Agricultural Biotechnology's Complementary Intellectual Assets

We formulate and test a hypothesis for the dramatic restructuring that the plant breeding and seed industry has recently undergone: the reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit complementarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically modified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on agricultural biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets has increased under the consolidation of the industry.

[1]  Calyampudi R. Rao,et al.  Count Data Models for Financial Data , 1996 .

[2]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[3]  W. Lesser.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CONCENTRATION IN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY , 1998 .

[4]  B. Spilker,et al.  Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s , 1996 .

[5]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth , 1979 .

[6]  S. Athey,et al.  An Empirical Framework for Testing Theories About Complimentarity in Organizational Design , 1998 .

[7]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[8]  A. Krattiger.  Insect Resistance in Crops : A Case Study of Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) and its Transfer to Developing Countries , 2022 .

[9]  A. Arora,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY AND EXTERNAL LINKAGES: THE STRATEGIES OF THE LARGE FIRMS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY* , 1990 .

[10]  S. Mladenović-Drinić,et al.  Agricultural biotechnology: Status and prospective , 2003 .

[11]  Brian D. Wright.  Challenges for Public Agricultural Research and Extension in a World of Proprietary Science and Technology , 2001 .

[12]  G. Rausser.  Private/Public Research: Knowledge Assets and Future Scenarios , 1999 .

[13]  A. Arora,et al.  Markets for Technology (Why Do We See Them, Why Don't We See More of Them, and Why Should We Care) , 1999 .

[14]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship , 1984 .

[15]  R. Zeckhauser.  The challenge of contracting for technological information. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Peter Goss.  Guiding the Hand That Feeds: Toward Socially Optimal Appropriability in Agricultural Biotechnology Innovation , 1996 .

[17]  Henry I. Miller,et al.  U.S. agricultural biotechnology: Status and prospects , 1995 .

[18]  John H. Barton,et al.  The Impact of Contemporary Patent Law on Plant Biotechnology Research , 1998 .

[19]  G. Pisano.  The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis , 1990 .

[20]  F. Ghodsian.  Acquisition as a best-case scenario , 1995, Bio/Technology.

[21]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[22]  Peter W. B. Phillips,et al.  The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights in the Agricultural Biotechnology Sector , 2000 .

[23]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .

[24]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Reversal of Fortune? The Recovery of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry , 1998 .

[25]  A. Arora.  Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights And The Market For Know-How , 1995 .

[26]  W. Lesser.  Assessing the Implications of Intellectual Property Rights on Plant and Animal Agriculture , 1997 .