusionary right – preventing others from entering the market – and so its effect may be to increase the patent proprietor's income from that market. The major economic effect is the exclusivity period of the patent rights, when exploitation pays back for the enterprise that funded research and development. However, patenting alone does not guarantee for marketing success.

The right to exclude others from entering market with copies is, however, potentially extremely valuable as it can mean total exclusivity in that market for the duration of the patent (generally 20 years from filing). For example, worldwide sales of a patented pharmaceutical can be millions of dollars per day, whereas the generic equivalent would later sell for less than half the price.

Income improvement from a patent is difficult to measure. One may attempt to measure the difference in price between an "improved" product and its "unimproved" counterpart, or compare the price of the product with that in markets where (or when) it has not been patented. More directly measurable income is that which is received from the licensing or sale of patent rights, or from successful litigation of infringement.

Innovation

Under traditional patent doctrine, innovation is spurred by patent law in at least two ways. (1) The inventor can secure exclusive rights, and therefore working on innovation gives the inventor a higher probability of financial rewards in the market place. [8] (2) Publishing the invention, rather than keeping it a trade secret allows others to build upon the technology. [9] Both of these have been challenged based upon economic analysis. The "rewards" theory has been criticized as ignoring the risky prospective nature of the "reward", [10] and the post patent costs of cost-engineering and marketing. [9] [11] The "publication of the patent as spurring innovation" branch has been criticized indicating that it produces patent thickets and encouraging others to design around existing technology rather than to build upon it. [12]

As early as 1986, empirical research into the effect of patent law on innovation found "its effects in this regard are very small in most of the industries we studied". [13] In 2013, Boldrin and Levine concluded that "while patents can have a partial equilibrium effect of improving incentives to invent, the general equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative." [14] Other patent modeling research suggests that rather than encouraging innovation, patents can hinder development, lower R&D investments, and decrease overall economic output. [15]

Patent valuation

Patents are not intrinsically valuable, in the sense that a patent is not economically an "end in itself." [16] Rather, a patent claiming an invention with market demand would likely have economic value because the patent holder can exclude others from making, importing, using, and offering for sale, or selling that invention throughout the jurisdiction (the US for example [17] ) and sell the product at a monopoly price. Without alternative suppliers for the patented good or technology, the price the patentee is able to charge would likely be greater than the competitive price (the price in a competitive equilibrium). This portion of incremental profit would only be attributable to the patent and would therefore be the value of the patent. [16]

Patent value, like value of other property, may fluctuate over time, as markets change. [18] What was once a pioneering invention may be soon outsold by an unpatented (and non-infringing) competitor catering to fringe adopters with products having features even more desirable than the invention. [18] Contrarily, a strong patent grip could stagnate a narrow market as innovation is no longer justified, eventually resulting in reduced demand (for outmoded and over-priced products), and thus reduced patent value, as the market moves away. [19] [20] [21]

A particularly difficult question of value arises where inventors/owners use their patents to extract other advantages without actually marketing the invention (e.g., cross-licensing of related patents to avoid litigation, or suppressing a technology that could compete with the owner's other products). [22] How can one determine the value of a patented product (and the underlying patent) that has not actually been produced, let alone sold in any quantity? Furthermore, many products incorporate numerous patented inventions (owned or licensed), and may carry exclusive trademarks, making it difficult to attribute a specific value to an individual patent. Would the same invention be as valuable if owned and marketed under a weak brand?[ citation needed ]

In 2005, the European Commission published a comprehensive study of the value of patents for patent owners as well as for the European economy. [23] The study was in part based on a survey of 20,000 patent owners who applied for EPO patents between 1993 and 1997. The survey was performed in 2003. 9000 patent owners responded. The patent owners were asked how much effort was required to produce their inventions and how much monetary value their patents had been worth. The median effort to create the patentable invention was 1 person-year, with 10% of the patent owners requiring 2 or more person-years. The median value of the patents produced was €300,000, with 10% of patent owners reporting values of €10 million Euros or more.

