Data and Code for: How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Martin Watzinger, LMU Munich; Thomas Fackler, Ifo Institute; Markus Nagler, FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg; Monika Schnitzer, LMU Munich
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
application/x-stata | 32.4 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 11.5 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/pdf | 109.1 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/x-stata | 258.6 MB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/x-stata | 14.1 MB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/x-stata | 12.5 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/x-stata | 8.3 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/x-stata | 5.3 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/vnd.ms-excel | 769.5 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
|
|
application/x-stata | 27.1 KB | 01/27/2020 07:47:AM |
- Total of 15 records. Records per page
- « previous Page of 2
- next »
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
This is the data used for our article "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree".
Abstract: Is compulsory licensing an effective antitrust remedy to increase innovation? To answer this question, we analyze the 1956 consent decree which settled an antitrust lawsuit against Bell, a vertically integrated monopolist charged with foreclosing the telecommunications equipment market. Bell was forced to license all its existing patents royalty-free, including those not related to telecommunications. We identify the effect of the consent decree on follow-on innovations building on Bell patents by using exactly matched non-Bell patents as control group. We show that the consent decree led to a lasting increase in innovation, but only in markets outside the telecommunications sector.
Abstract: Is compulsory licensing an effective antitrust remedy to increase innovation? To answer this question, we analyze the 1956 consent decree which settled an antitrust lawsuit against Bell, a vertically integrated monopolist charged with foreclosing the telecommunications equipment market. Bell was forced to license all its existing patents royalty-free, including those not related to telecommunications. We identify the effect of the consent decree on follow-on innovations building on Bell patents by using exactly matched non-Bell patents as control group. We show that the consent decree led to a lasting increase in innovation, but only in markets outside the telecommunications sector.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Innovation;
Antitrust;
intellectual property;
Compulsory licensing
JEL Classification:
View help for JEL Classification
K21 Antitrust Law
L40 Antitrust Issues and Policies: General
O33 Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
O34 Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
K21 Antitrust Law
L40 Antitrust Issues and Policies: General
O33 Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
O34 Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
United States
Universe:
View help for Universe
Registered Patents at the USPTO
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
administrative records data;
aggregate data
Related Publications
Unable to retrieve related publications.
Loading usage statistics...
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.