Sequential Innovation and The Distribution of Profit: From Theory to Data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danxia Xie ◽  
Jinglei Huang
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Innovation

scholarly journals Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Bessen ◽  
Eric S. Maskin
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Innovation

Innovation in the Seed Market: The Role of IPRs and Commercialization Rules

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Baudry ◽  
Adrien Hervouet
Keyword(s):  
Product Differentiation ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Vertical Product Differentiation ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Sequential Innovation ◽  
Seed Market ◽  
Second Category ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Compulsory Registration

AbstractThis article deals with the impact of legal rules on incentives in the seeds sector to create new plant varieties. The first category of rules consists in intellectual property rights and is intended to address a problem of sequential innovation and R&D effort. The second category concerns commercial rules that are intended to correct a problem of adverse selection. We propose a dynamic model of market equilibrium with vertical product differentiation that enables us to take into account the economic consequences of imposing either Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBRs) or patents as IPRs and either compulsory registration in a catalog or minimum standards as commercialization rules. The main result is that the combination of catalog registration and PBRs adopted in Europe is hardly supported by the model calibrated on data for wheat in France.

Sequential Innovation and Patent Policy

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Parra
Keyword(s):  
Patent Policy ◽  
Sequential Innovation

scholarly journals Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Network Effects ◽  
Software Industry ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Sequential Innovation ◽  
Reverse Engineer ◽  
Prior Art ◽  
Software Patents ◽  
Software Patent ◽  
Experimental Use

Software patents have received a great deal of attention in the academicliterature. Unfortunately, most of that attention has been devoted to theproblem of whether software is or should be patentable subject matter. Withroughly 40,000 software patents already issued, and the Federal Circuitendorsing patentability without qualification, those questions are for thehistory books. The more pressing questions now concern the scope to beaccorded software patents. In this paper, we examine the implications ofsome traditional patent law doctrines for innovation in the softwareindustry. We argue that patent law needs some refinement if it is topromote rather than impede the growth of this new market, which ischaracterized by rapid sequential innovation, reuse and re-combination ofcomponents, and strong network effects that privilege interoperablecomponents and products. In particular, we argue for two sorts of new rulesin software patent cases.First, we advocate a limited right to reverse engineer patented computerprograms in order to gain access to and study those programs and toduplicate their unprotected elements. Such a right is firmly established incopyright law, and seems unexceptional as a policy matter even in patentlaw. But because patent law contains no fair use or reverse engineeringexemption, patentees could use the grant of rights on a single component ofa complex program to prevent any "making" or "using" of the program as awhole, including those temporary uses needed in reverse engineering. Whilepatent law does contain doctrines of "experimental use" and "exhaustion,"it is not at all clear that those doctrines will protect legitimate reverseengineering efforts. We suggest that if these doctrines cannot be readbroadly enough to establish such a right, Congress should create a limitedright to reverse engineer software containing patented components forresearch purposes.Second, we argue that in light of the special nature of innovation withinthe software industry, courts should apply the doctrine of equivalentsnarrowly in infringement cases. The doctrine of equivalents allows afinding of infringement even when the accused product does not literallysatisfy each element of the patent, if there is substantial equivalence asto each element. The test of equivalence is the known interchangeability ofclaimed and accused elements at the time of (alleged) infringement. Anumber of factors unique to software and the software industry - a cultureof reuse and incremental improvement, a lack of reliance on systems offormal documentation used in other technical fields, the short effectivelife of software innovations, and the inherent plasticity of code -severely complicate post hoc assessments of the "known interchangeability"of software elements. A standard for equivalence of code elements thatignores these factors risks stifling legitimate, successful efforts todesign around existing software patents. To avoid this danger, courtsshould construe software claims narrowly, and should refuse a finding ofequivalence if the accused element is "interchangeable" with prior art thatshould have narrowed the original patent, or if the accused improvement istoo many generations removed from the original invention.

scholarly journals Cost–benefit model for multi-generational high-technology products to compare sequential innovation strategy with quality strategy

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249124
Author(s):  
Hyoung Jun Kim ◽  
Su Jung Jee ◽  
So Young Sohn
Keyword(s):  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Innovation Strategy ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Sequential Innovation ◽  
Technology Products ◽  
Innovative Products ◽  
New Generation

In the rapidly changing high-tech industry, firms that produce multi-generational products struggle to consistently introduce new products that are superior in innovativeness. However, developing innovative products in a short time sequence period is likely to cause quality problems. Therefore, considering time and resource constraints, two kinds of strategies are commonly employed: sequential innovation strategy, sequentially introducing a new generation of technology product at every launch interval, ensuring timely innovativeness but with relatively uncertain quality, or quality strategy, intermittently introducing a new generation of products, together with a derivative model between generations to enhance the quality. In this study, we propose a framework for a cost–benefit analysis that compares these two strategies by considering competition between firms within a generation as well as that within a firm across multiple generations (i.e., cannibalization) throughout the launch cycle of high-tech products. We apply our proposed framework to the smartphone market and conduct a sensitivity analysis. The results are expected to contribute to strategic decision-making related to the introduction of multi-generational technology products.

scholarly journals Patent policy, patent pools, and the accumulation of claims in sequential innovation

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 703-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gastón Llanes ◽  
Stefano Trento
Keyword(s):  
Patent Policy ◽  
Patent Pools ◽  
Sequential Innovation

scholarly journals An optimal rule for patent damages under sequential innovation

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongmin Chen ◽  
David E.M. Sappington
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Rule ◽  
Sequential Innovation

scholarly journals Sequential innovation, patent policy, and the dynamics of the replacement effect

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 568-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Álvaro Parra
Keyword(s):  
Patent Policy ◽  
Sequential Innovation

Integrated Product Architecture and Pricing for Managing Sequential Innovation

2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (11) ◽  
pp. 2040-2053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vish Krishnan ◽  
Karthik Ramachandran
Keyword(s):  
Product Architecture ◽  
Sequential Innovation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document