In certain cases,[ which? ] [24] patents may be valued using the techniques developed for financial options, as applied via a real options framework. [25] The key parallel is that a patent provides its owner the right to exclude others from using the underlying invention, so both patents and stock options represent a right to exploit an asset in the future, and to exclude others from using it. The patent (option) will have value to the buyer (owner) only to the extent that the expected price in the future exceeds the opportunity cost of earning just as much in a risk-less alternative. Thus patent rights can be thought of as corresponding to a call option and may be valued accordingly.[ clarification needed ] [24] See Option pricing approaches under Business valuation for further discussion.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intellectual property</span> Ownership of creative expressions and processes

Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect. There are many types of intellectual property, and some countries recognize more than others. The best-known types are patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. The modern concept of intellectual property developed in England in the 17th and 18th centuries. The term "intellectual property" began to be used in the 19th century, though it was not until the late 20th century that intellectual property became commonplace in most of the world's legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mergers and acquisitions</span> Type of corporate transaction

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are business transactions in which the ownership of companies, business organizations, or their operating units are transferred to or consolidated with another company or business organization. As an aspect of strategic management, M&A can allow enterprises to grow or downsize, and change the nature of their business or competitive position.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent</span> Type of legal protection for an invention

A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. In most countries, patent rights fall under private law and the patent holder must sue someone infringing the patent in order to enforce their rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Invention</span> Novel device, material or technical process

An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition, idea or process. An invention may be an improvement upon a machine, product, or process for increasing efficiency or lowering cost. It may also be an entirely new concept. If an idea is unique enough either as a stand-alone invention or as a significant improvement over the work of others, it can be patented. A patent, if granted, gives the inventor a proprietary interest in the patent over a specific period of time, which can be licensed for financial gain.

A software patent is a patent on a piece of software, such as a computer program, libraries, user interface, or algorithm.

Real options valuation, also often termed real options analysis, applies option valuation techniques to capital budgeting decisions. A real option itself, is the right—but not the obligation—to undertake certain business initiatives, such as deferring, abandoning, expanding, staging, or contracting a capital investment project. For example, real options valuation could examine the opportunity to invest in the expansion of a firm's factory and the alternative option to sell the factory.

A royalty payment is a payment made by one party to another that owns a particular asset, for the right to ongoing use of that asset. Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation. A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Valuation (finance)</span> Process of estimating what something is worth, used in the finance industry

In finance, valuation is the process of determining the value of a (potential) investment, asset, or security. Generally, there are three approaches taken, namely discounted cashflow valuation, relative valuation, and contingent claim valuation.

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide more choices for consumers. In order to obtain greater profits, some large enterprises take advantage of market power to hinder survival of new entrants. Anti-competitive behavior can undermine the efficiency and fairness of the market, leaving consumers with little choice to obtain a reasonable quality of service.

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

The software patent debate is the argument about the extent to which, as a matter of public policy, it should be possible to patent software and computer-implemented inventions. Policy debate on software patents has been active for years. The opponents to software patents have gained more visibility with fewer resources through the years than their pro-patent opponents. Arguments and critiques have been focused mostly on the economic consequences of software patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial property</span> Intellectual property applied to industry

Industrial property is one of two subsets of intellectual property, it takes a range of forms, including patents for inventions, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, layout-designs of integrated circuits, commercial names and designations, geographical indications and protection against unfair competition. In some cases, aspects of an intellectual creation, although present, are less clearly defined. The object of industrial property consists of signs conveying information, in particular to consumers, regarding products and services offered on the market. Protection is directed against unauthorized use of such signs that could mislead consumers, and against misleading practices in general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bayh–Dole Act</span> United States law regarding patent rights and government resesrch

The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act is United States legislation permitting ownership by contractors of inventions arising from federal government-funded research. Sponsored by senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, the Act was adopted in 1980, is codified at 94 Stat. 3015, and in 35 U.S.C. § 200–212, and is implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401 for federal funding agreements with contractors and 37 C.F.R 404 for licensing of inventions owned by the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities, which do not practice their asserted patent, may not be considered "patent trolls", when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

Intellectual property assets such as patents are the core of many organizations and transactions related to technology. Licenses and assignments of intellectual property rights are common operations in the technology markets, as well as the use of these types of assets as loan security. These uses give rise to the growing importance of financial valuation of intellectual property, since knowing the economic value of patents is a critical factor in order to define their trading conditions.

