Argument Double externality Green technology policy needs diffusion - - PDF document

▶
argument
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Argument Double externality Green technology policy needs diffusion - - PDF document

Jun 13, 2023 457 likes •609 views

6/12/2010 Innovation in clean/green technology: Can patent commons help? Bronwyn H. Hall U of Maastricht and UC Berkeley Christian Helmers Oxford University and LSE Argument Double externality Green technology policy needs diffusion

slide-1
SLIDE 1

6/12/2010 1

Innovation in clean/green technology: Can patent commons help?

Bronwyn H. Hall U of Maastricht and UC Berkeley Christian Helmers Oxford University and LSE

Argument

  • Double externality

– Green technology policy needs diffusion as well as innovation

  • Green technology is highly varied, draws from

many scientific and engineering disciplines

– Much is complex – Some requires standard-setting

  • Patents raise TC and slow diffusion

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 2

slide-2
SLIDE 2

6/12/2010 2

The question

  • Can a patent commons help?

– Many actors, differing motives – Firms – variation over

  • Desire to profit from clean tech via exchange and collaboration
  • Avoid some TC associated with patents and knowledge sharing
  • Modest public interest motives

– Society

  • Lower cost innovation in green tech?
  • Or is this a large established firm strategy that may hinder new

entry?

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 3

The eco-patents commons

  • Created January 2008 by IBM at World Business Council For

Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

  • First and only green patent commons
  • Firms can pledge patents related to green technology

– 11 firms have done so (triad)

  • Green defined by a classification listing IPC subclasses – some

flexibility

  • Pledge - available for use by third parties for climate-change

related activities with auto royalty-free license; ownership remains with firm

– Not a donation, and not tax deductable – Defensive termination right if user enforces another patent against pledging firm

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 4

slide-3
SLIDE 3

6/12/2010 3

A puzzle

  • Why not use defensive publication?

– Keeping these patents in force requires paying fees (which the firms apparently do) – Royalty-free license to all comers with no contracting means they don’t even know who uses the technology – Is defensive termination that valuable?

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 5

Some views

[I]t is clear that the donating company did not find the patent to have compelling com-petitive advantage for them, or they would not have donated it to begin with, so why would any

  • ther company necessarily find value in the donated patent?

Nancy Cronin, Greenbizz 2008

Why would a patent owner contribute a patent, continue to sustain the maintenance costs, yet have the patent commonly available to all having under-taken to not enforce the patent?

Duncan Bucknell, Think IP Strategy - 2008

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 6

slide-4
SLIDE 4

6/12/2010 4

IBM view

[P]ledging patents for free use by others [...] can be a win for innovators in other parts of the world, who might look at these ideas and further them and use them as the basis of additional solutions. And it can be a win for those who pledge because it could open up

  • pportunities to collaborate with people that you might

not otherwise have collaborated with.

(Wayne Balta, Vice President of Environmental Affairs, IBM)

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 7

Our study

  • 121 patents (including some equivalents)

listed on the Ecopatent Commons website.

  • Retrieved information on (almost) all of them

from Patstat, resulting in 119 unique priority/publn authority combinations.

  • ~87 unique priorities between 1989 and 2005

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 8

slide-5
SLIDE 5

6/12/2010 5

Age, legal status, and `green character’

  • f sample patents
  • Age measured as commons entry date minus

priority date

– Ranges from 3 to 20 with a median of 9.5 years

  • All of these patents are in force, except for

those held by the largest contributors:

– Bosch – 65% – IBM – 86% – Xerox – 75%

  • 35% green according to OECD definition

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 9

Age distribution

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 10

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6/12/2010 6

Average age in years of patent by legal status, as of Sept 1, 2008

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 11

Number Mean Median Q1 Q3 In force 88 9.2 9.9 5.2 12.9 Exam request 3 6.3 7.2 3.5 8.2 Withdrawn 6 6.9 6.4 6.3 6.5 Nonpayment of fees 9 9.6 7.4 4.2 14.8 Rejected 2 6.7 6.7 6.0 7.3 Expired 7 18.1 18.4 17.1 18.9 NA 4 14.1 15.3 11.3 16.8 All 119 9.7 9.8 5.8 13.7

Controls

  • 1. How do these patents compare to other

patents in the firm’s portfolio?

– All patents owned by the 12 firms with priority between 1989 and 2005

  • 2. How do these patents compare to other

patents in the same class?

