jump to navigation

Do Patents Increase Innovation? October 31, 2008

Posted by keithsawyer in New research.
Tags: , , , , , ,
trackback

The answer, according to a new study, is NO.

There’s a lot of evidence that property rights in general lead to more successful economies: countries that have laws to protect individual property owners experience more rapid economic growth.  Some economists have argued that this should hold true for strong patents, too–after all, a patent is a property right, just like owning a farm or a house.  But even though strong property rights lead to higher growth, that’s not true for strong intellectual property rights.

A recent paper by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer* collects a wide range of evidence.

Historical evidence: Most patents are granted in industries that demonstrate little innovation.  Through the 19th century, most inventions were not even patented (only 11% of British inventions displayed at the 1851 World’s Fair, for example).  A study of important innovations at the 1851 and 1876 world’s fairs found that countries with patent systems weren’t any more innovative than countries without.

Cross-country evidence: An “intellectual property rights index” was calculated for each country, and there was no relation between a country’s score on this index and its economic growth.  Increasing IP rights tend to be correlated with R&D spending, but it turns out the causality goes the other way: first a country starts spending more on R&D, and then later they increase IP rights strength.

Natural “economic experiments”: Following changes in IP law, what happens historically?  Japan increased patent scope in 1988, and this has not resulted in greater innovation nor in increased R&D spending (beyond what would have been expected without that change).  The U.S. changed its treatment of software inventions in the 1990s, but this did not result in an increase in patents by software firms.  (Instead, patents went up in companies known for “stockpiling large arsenals of patents to use as bargaining chips”.)

Surveys of companies find that most inventions are not patented; instead, companies rely on trade secrets and on their first-to-market advantage, or on complementary products and services.

The one exception is pharmaceutical companies, where patent protection seems to increase innovation.  But for other industries, it turns out that the costs of getting, enforcing, and defending a patent are much higher than the profits to be earned from it.  In 1999, for example, the total profits from patents in all U.S. public firms (excluding pharma) was about $3 billion, but their litigation costs associated with those patents were a whopping $12 billion!

The authors’ conclusion?  “in most industries today, patents may actually discourage investment in innovation.”

*Bessen & Meurer, August 2008, “Do patents perform like property?” Academy of Management Perspectives, pp. 8-20.

Comments»

1. Michael Plishka - November 1, 2008

Wow, amazing study. However, I would agree that it’s been my experience that patents are used primarily strategically and often innovation suffers.

2. keithsawyer - November 1, 2008

I was surprised, too. There has been so much action in Congress surrounding patent reform and I never see these empirical studies cited by the lawmakers.

3. CoCreatr - November 7, 2008

Finally a substantiated confirmation of what was Hasslberger speculated a decade earlier. Hyperlink at

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Legal:To_Patent_or_Not_to_Patent_a_Free_Energy_Technology

4. ResultsON » Blog » Patentes não têm a ver com desenvolvimento - November 7, 2008

[...] Rafael Bucco} O pessoal do Creativity & Innovation fez um post interessante sobre como o número de patentes emitidos em uma economia não tem [...]

5. keithsawyer - November 7, 2008

I didn’t know of Hasslberger so I followed the link on the peswiki page about patents, here is the short proposal by Hasslberger from 1989:

http://www.hasslberger.com/pat/pate_1.htm

He advocates getting the government out of the business of enforcing patents, having them only file patents and having, for example, a private nonprofit association of inventors collect royalties and distribute them (on the model of how ASCAP and BMG collect royalties for public performances of songs).

6. Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest November 9, 2008 - November 9, 2008

[...] Do Patents Increase Innovation? by Keith Sawyer [...]

7. Dan Eustace - December 11, 2008

Hi Keith,

Thank you for an interesting entry. What do you think of larger companies forming patent protection alliances?

Google, Verizon, HP, Cisco Systems and Ericsson are thought to have come together to form the Allied Security Trust. The aim of the trust is to buy up patents before they are acquired by third parties and bypass the legal action completely.

Each member will pay around $250,000 to join the group and then a further $5 million to put towards buying intellectual property rights. It is unknown whether other tech companies will be able to join the trust.

The trust bypasses any antitrust issues because it is a non-profit venture and the companies involved just license the patents rather than owning them. Once licensed they also intend to sell the patents.”

Read more at The Wall Street Journal geek.com blog site its the reference “What large companies are afraid of is innovation by small companies and individual inventors. Both the Allied Security Trust and Intellectual Ventures are mechanisms invented by large companies to make them safe from small, disruptive newcomers. Both enable large companies to buy up patents that might pose potential threats, and get them out of the hands of small firms and individuals.” Jim Moore’s blog.

Rather than sending several links, one is sent that contains the text and links mentioned above.

http://blog.nesacs.org/?p=269

keithsawyer - December 11, 2008

Allied Security Trust sounds a lot like Intellectual Ventures (which has been around since 2000 and has received a lot of media attention because of its famous founder, Nathan Myhrvold, former CTO of Microsoft). However, they both claim to be the good guys, playing only on defense: buying up patents to make sure that they don’t get sued by someone else, and swearing they won’t take “patent assertions against other companies” (that’s from the AST web site). The concern about Intellectual Ventures has always been that they might one day change their minds about that, but as long as their strategy is defensive, I’m fine with that because it’s consistent with my view that overly aggressive patent enforcement blocks innovation.

8. Blog Instituto Inovação » Patentes e Inovação - December 19, 2008

[...] como um indicador do tanto que uma instituição é inovadora, o consenso que existe entre os estudiosos do tema é que apesar desse poder ser um indicador, ele não deve o [...]

9. Peter James - January 22, 2010

Most of the evidence in this study shows that innovation does not lead to patenting, not the other way around. Surely the only evidence which could disprove the causal link between increased patenting and increased innovation would be an in depth comparison of national R+D expenditure and the number of innovations and inventions regardless of how effectively they have been exploited.

10. biber hapı - June 5, 2010

Wow, amazing study. However, I would agree that it’s been my experience that patents are used primarily strategically and often innovation suffers.

11. chat - June 5, 2010

haha very goods post !

12. indi.ca » Patents Increase Litigation, Not Innovation - August 1, 2011

[...] often taken as a tautology, but there’s precious little evidence that patents are correlated with innovation. The only thing they seem to be correlated with is more [...]

13. keithsawyer - August 24, 2011

The Economist (August 20, 2011, p. 10) cites this 2008 study of the costs of patents, in a story about Google’s purchase of Motorola for its patent pool of 17,000 patents. Google paid $12.5 billion, essentially to defend themselves from patent litigation. I agree with the Economist that this seems to provide additional support to this 2008 research.

14. matt - January 23, 2013

This software patent business seems a bit like nuclear cold war to me large corporations buying up huge stockpiles of nuclear “patents” and waiting just incase they need to defend themselves in a patent war. When the real solution like in the real world is to dismantle all of the patents and stop holding them over everyone’s heads just in case.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 526 other followers

%d bloggers like this: