scholarly journals Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts *

2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
pp. 317-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Galasso ◽  
Mark Schankerman
Keyword(s):  
Small Firms ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Random Allocation ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Medical Instruments ◽  
Cumulative Innovation ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Cumulative innovation is central to economic growth. Do patent rights facilitate or impede follow-on innovation? We study the causal effect of removing patent rights by court invalidation on subsequent research related to the focal patent, as measured by later citations. We exploit random allocation of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to control for endogeneity of patent invalidation. Patent invalidation leads to a 50% increase in citations to the focal patent, on average, but the impact is heterogeneous and depends on characteristics of the bargaining environment. Patent rights block downstream innovation in computers, electronics, and medical instruments, but not in drugs, chemicals, or mechanical technologies. Moreover, the effect is entirely driven by invalidation of patents owned by large patentees that triggers more follow-on innovation by small firms.

Shrouded Prices and Firm Reputation: Evidence from the U.S. Hotel Industry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bennett Chiles
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Hotel Industry ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Firm Reputation ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Online Travel ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The U.S

Firms in many industries engage in price obfuscation—tactics that intentionally make prices more difficult for consumers to discern. Although existing research has focused on the short-term financial gains that motivate firms to obfuscate, reputational concerns may at least partially counteract these incentives if consumers punish deceptive firms via loss of loyalty in future transactions and/or publicly observable negative feedback. This paper addresses the latter possibility, exploring the impact of mandatory shrouded surcharges on firm reputation in the U.S. hotel industry. Using data collected from two major online travel sites, I exploit differences in surcharge disclosure across booking channels to identify the causal effect of hidden “resort fees” on traveler ratings. I find that hidden fees decrease ratings by roughly 0.15 points (on a rating scale ranging from 1 to 5). The magnitude of this effect varies based on firm characteristics, and this variation is consistent with observed heterogeneity in resort fee adoption patterns: when the expected punishment is more severe, firms are substantially less likely to adopt shrouded surcharges. Results shed light on the extent to which reputational mechanisms may act as a check against price obfuscation and other similar practices intended to exploit boundedly rational consumers. This paper was accepted by Eric Anderson, marketing.

The Seeds of Dispute: Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company et al.

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 579-585
Author(s):  
Emanuela Gambini
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Monsanto Company ◽  
The U.S

In May 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company et al. in favor of Monsanto Company, affirming the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and holding that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.This case note gives a brief overview of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, in which the meaning and limits of the doctrine of patent exhaustion have been examined, and discusses its implications for farmers and seed companies.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document