Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:21:40.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Innovation Theory (II): Law and Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2017

Edited by
Stephen M. Maurer
Stephen M. Maurer
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

We investigate how liability rules and property rules protect intellectual property. Infringement might not be deterred under any of the enforcement regimes available. However, counterintuitively, a credible threat of infringement can actually benefit the patentholder. We compare the two doctrines of damages, lost profit (lost royalty) and unjust enrichment, and argue that unjust enrichment protects the patentholder better than lost royalty in the case of proprietary research tools. Both can be superior to a property rule, depending on how much delay is permitted before infringement is enjoined. For other proprietary products (end-user products, cost-reducing innovations), these conclusions can be reversed.

Type
Chapter
Information
On the Shoulders of Giants
Colleagues Remember Suzanne Scotchmer's Contributions to Economics
 , pp. 121 - 156
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Blair, R. D. and Cotter, T. E. “An Economic Analysis of Damages Rules in Intellectual Property Law.” William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 39 (1998), pp. 1585–1694.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. and Melamed, A. D. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral.” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85 (1972), pp. 1089–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, N.L “An Economic Approach to Patent Damages.” American Intellectual Property Law Assn. Quarterly Journal, Vol. 15 (1987), pp. 354–390.Google Scholar
Denicolò, V. “Two-Stage Patent Races and Patent Policy.” RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 31 (2000), pp. 488–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, R. S. “Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use.” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 56 (1989), pp. 1017–1055.Google Scholar
Green, J. R. and Scotchmer, S. “On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation.” RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 26 (1995), pp. 20–33.Google Scholar
Heller, M. A. and Eisenberg, R. S., “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research.” Science, Vol. 280 (1998), pp. 698–701.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavel, S. “Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis.” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 109 (1996), pp. 713–790.Google Scholar
Leitzel, J. “Reliance and Contract Breach.” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 52 (1989), pp. 87–106.Google Scholar
Merges, R P. “Contracting into Liability Rules Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations.” California Law Review, Vol. 94 (1996), pp. 1293–1393.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, S. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 (1991), pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, S., “Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products be Patentable?” RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 27 (1996), pp. 322–331.Google Scholar
United States Code Annotated, (USCA). Title 35: Patents. (USCA). St. Paul. Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1984 (updated 1998).Google Scholar

