Peripheral Disclosure

Rantanen, Jason

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1907360

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Innovation-related Justifications For Npes1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, one must also transfer things like know-how, complementary assets, and other peripheral disclosures (Bessen 2015;Teece 1986;Rantanen 2012). Thus, if patents actually drive innovation by third parties, we would expect to see not just the transfer of a patent license, but also the transfer of other types of information assets.…”

Section: Innovation-related Justifications For Npesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent Licensing, Technology Transfer, and Innovation

Lemley¹,

Feldman

2016

American Economic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional justifications for patents are based on direct or indirect contribution to product creation. Non-practicing entities (NPEs) might provide such innovation, either directly, through working the patent or transfer of technology to others who do, or indirectly, when others copy. Available evidence suggests, however, that ex post licensing demands from NPEs do not normally involve these activities. Some have argued that patents are valuable without01/technology transfer because the ability to exclude may drive commercialization that would not otherwise occur. We demonstrate that even if commercialization theories sometimes justify patent protection, they cannot justify most NPE lawsuits or licensing demands.

show abstract

Section: Innovation-related Justifications For Npesmentioning

confidence: 99%