Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: Origins, content and problems

Abstract Major changes have been made over the past 20 years in the US intellectual property rights regime. These include the fact that the regime has been opened up to software patents and to business models, on one hand, and to living entities on the other—all within a general environment marked by the relaxation of patentability criteria. They have resulted in major changes in the US system of innovation—more specifically in the increasing privatisation of knowledge domains and activities that were previously public. The changes result from the combined effects of a response to US perceptions of increased foreign competition, of the emergence of major new technological opportunities in biotechnology and ICT, and of a series of regulatory changes that have paved the way for the financial sector’s increased involvement, via direct investments in firms whose main activity is comprised of R&D. Contemporary doubts about the viability of these changes reflect, the harmful long-term economic effect of the privatisation of basic knowledge (especially in the biopharmaceutical sector) and the difficulties that the financial sector has faced in ensuring the sustainability of the necessary pre-conditions that allow for the development of innovation.

[1]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the Us Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94 , 1999 .

[2]  Les conflits juridiques liés à la propriété industrielle : le cas de l'industrie pharmaceutique et biotechnologique , 2002 .

[3]  A. Jaffe The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process , 2000 .

[4]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[5]  A. Rai Fostering Cumulative Innovation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Role of Patents and Antitrust , 2002 .

[6]  Gary Rhoades,et al.  The Emergence of a Competitiveness Research and Development Policy Coalition and the Commercialization of Academic Science and Technology , 1996 .

[7]  Stanley M. Besen,et al.  An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property , 1991 .

[8]  W. Lazonick,et al.  Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance , 2000 .

[9]  V A McKusick,et al.  Mapping and sequencing the human genome. , 1989, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Atul Wad,et al.  Technology assessment , 1984 .

[11]  R. Nelson The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[12]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[13]  R. Nelson National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

[14]  Richard Florida,et al.  Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States , 1999 .

[15]  Eric Maskin,et al.  Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation , 2000 .

[16]  Robert P. Merges,et al.  As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform , 1999 .

[17]  Paul A. Gompers Grandstanding in the venture capital industry , 1996 .

[18]  I. Liotard La brevetabilite des logiciels: les etapes cles de l'evolution jurisprudentielle aux Etats-Unis: les etapes cles de l'evolution jurisprudentielle aux Etats-Unis , 2002 .

[19]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[20]  K. Pavitt What makes basic research economically useful , 1991 .

[21]  R. Nelson,et al.  On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope , 1990 .

[22]  E. Kitch,et al.  The Nature and Function of the Patent System , 1977, The Journal of Law and Economics.