Humanitarian use licenses are provisions in a license whereby inventors and technology suppliers protect in advance the possibility of sharing their technology with people in need. Thus, humanitarian use licenses set the conditions for the provision of access to innovations for people in need at a royalty free basis or at lower costs. Humanitarian use licenses assure that products of research and development stay publicly available and that at the same time the incentive function of exclusive intellectual property rights are maintained.

Legal scholars, economists, activists, policymakers, industries, and trade organizations have held differing views on patents and engaged in contentious debates on the subject. Critical perspectives emerged in the nineteenth century that were especially based on the principles of free trade. Contemporary criticisms have echoed those arguments, claiming that patents block innovation and waste resources that could otherwise be used productively, and also block access to an increasingly important "commons" of enabling technologies, apply a "one size fits all" model to industries with differing needs, that is especially unproductive for industries other than chemicals and pharmaceuticals and especially unproductive for the software industry. Enforcement by patent trolls of poor quality patents has led to criticism of the patent office as well as the system itself. Patents on pharmaceuticals have also been a particular focus of criticism, as the high prices they enable puts life-saving drugs out of reach of many people. Alternatives to patents have been proposed, such Joseph Stiglitz's suggestion of providing "prize money" as a substitute for the lost profits associated with abstaining from the monopoly given by a patent.

In economics, a government-granted monopoly is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement. As a form of coercive monopoly, government-granted monopoly is contrasted with an unregulated monopoly, wherein there is no competition but it is not forcibly excluded.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

Some authors advocating patent reform have proposed the use of prizes as an alternative to patents. Critics of the current patent system, such as Joseph E. Stiglitz, say that patents fail to provide incentives for innovations which are not commercially marketable. Stiglitz provides the idea of prizes instead of patents to be awarded in order to further advance solutions to global problems such as AIDS.

