Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: In this paper we contribute to the discussion on whether intellectual property rights foster or hinder innovation by means of a laboratory experiment. We introduce a novel Scrabble-like creativity task that captures most essentialities of a sequential innovation process. We use this task to investigate the effects of intellectual property allowing subjects to assign license fees to their innovations. We find intellectual property to have an adversely effect on welfare as innovations become less frequent and less sophisticated. Communication among innovators is not able to prevent this detrimental effect. Introducing intellectual property results in more basic innovations and subjects fail to exploit the most valuable sequential innovation paths. Subjects act more self-reliant and non-optimally in order to avoid paying license fees. Our results suggest that granting intellectual property rights hinders innovations, especially for sectors characterized by a strong sequentiality in innovation processes.
Documents in EconStor may
IntroductionThe question whether society should grant intellectual property (IP) rights to innovators has been discussed widely in economics, law and politics. In this paper we contribute to the debate by means of a controlled real-effort laboratory experiment involving creativity. We introduce a novel design that allows us to create counterfactual situations and test directly the effects of IP rights on the innovation rate and welfare of a laboratory economy.The issues of what are the optimal extent and nature of IP rights have been long debated, but neither theoretical nor empirical research has provided a final answer. Theoretical results cut both ways. Conventional wisdom is largely derived from static models, and does not robustly survive in dynamic, sequential innovation models that best describe sectors characterized by cumulative research (Scotchmer 1991). The question of IP in dynamic, sequential models has been raised by several theoretical studies. They tend to offer a less positive view of the effect of IP on the rate of innovations and thus aggregate welfare. Green and Scotchmer (1995) study the division of profits between sequential innovators and suggest that it is desirable to minimize patent life. Moschini and Yerokhin (2008) In this paper we exploit the unique characteristic of laboratory experiments of allowing to easily build counterfactual situations while retaining control...
Both a vision for future scholarship and a slogan for university restructuring, interdisciplinarity promises to break through barriers to address today's complex challenges. Yet even high-stakes projects often falter, undone by contradictory incentives, bureaucratic frameworks, communication breakdowns, and the strong feelings raised by urgent social debates. Jumping into collaborative research without preparation or ongoing attention, researchers often fall back on disciplinary habits and raise disciplinary defenses. Above all, there is never enough time. Born of six years' experience in the Göttingen Interdisciplinary Working Group on Cultural Property, this book examines social research as social process, identifying characteristic challenges of funded interdisciplinary projects: the clash of positivist, interpretivist, and normative approaches, the hierarchies and personalities among researchers, and the interaction of academic knowledge work with the common sense of social problems. While calling for reforms in research policy and administration, the book's immediate goal is to help researchers make the most of existing conditions. Drawing on economistic models of exchange and anthropological accounts of play and ritual, six chapters trace the life cycle of an interdisciplinary project--a temporary community of practice partially removed from everyday academic life--from its initial formulation to closure and aftermath. A seventh chapter provides recommendations for funders, administrators, principal investigators, and junior researchers. Reflexive attention to the research process can shepherd interaction across disciplines and capture insights as they emerge.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.