Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia

Wcześniej: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia

ISSN: 2450-7741     eISSN: 2300-4460     DOI: 10.18276/frfu.2016.79-25
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Lista wydań / 1/2016 (79)
Patent Policy in an Innovation Driven Economy: Schumpeter’s “Innovation Wave” Perspective
(Polityka patentowa w gospodarce opartej na innowacyjności: perspektywa schumpeterowskiej fali innowacji)

Autorzy: Karol Śledzik
Słowa kluczowe: patent polityka innowacja gospodarka
Rok wydania:2016
Liczba stron:12 (327-338)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:


Cel – W artykule wykorzystano Schumpeterowską teorię innowacji w odniesieniu do współczesnej polityki patentowej. Przeprowadzona analiza teoretyczna kształtu współczesnej polityki patentowej uwzględniała zagadnienia dotyczące możliwości rozwoju lub ograniczania rozwoju gospodarki opartej na innowacyjności. Celem artykułu była odpowiedź na pytanie: Czy współczesna polityka patentowa ma konstruktywny czy destruktywny wpływ na gospodarkę oparta na innowacyjności? Metodyka badania – Autor opracowania dokonał przeglądu literatury przedmiotu oraz zaproponował koncepcję „Krzywej Fali Patentowej”. Wynik – W części pierwszej artykułu przeanalizowano role polityki patentowej w gospodarce z uwzględnieniem działalności negatywnej pewnej grupy przedsiębiorstw. W drugiej części opierając się na teorii innowacyjności J.A. Schumpetera oraz teorii „wyścigów patentowych” uwzględniono w rozważaniach drastyczny wzrost aplikacji do urzędów patentowych. Sugestią autora artykułu jest aby podczas debat ekonomicznych dotyczących polityki patentowej zmienić punkt nacisku z eliminacji niepożądanych w gospodarce podmiotów na eliminację destruktywnych zachowań systemowych. Oryginalność/wartość – W artykule autor zaprezentował koncepcję „Krzywej Fali Patentowej”. Koncepcja oparta jest o założenia „kreatywnej destrukcji” Schumpetera oraz teorii „wyścigów patentowych”. Koncepcja ma o tyle istotne znaczenie ponieważ nasiliła się ostatnimi czasy działalność spółek typu NPE oraz PAE wraz ze zintensyfikowaną działalnością w ramach aplikacji do urzędów patentowych.
Pobierz plik

