Innovation Variety and Patent Breadth

By Hugo A. Hopenhayn, M. Mitchell. 2001

118 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Models of knowledge and systems of governance (2005, background): “A narrow definition of the scope of application of intellectual property rights is thus recommended (Klemperer, 1990; Merges and Nelson, 1994; Hopenhayn and Mitchell, 2001 ),”
The effects of innovation–cost strategy, knowledge, and action in the supply chain on firm performance (2009, background): “Research has shown that being a costly innovator – with its predisposition to often develop radical and perhaps even disruptive innovations (Christensen, 1996) – can lead to financial success (Hopenhayn and Mitchell, 2001).”
Patents and patent policy (2007, background): “Hopenhayn and Mitchell (2001) showed that such a scheme may be dominated by a menu that trades off the breadth and length of a patent, with the inventors of more fertile innovations choosing to receive broader but shorter patents.”
Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition And Innovation (2011, background): “…of the literature, including the seminal paper by Scotchmer (1999) and the recent interesting papers by Llobet, Hopenhayn and Mitchell (2006) and Hopenhayn and Mitchell (2001, 2011), adopts a mechanism design approach to the determination of the optimal patent and intellectual property rights…”