References

Adelman, Martin J., and Juenger, Friedrich K.. 1975. “Patent-Antitrust: Patent Dynamics and Field-of-Use Licensing,” 50 New York University Law Review 273–308.Google Scholar
American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law. 2002. The Federal Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property: Origins and Applications, 2nd ed. Chicago: ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip E., and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2003. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Baxter, William. 1966. “Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis,” 76 Yale Law Journal 267–370.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. 1965. “The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division,” 74 Yale Law Journal 775–847.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H.. 1978. The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War With Itself. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bowman, William S. 1973. Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chisum, Donald S. 2003. Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement. Newark, NJ, and San Francisco: Matthew Bender & Co.Google Scholar
Furth, Helmut F. 1958. “Price-Restrictive Patent Licenses Under the Sherman Act,” 71 Harvard Law Review 814–842.Google Scholar
Gifford, Daniel J. 2002. “The Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface: An Emerging Solution to an Intractable Problem,” 31 Hofstra Law Review 398–418.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark D., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2004. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Lewis. 1984. “The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal,” 97 Harvard Law Review 1813–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2003. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Donoghue, Ted, Scotchmer, Suzanne, and Thisse, Jacques. 1998. “Patent Breadth, Patent Life and the Pace of Technological Progress,” 7 Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 1–32.Google Scholar
Patterson, Mark R. 2002. “When is Property Intellectual: The Leveraging Problem,” 73 Southern California Law Review 1133–60.Google Scholar
Rey, Patrick, and Tirole, Jean. 2006. “A Primer on Foreclosure.” In Armstrong, M. and Porter, R., eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization III. Amsterdam: Elsevier (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Schlicher, John W. 2000. Patent Law: Legal and Economic Principles. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 1991. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law,” 5 Journal of Economic Perspectives 29–41.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 2004. Innovation and Incentives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl. 2003. “Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements,” 34 RAND Journal of Economics 391–411.Google Scholar
Weinschel, Alan J. 2000. Antitrust-Intellectual Property Handbook. Little Falls, NJ: Glasser LegalWorks.Google Scholar
Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation v. Stockham Valves and Fittings, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 893 (N.D. Ala. 1966).Google Scholar
California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999).Google Scholar
Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc., 72 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. U.S., 309 U.S. 436 (1940).Google Scholar
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 305 U.S. 124 (1938).Google Scholar
Hensley Equip. Co., Inc. v. Esco Corp., 383 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
Interstate Circuit v. U.S., 306 U.S. 208 (1939).Google Scholar
Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942).Google Scholar
Neal Report (White House Task Force Report on Antitrust Policy), Antitrust & Trade Regulation Reports 411 (Pt. 2) (1969).Google Scholar
Royal Industries v. St. Regis Paper Co., 420 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
Shapiro v. General Motors Corp., 472 F. Supp. 636 (D. Md. 1979).Google Scholar
Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jam. I, c.3 (1623)(Eng.).Google Scholar
U.S. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 F. Supp. 41 (D. Del. 1953).Google Scholar
U.S. v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Line Material Co., 333 US 287 (1948).Google Scholar
Adelman, Martin J., and Juenger, Friedrich K.. 1975. “Patent-Antitrust: Patent Dynamics and Field-of-Use Licensing,” 50 New York University Law Review 273–308.Google Scholar
American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law. 2002. The Federal Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property: Origins and Applications, 2nd ed. Chicago: ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip E., and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2003. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Baxter, William. 1966. “Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis,” 76 Yale Law Journal 267–370.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. 1965. “The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division,” 74 Yale Law Journal 775–847.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H.. 1978. The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War With Itself. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bowman, William S. 1973. Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chisum, Donald S. 2003. Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement. Newark, NJ, and San Francisco: Matthew Bender & Co.Google Scholar
Furth, Helmut F. 1958. “Price-Restrictive Patent Licenses Under the Sherman Act,” 71 Harvard Law Review 814–842.Google Scholar
Gifford, Daniel J. 2002. “The Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface: An Emerging Solution to an Intractable Problem,” 31 Hofstra Law Review 398–418.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark D., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2004. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Lewis. 1984. “The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal,” 97 Harvard Law Review 1813–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2003. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Donoghue, Ted, Scotchmer, Suzanne, and Thisse, Jacques. 1998. “Patent Breadth, Patent Life and the Pace of Technological Progress,” 7 Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 1–32.Google Scholar
Patterson, Mark R. 2002. “When is Property Intellectual: The Leveraging Problem,” 73 Southern California Law Review 1133–60.Google Scholar
Rey, Patrick, and Tirole, Jean. 2006. “A Primer on Foreclosure.” In Armstrong, M. and Porter, R., eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization III. Amsterdam: Elsevier (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Schlicher, John W. 2000. Patent Law: Legal and Economic Principles. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 1991. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law,” 5 Journal of Economic Perspectives 29–41.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 2004. Innovation and Incentives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl. 2003. “Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements,” 34 RAND Journal of Economics 391–411.Google Scholar
Weinschel, Alan J. 2000. Antitrust-Intellectual Property Handbook. Little Falls, NJ: Glasser LegalWorks.Google Scholar
Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation v. Stockham Valves and Fittings, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 893 (N.D. Ala. 1966).Google Scholar
California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999).Google Scholar
Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc., 72 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. U.S., 309 U.S. 436 (1940).Google Scholar
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 305 U.S. 124 (1938).Google Scholar
Hensley Equip. Co., Inc. v. Esco Corp., 383 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
Interstate Circuit v. U.S., 306 U.S. 208 (1939).Google Scholar
Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942).Google Scholar
Neal Report (White House Task Force Report on Antitrust Policy), Antitrust & Trade Regulation Reports 411 (Pt. 2) (1969).Google Scholar
Royal Industries v. St. Regis Paper Co., 420 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
Shapiro v. General Motors Corp., 472 F. Supp. 636 (D. Md. 1979).Google Scholar
Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jam. I, c.3 (1623)(Eng.).Google Scholar
U.S. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 F. Supp. 41 (D. Del. 1953).Google Scholar
U.S. v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Line Material Co., 333 US 287 (1948).Google Scholar
Adelman, Martin J., and Juenger, Friedrich K.. 1975. “Patent-Antitrust: Patent Dynamics and Field-of-Use Licensing,” 50 New York University Law Review 273–308.Google Scholar
American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law. 2002. The Federal Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property: Origins and Applications, 2nd ed. Chicago: ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip E., and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2003. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Baxter, William. 1966. “Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis,” 76 Yale Law Journal 267–370.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. 1965. “The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division,” 74 Yale Law Journal 775–847.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H.. 1978. The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War With Itself. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bowman, William S. 1973. Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chisum, Donald S. 2003. Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement. Newark, NJ, and San Francisco: Matthew Bender & Co.Google Scholar
Furth, Helmut F. 1958. “Price-Restrictive Patent Licenses Under the Sherman Act,” 71 Harvard Law Review 814–842.Google Scholar
Gifford, Daniel J. 2002. “The Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface: An Emerging Solution to an Intractable Problem,” 31 Hofstra Law Review 398–418.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark D., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2004. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Lewis. 1984. “The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal,” 97 Harvard Law Review 1813–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2003. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Donoghue, Ted, Scotchmer, Suzanne, and Thisse, Jacques. 1998. “Patent Breadth, Patent Life and the Pace of Technological Progress,” 7 Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 1–32.Google Scholar
Patterson, Mark R. 2002. “When is Property Intellectual: The Leveraging Problem,” 73 Southern California Law Review 1133–60.Google Scholar
Rey, Patrick, and Tirole, Jean. 2006. “A Primer on Foreclosure.” In Armstrong, M. and Porter, R., eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization III. Amsterdam: Elsevier (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Schlicher, John W. 2000. Patent Law: Legal and Economic Principles. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 1991. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law,” 5 Journal of Economic Perspectives 29–41.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne. 2004. Innovation and Incentives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl. 2003. “Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements,” 34 RAND Journal of Economics 391–411.Google Scholar
Weinschel, Alan J. 2000. Antitrust-Intellectual Property Handbook. Little Falls, NJ: Glasser LegalWorks.Google Scholar

Case and Statutory References

Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation v. Stockham Valves and Fittings, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 893 (N.D. Ala. 1966).Google Scholar
California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999).Google Scholar
Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc., 72 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. U.S., 309 U.S. 436 (1940).Google Scholar
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 305 U.S. 124 (1938).Google Scholar
Hensley Equip. Co., Inc. v. Esco Corp., 383 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
Interstate Circuit v. U.S., 306 U.S. 208 (1939).Google Scholar
Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942).Google Scholar
Neal Report (White House Task Force Report on Antitrust Policy), Antitrust & Trade Regulation Reports 411 (Pt. 2) (1969).Google Scholar
Royal Industries v. St. Regis Paper Co., 420 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
Shapiro v. General Motors Corp., 472 F. Supp. 636 (D. Md. 1979).Google Scholar
Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jam. I, c.3 (1623)(Eng.).Google Scholar
U.S. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 F. Supp. 41 (D. Del. 1953).Google Scholar
U.S. v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Line Material Co., 333 US 287 (1948).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×