References

  1. ↑ "Our Business: An Introduction to the USPTO". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived from the original on 30 December 2011.
  2. ↑ "Datasheet for the decision of 11 December 2018 (T 2707/16)" (PDF). Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. reasons 18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 January 2022. The basic idea and core purpose of the patent system is to stimulate technological innovation by offering the opportunity to obtain exclusionary rights limited in time in return for public disclosure of inventions.
  3. ↑ Werth, Barry (2013). "A Tale of Two Drugs". MIT Technology Review. 116 (6). Archived from the original on 26 June 2014.
  4. 1 2 3 Lemley, Mark A.; Shapiro, Carl (2005). "Probabilistic Patents" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19 (2): 75–98. doi: 10.1257/0895330054048650 . Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 November 2005.
  5. ↑ Langinier, Corinne; GianCarlo, Moschini (January 2002). "Chapter 3: The Economics of Patents: An Overview". In Newman, Scott; Rothschild, Max Frederick (eds.). Intellectual Property Rights and Patenting in Animal Breeding and Genetics (PDF). Oxford, England: CABI Publishing. ISBN   978-0-85199-838-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 February 2004.
  6. ↑ Farrell, Joseph; Merges, Robert P. (2004). "Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation Won't Reliably Fix Patent Office Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 19 (1): 943–970, page 956. Archived from the original on 10 May 2014.
  7. ↑ Kryazhimskii, Arkadii; Watanabe, Chihiro; Tou, Y. (2002). "Dynamic model of market of patents and equilibria in technology stocks". Computers & Mathematics with Applications. 44 (7): 979–995. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.199.4968 . doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(02)00208-0.
  8. ↑ Rich, Giles S. (1972). "Laying the Ghost of the 'Invention' Requirement". American Intellectual Property Law Quarterly Journal. 1 (1): 26–45, page 26.
  9. 1 2 Spulber, Daniel E. (2014). "Patents are the Foundation of the Market for Inventions" (PDF). Northwestern University School of Law. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 May 2014.
  10. ↑ Kitch, Edmund W. (1977). "The Nature and Function of the Patent System" (PDF). Journal of Law & Economics. 20 (2): 265–267, page 266. doi:10.1086/466903. S2CID   52235846. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2014. Retrieved 10 May 2014.
  11. ↑ Daily, James E.; Kieff, F. Scott (2013). "Anything Under The Sun Made By Humans: Patent Law Doctrines As Endogenous Institutions For Commercializing Innovation" (PDF). Emory Law Journal. 62 (4): 967–981, page 973 ff. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 May 2014.
  12. ↑ Hargreaves, Ian (2011). Digital opportunity: a review of intellectual property and growth: an independent report (PDF). London: Intellectual Property Office, United Kingdom. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 June 2011.
  13. ↑ Mansfield, Edwin (1986). "Patents and innovation: an empirical study" (PDF). Management Science. 32 (2): 173–181, page 180. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.2.173. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2014. Retrieved 10 May 2014.
  14. ↑ Boldrin, Michele; Levine, David K. (2013). "The Case Against Patents" (PDF). The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 27 (1): 3–22, page 3. doi:10.1257/jep.27.1.3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 September 2012.
  15. ↑ Torrance, Andrew W.; Tomlinson (2009). "Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts" (PDF). Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. 10: 130–168. SSRN   1411328. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2014. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
  16. 1 2 Torres, Fernando. "The Patent Value Guide: General Principles". Archived from the original on 16 January 2013.
  17. ↑ "What is a patent?". United States Patent and Trademark Office.
  18. 1 2 Reitzig, Markus (2003). "What determines patent value?-Insights from the semiconductor industry". Research Policy. 32 (1): 13–26. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00193-7.
  19. ↑ Sheremata, Willow A. (1997). "Barriers to innovation: A monopoly, network externalities, and the speed of innovation". The Antitrust Bulletin. 42 (4): 937–972, pages 962–963. doi:10.1177/0003603X9704200404. S2CID   168471276.
  20. ↑ Shapiro, Carl (1999). "Exclusivity in Network Industries" (PDF). George Mason Law Review. 7: 673–683, pages 675–677. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 July 2004.
  21. ↑ Park, Jae Hun (2010). Patents and Industry Standards. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. p.  147. ISBN   978-1-84980-011-2.
  22. ↑ Andersen, Birgitte; Rosli, Ainurul Afizah (2009). "Economic Strategies and Patent Governance of UK Software Firms: A Study on Financial Benefits, Reputation and Positioning" (PDF). 4th Annual Conference of the EPIP Association, Bologna, 24-25.09/2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2014. Retrieved 10 May 2014.
  23. ↑ Gambardella, Alfonso; et al. (9 May 2005). "Study on Evaluation the Knowledge Economy – What are Patents Actually Worth?" (PDF). European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 January 2007.
  24. 1 2 See for example: Pitkethly, Robert (1997), The Valuation of Patents: A review of patent valuation methods with consideration of option based methods and the potential for further research (PDF), Judge Institute Working Paper WP 21/97, Cambridge, England: The Judge Institute of Management Studies, archived (PDF) from the original on 16 January 2013; and Reitzig, Markus (2006). "Chapter 15: Valuing patents and patent portfolios from a corporate perspective: theoretical considerations, applied needs and future challenges". In Bosworth, Derek L.; Webster, Elizabeth (eds.). The Management of Intellectual Property . Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN   978-1-84542-112-0.
  25. ↑ See Aswath Damodaran: Applications Of Option Pricing Theory To Equity Valuation and Option Pricing Applications in Valuation; Fernando Torres MSc. Conceptual Patent Value Framework, The Patent Value Guide.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.