An overview of the appropriability mechanisms used in plant biotechnology industry

Vinícius Eduardo Ferrari; José Maria  Jardim Ferreira da Silveira; Maria Ester  Soares Dal-Poz

doi:10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss8.1687

Authors

Vinícius Eduardo Ferrari

Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas (PUC-Campinas)
José Maria Jardim Ferreira da Silveira

Institute of Economics, State University of Campinas University
Maria Ester Soares Dal-Poz

School of Applied Sciences, State University of Campinas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss8.1687

Keywords:

genetically modified organisms, innovation, blocking patents, barrier to entry

Abstract

This paper aims to discuss the main appropriability mechanisms used by biotech firms to avoid imitation and appropriate the economic benefits from crop innovations. To this end, we analyze the strategic links between the technological development of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and the ownership rights over plant transformation technologies. We also discuss a key case study - the legal battle between Monsanto and Syngenta by the control of the GMO crops derived from the GA21 gene. Our findings show that a system of blocking patents has been built basically through strategies relating to intellectual property mechanisms. As result, Monsanto's efforts to sue competitors for patent infringement have proved to be a successful barrier to entry in plant biotechnology industry.

Author Biography

Vinícius Eduardo Ferrari, Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas (PUC-Campinas)

Center for Economics and Administration, Postgraduate Program in Sustainability

References

Arora, A. (1997). Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry. Research Policy, 26(4), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00014-0

Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00100-1

Chu, A. C. (2009). Effects of blocking patents on R&D: A quantitative DGE analysis. Journal of Economic Growth, 14(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-009-9036-z

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not) (Working Paper No. 7552). https://doi.org/10.3386/w7552

Fulton, M. E., & Giannakas, K. (2001). Agricultural Biotechnology and Industry Structure. Http://Www.Agbioforum.Missouri.Edu/V4n2/V4n2a08-Fulton.Htm.

Goeschl, T., & Swanson, T. (2003). Pests, Plagues, and Patents. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(2–3), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322391206

Graff, G. D., Rausser, G. C., & Small, A. A. (2003). Agricultural Biotechnology’s Complementary Intellectual Assets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303765299864

Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698

Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004

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, 1987(3), 783–831. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534454

Marco, A. C., & Rausser, G. C. (2008). The Role of Patent Rights in Mergers: Consolidation in Plant Biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01046.x

Marengo, L., Pasquali, C., Valente, M., & Dosi, G. (2012). Appropriability, patents, and rates of innovation in complex products industries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(8), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2011.644666

Qaim, M. (2009). The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1(1), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144203

Qaim, M., & Traxler, G. (2005). Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Agricultural Economics, 32(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x

Rausser, G. (1999). Private/Public Research: Knowledge Assets and Future Scenarios. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244079

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, 13(5), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859042000188719

Shapiro, C. (2000). Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1086/ipe.1.25056143

Silveira, J. M. F., & Borges, I. C. (2012). Brazil: Confronting the challenges of global competition and protecting biodiversity. In The gene revolution (pp. 131–156). Routledge.

Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2

Wilson, J. (2007). GM Crops: Patently Wrong? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9032-2

Yerokhin, O., & Moschini, G. (2008). Intellectual Property Rights and Crop-Improving R&D under Adaptive Destruction. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9140-5