ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Journal of Economic Surveys

Journal of Economic Surveys

Volume 20 Issue 4, Pages 493 - 512

Special Issue: Special Issue Economic and Legal Issues in Intellectual Property

Published Online: 30 Aug 2006

Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd



< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 183K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

REAL OPTIONS AND PATENT DAMAGES: THE LEGAL TREATMENT OF NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES, AND INCENTIVES TO INNOVATE
Jerry Hausman 1 Gregory K. Leonard 2
  1 MIT Department of Economics
  2 NERA Economic Consulting
Copyright 2006 The Authors Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
KEYWORDS
Innovation • Options • Patents

ABSTRACT

Abstract. Patent litigation has become an increasingly important consideration in business strategy. Damage awards in patent litigation are supposed to compensate the patent owner for economic harm created by infringement and are therefore important for protecting returns to innovation. We analyze the effects that a recent court decision in the United States, called Grain Processing, has had on the incentives of potential infringers to infringe and innovators to innovate. We find that Grain Processing has decreased the expected value of damages awards in patent cases by conferring a 'free option' on infringers. Grain Processing also concluded that the patent owner in the case did not suffer lost profits due to the infringement because the infringer would have adopted an (inferior) non-infringing technology had it not infringed. We demonstrate that this conclusion is inconsistent with standard economic models.


DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1467-6419.2006.00258.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


Constellations
Call for Papers
Teaching Statistics

Teaching Statistics

Want to share your knowledge with those teaching pupils aged 9 – 19?

Do you have a paper of interest to those teaching statistics, mathematics or economics?

Submit Your Paper Today