– A matched sample of patents, matched on type

  • f owner, priority year, IPC4, and priority

authority (some problems here)

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 12

slide-7
SLIDE 7

6/12/2010 7

Firm motivations

  • For donations to an eco-patent commons

– Public relations motives

  • Bad – inventions are obsolete and worthless, little cost
  • Good – recognize some benefit in an open innovation

environment; form agreement with competitors

– Sell complementary goods & services

  • Variation – facilitate sponsored standards adoption

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 13

  • 1. Firm decision

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 14

We cannot observe the first two decisions. We look at pledge conditional on patenting and not working. Not worked: less valuable, or far from firm’s competency Pledged: far from firm’s competency, does not threaten firm, is relevant for clean tech

slide-8
SLIDE 8

6/12/2010 8

Share of portfolio is very small

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 15

Eco- patents Total patents Share Bosch 23 8,817 0.261% Dow 2 6,490 0.031% DuPont 9 13,147 0.068% FujiXerox 2 2,460 0.081% IBM 28 9,934 0.282% Mannesmann 1 730 0.137% Nokia 1 3,478 0.029% PitneyBowes 2 424 0.472% Ricoh 1 10,414 0.010% Sony 4 12,450 0.032% Taisei 2 170 1.176% Xerox 12 9,767 0.123% Total 87 78,281 0.111% 1989-2005 priority dates, corrected for equivalents (unique priorities)

Not the least valuable in the portfolio

Variable Marginal probability T-statistic Marginal probability T-statistic Log family size 0.00014% 2.87 0.00003% 3.32 Log forward cites 0.00023% 3.69 0.00004% 3.51 Log backward cites 0.00009% 5.48 0.00002% 5.42 Log NPL cites

  • 0.00002%
  • 0.66
  • 0.000003%
  • 0.55

Log number of IPCs

  • 0.00006%
  • 2.58
  • 0.00001%
  • 3.67

D (similar IPC)

  • 0.00054%
  • 1.89
  • 0.00006%
  • 1.45

D (OECD green tech) 0.00541% 7.22 Pseudo R-squared 0.621 0.670

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 16

Probability a patent from the firm’s portfolio is pledged (mean = 0.041%) Standard errors robust and clustered on firm. Priority year (17), 1 digit IPC (6), and firm dummies (5) included. Sample size is 292,698 with 119 eco patents.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

6/12/2010 9

Equivalents removed

Variable Marginal probability T-statistic Marginal probability T-statistic Log family size 0.00051% 2.60 0.00019% 2.72 Log forward cites 0.00292% 4.87 0.00098% 4.91 Log backward cites 0.00068% 4.62 0.00023% 5.41 Log NPL cites 0.00025% 0.83 0.00007% 0.74 Log number of IPCs

  • 0.00066%
  • 5.29
  • 0.00023%
  • 5.61

D (similar IPC)

  • 0.00449%
  • 2.57
  • 0.00101%
  • 2.09

D (OECD green tech) 0.05449% 7.06 Pseudo R-squared 0.648 0.706

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 17

Probability a patent from the firm’s portfolio is donated (mean = 0.169%) Standard errors robust and clustered on firm. Priority year (17), 1 digit IPC (6), and firm dummies (5) included. Sample size is 50,308 with 85 eco patents.

Conclusions

  • Green patents by OECD definition are indeed

more likely to be pledged

  • Pledged patents are more valuable than the

typical patent in a firm’s portfolio, controlling for priority year and 1-digit IPC

  • They are slightly less likely to match the IPC

pattern of the firm, suggesting that they are not central to firm strategy

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 18

slide-10
SLIDE 10

6/12/2010 10

  • 2. Compare other pats in class

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 19

Control sample matched on priority year, 1-

digit IPC, priority authority, and type of owner (firm)

Yields around 24,000 patents Chose 119 of these patents using probabilities

generated by EcoPC patents

same application authority as sample patents

EcoPC patents are more highly cited than others in the class

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 20

Citations are taken from espace as of May 2010. Controls have the same priority date as the sample, so no adjustment for truncation has been performed. Median, mean for eco-patents = 4, 8.8; for controls = 3, 5.2

slide-11
SLIDE 11

6/12/2010 11

EcoPC patents cover fewer technology areas

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 21

Median, mean for eco-patents = 3, 4.6; for controls = 5, 5.9

1 2 3 4 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40

Matched Control Sample EcoPC Patents

F requency Number of IPCs

EcoPC patents take longer to issue than

  • ther patents in the class

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 22 20 40 60 80 Frequency 5 10 15 Time between Priority and Publication Dates

EcoPC Patents

20 40 60 80 Frequency 5 10 15 Time between Priority and Publication Dates

Matched Control Sample

Duration Priority-Publication

slide-12
SLIDE 12

6/12/2010 12

Conclusions

  • Pledged patents

– are more valuable (2 EcoPC patents with >30 forward citations) or more highly used – are technologically narrower – take longer to issue

than similar patent in same IPC classes

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 23

Summary

  • EcoPC firms appear to be doing what they

claim to be doing:

– pledging valuable green patents

  • But:

– 20% of EcoPC patents have expired – Some are not yet granted – Some issues with setup – 12 patent numbers wrong on website

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 24

slide-13
SLIDE 13

6/12/2010 13

Future questions

  • How exactly do these firms build on the

patents they contribute?

– Self-cites – Further information on their relation to the rest of the portfolio

  • Do other firms use them?

– More on cites

  • What technologies are involved? Why so few
  • fficially “green” IPCs?

June 2010 Sciences Po Conference 25