Plik artykułu


1.Amara N., Landry R., Traore N. (2008), Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services, “Research Policy” vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1530–1547.
2.Arora A., (1997), Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry, “Research Policy” vol. 26, no. 4–5), pp. 391–403.
3.Arrow K.J., (1962), Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in: The rate and direction of inventive activity. Economic and social factors, ed. R. Nelson, Princeton University Press, New York, pp. 609–626.
4.Arundel A., Van de Paal G., Soete L., (1995), PACE report: innovation strategies of Europe’s largest industrial firms, MERIT, Maastricht.
5.Arundel A. (2001), The Relative Effectiveness of Patents and Secrecy for Appropriation, “Research Policy”, pp. 611–624.
6.Agarwal R, Gort M. (2001), First mover advantage and the speed of competitive entry, 1887–1986, “Journal of Law & Economics” vol. 44, pp. 161–177 (April).
7.Baker S., Mezzetti C., (2005), Disclosure as a Strategy in the Patent Race, “The Journal of Law and Economics” vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 173–194.
8.Beldiman D. (2012), Patent Choke Points in the Influenza-Related Medicines Industry: Can Patent Pools Provide Balanced Access?, “Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property Fall” vol. 15, pp. 31–60.
9.Belleflamme P. (2014), Patent races: pros and cons, IPdigIT, November 2014, available at:
10.Bessen J., Ford J., Meurer M. (2011), The private and social costs of patent trolls, Boston University School of Law Working Paper no. 11–45.
11.Blind K., Edler J., Frietsch R., Schmoch U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany, “Research Policy” vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 655–672.
12.Blind K., Cremers K., Mueller E. (2009), The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios, “Research Policy” vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 428–436.
13.Cohen W.M., Nelson R., Walsh J. (2000), Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not), Working paper series 7552, NBER, Cambridge.
14.Cohen W.M., Goto A., Nagata, A., Nelson R.R., Walsh J. (2002), R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States, “Research Policy” vol. 31, pp. 1349–1367.
15.Cotropia C.A., Kesan J.P., Schwartz D. (2014), Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), “Minnesota Law Review” vol. 99, iss. 2/3, pp. 649–703.
16.Christensen J.L. (2008), The IPR System, Venture Capital and Capital Markets – Contributions and Distortions of Small Firm Innovation?, DRUID Working Paperno.08-03.
17.Duguet E., Kabla I. (1998). Appropriation Strategy and the Motivations to Use the Patent System: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing, Annales d’E´ conomie et de Statistique 49/50, pp. 289–327.
18.Eaton J., Kortum S. (1999), International technology diffusion: Theory and measurement, “International Economic Review” vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 537–570.
19.Etkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. (ed.) (1997), Universities in the global knowledge economy: a co-evolution of university – industry – government relations. Cassel, London
20.Falvey R., Foster N., Greenaway D. (2006) Intellectual property rights and economic growth, “Review of Development Economics” vol. 10, pp. 700–719.
21.Fukugawa N. (2009), Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centers in Japan, “Technovation” vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 885–892.
22.Gallini N.T. (1992), Patent Policy and Costly Imitation, “The RAND Journal of Economics” vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 52–63.
23.Gick W. (2008), Little Firms and Big Patents: A Model of Small-Firm Patent Signaling, “Journal of Economics and Management Strategy” vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 913–935.
24.Goh A.L. (2005), Towards an innovation-driven economy through industrial policy-making: An evolutionary analysis of Singapore, “The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal” vol. 10, no. 3, p. 34.
25.Golden J.M. (2007), Patent trolls and patent remedies, “Texas Law Review” vol. 85, pp. 2111–2161.
26.Graham S.J., Sichelman T.M., Hall B. (2008), Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, “Berkeley Technology Law Journal” vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1063–1097.
27.Granstrand O. (2000), The economics and management of intellectual property: Towards intellectual capitalism, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
28.Grupp H. (2007), Typology of science and technology indicators, in: Elgar companion to Neo-Schumpeterian economics, eds. H. Hanusch, A. Pyka, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.
29.Hall B. (2005), Exploring the patent explosion, “Journal of Technology Transfer” vol. 30, pp. 35–48.
30.Hall B., Ziedonis R. (2001), The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995, “Rand Journal of Economics” vol. 32, pp. 101–128.
31.Henkel J., Jell F. (2011), Patent Pending – Why Faster Isn’t Always Better, SSRN Working Paper no. 1738912.
32.Henkel J., Pangerl S.M. (2008). Defensive Publishing – An Empirical Study, SSRN Working Paper no. 981444.
33.Hemphill T.A. (2014). Patent assertion entities: do they impede innovation and technology commercialization, “Technology Analysis & Strategic Management” vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 717–731.
34.Hoenen S., Kolympiris C., Schoenmakers W., Kalaitzandonakes N. (2014), The diminishing signaling value of patents between early rounds of venture capital financing, “Research Policy” vol. 43, iss. 6, pp. 956–989. 34p
35.Hounshell D.A., Smith J.K. (1988), Science and corporate strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902–1980, Cambridge University Press.
36.Hughes J. (1988), The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Georgetown Law Journal 287.
37.Hytonen H., Jarimo T., Salo A., Yli-Juuti E. (2011), Markets for standardized technologies: Patent licensing with principle of proportionality, “Technovation” vol. 32, iss. 9–10, pp. 523–535.
38.Jaffe A. (2000), The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process, “Research Policy” vol. 29, pp. 531–557.
39.Jell F., Henkel J. (2010), Patent Portfolio Races in Concentrated Markets for Technology, DRUID Working Paper no. 10–23.
40.Kaufer E. (1989), The Economics of the Patent System, Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.
41.Kiebzak S., Rafert G., Tucker C.E. (2016), The effect of patent litigation and patent assertion entities on entrepreneurial activity, “Research Policy” vol. 45, pp. 218–231.
42.Kieff F.S. (2007), On Coordinating Transactions in Information: A Response to Smith’s Delineating Entitlements in Information, 117 Yale Law .Journal, Pocket Part 101.
43.Kieff F.S. (2006), Property & Intellectual Property: An Unconventional Approach to Anticompetitive Effects & Downstream Access, 56 Emory Law Journal. 327.
44.Kieff F.S. (2003), The Case for Registering Patents and the Law and Economics of Present Patent-Obtaining Rules, 45 Boston College Law Review 55.
45.Kleinkneht A. (1986), Long waves, Depression and innovation, “De Economist” vol. 134, Nr. 1.
