Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines the conceptualization of innovation as a public good using an empirical analysis of patent transfers. It proposes that patents make inventions both excludable and alienable, in contrast to secrecy which only makes them excludable. A survival analysis finds that 10% higher complexity of patent descriptions is associated with 9% higher patent transfer hazard. This suggests that inventors more often patent complex inventions for the alienability motive – as opposed to the excludability motive. Small inventors transfer their patents less likely, but they do so sooner than other inventors. This suggests that patents enable an exchange of inventions that would otherwise be kept secret, but small inventors may not benefit from this function disproportionately more than others. These findings have implications for the conceptualization of innovation.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call