46.Kortum S., Lerner J. (1999), What is behind the recent surge in patenting?, “Research Policy” vol. 28, pp. 1–22.
47.Lamb D., Easton S.M. (1984), Multiple Discovery: The Pattern of Scientific Progress, Avebury Publishing Company: Avebury, England.
48.Landes W.M., Posner R.A. (2003), The economic structure of intellectual property law, Cambridge, Mass. The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.
49.Lee J.S., Wang J.C. (2003), Public policies for the promotion of an innovation-driven economy in Taiwan, “International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management” vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 227–248.
50.Lemley M.A., Shapiro C. (2007), Patent holdup and royalty stacking, “Texas Law Review” vol. 85, pp. 1991–2048.
51.Lemley M.A., Shapiro C. (2005), Probabilistic patents, “Journal of Economic Perspectives” vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 75–98.
52.Lemley M.A. (2012), The myth of the sole inventor, “Michigan Law Review” vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 709–760.
53.Levin R.C., Klevorick A.K., Nelson R.R., Winter S.G., Gilbert R., Griliches Z. (1987), Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development, “Brookings Papers on Economic Activity” vol. 3, pp. 783–831.
54.Long C. (2002). Patent Signals, “The University of Chicago Law Review” vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 625–679.
55.Mann R.J. (2005), Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?, “Texas Law Review” vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 961–1030.
56.Mansfield E., Schwartz M., Wagner S. (1981), Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study, “The Economic Journal” vol. 91, no. 364, pp. 907–918.
57.Mayhew A. (1980), Schumpeterian capitalism versus the “Schumpeterian Thesis”, “Journal of Economic” vol. 14, in: J.C. WOOD (ed.) (1991), Joseph A. Schumpeter: Critical Assessments, Vol. III, London: Routledge.
58.Merges R.P., Nelson R. (1990), On the complex economics of patent scope, “The Columbia Law Review” vol. 90, pp. 839–916.
59.Meurer M.J. (2009), Patent Examination Priorities, “William & Mary Law Review” vol. 51, iss. 2.
60.Meurer M.J., Bessen J.E. (2012), The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, “Cornell Law Review” vol. 387.
61.Mossoff A. (2007), Patents as Constitutional Private Property: The Historical Protection of Patents under the Takings Clause, 87 B.U. L. Rev. 689.
62.Metcalfe J.S. (2007), Policy for innovation, in: Elgar companion to Neo-Schumpeterian economics, eds. H. Hanusch, A. Pyka, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.
63.Nordhaus W.D. (1969), Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. Cambridge, Mass.
64.Parchomovsky G., Wagner R.P. (2005), Patent Portfolios, “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” vol. 154, no. 1.
65.Pohlman T., Optiz M. (2013), Typology of the patent troll business, “R&D Management” vol. 43, no. 2.
66.Rassenfosse G., Guellec D., van Pottelsberghe de La Potterie B. (2008), Motivations to Patent: Empirical Evidence from an International Survey, Working Paper, ECARES.
67.Reitzig M. (2004), The Private Values of ’Thickets’ and ’Fences’: Towards an Updated Picture of the Use of Patents across Industries, “Economics of Innovation and New Technology” vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 457–476.
68.Reitzig M., Henkel J., Heath C.H. (2007), On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey – unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of ‘being infringed’, “Research Policy” vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 134–154.
69.Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., Schneider, F., (2010), Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: How patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change 19 (3), 947–967.
70.Sadkowska J. (2009), Evaluating Business Innovation Performance in case of non – R&D Innovators, Scientific Journal “Regional Development” vol. 3, Szczecin, (iss. May 2010), pp. 17–24.
71.Schumpeter J.A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, 2 volumes, New York.
72.Schumpeter J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edition, London: George Allen and Unwin.
73.Schumpeter J.A. (1954), History of economic analysis, Taylor & Francis e-Library.
74.Shane S. (2001), Technology regimes and new firm formation, “Management Science” vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1173–1190.
75.Schneider C. (2008), Fences and competition in patent races, “International Journal of Industrial Organization” vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1348–1364.
76.Scotchmer S. (2005), Innovation and Incentives, the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London.
77.Sichelman T.M., Graham S.J. (2011), Patenting by Entrepreneurs: an Empirical Study, “Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review” vol. 17, no. 1.
78.Slivko O., Theilen B. (2014), Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice, “Journal of Economics” vol. 112, iss. 3, pp. 253–282.
79.Sichelman T., Graham S.J. (2011), Patenting by Entrepreneurs: an Empirical Study, “Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review” vol. 17, no. 1.
80.Simonton D.K. (1979), Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance?, “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1603–1616.
81.Simonton D.K. (2010), Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: combinatorial models of exceptional creativity, “Physics of Life Reviews” vol. 7, pp. 156–179.
82.Teece D. (2000), Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context, “Long Range Planning Journal” vol. 33, pp. 35–54.
83.Teece D.J. (1986), Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, “Research Policy” vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 285–305.
84.Veer T., Jell F. (2012), Contributing to markets for technology? A comparison of patent filing motives of individual inventors, small companies and universities, “Technovation” vol. 32, pp. 513–522.
85.von Graevenitz G., Wagner S., Hoisl K., Hall B., Harhoff D., Giuri P., Gambardella A. (2007), The strategic use of patents and its implications for enterprise and competition policies, Report for the European Commission.
86.Yiannaka A., Fulton M. (2011), Getting Away with Robbery? Patenting Behavior with the Threat of Infringement, “Journal of Economics & Management Strategy” vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 625–648.
87.Yildizoglu M. (2009), Reinforcing the patent system? Effects of patent fences and knowledge diffusion on the development of new industries, technical progress and social welfare, in: Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth, eds. U. Cantner, J. Gaffard, L. Nesta, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
88.Zhao M. (2006), Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection, “Management Science” vol. 52, pp. 1185–1199.
89.Zweimüller J. (2000), Schumpeterian entrepreneurs meet Engel’s law: the impact of inequality on innovation-driven growth, “Journal of Economic Growth” vol. 5.2, pp. 185–206.