View source for Bibliography for Item 1 in BGP/Murray et all - here

#"In this setting, openness not only impacts innovation incentives within a given research line but also encourages exploration and investment in new and speculative research directions. We identify three main channels whereby openness can influence the level and nature of scientific research. First, by reducing the costs of accessing key research inputs, openness encourages new researchers to enter, thus increasing the diversity of academic research participants1. Second, openness makes researchers with high levels of freedom (academics) more likely to engage in experiments that broaden the horizontal diversity of research lines, in part because subsequent openness implies that their research can itself have subsequent impact across a wide range of research lines. Finally, there is the expropriation effect whereby an increase in the level of openness of an upstream research reduces the costs associated with the exploitation of that tool in research along a given vertical research line. Overall, our theoretical discussion suggests that, particularly in research settings characterized by high levels of freedom, openness not only increases the overall  flow of research output, it should also be closely associated with the establishment and exploration of entirely new research lines. Moreover, while openness should effect both basic and applied research, the impact on basic research will, we predict, dominate when researchers in the pre-openness period face high fixed costs of initiating a new line of research. In contrast, the increase in applied research will dominate when significant basic research has already been conducted." (pg 3) (Murray et all, 2009)
#"Thus openness increased the social value of operating any stage (particularly earlier stages) under academic freedom. The idea that openness favors cross-fertilization also implies that it should widen the pool of researchers and research institutions working on a particular research idea, since one key feature of academia is the fact that diverse researchers experiment with scientific ideas to investigate their full potential. What openness does is to reduce the fixed cost of 'entering' a particular research area to conduct these investigations." (pg 9)(Murray et all, 2009)
#Impact of openness in the LEVEL of follow-on research: "These results provide strong support for one key claim of this paper - that positive shocks to openness foster research intensity, rather than hindering it because of appropriability concerns surround critical research outputs. This adds support to previous empirical results, for example by Furman and Stern (2006), showing that the deposit of individual cell-lines (which provides openness through formal access) also increases follow-on innovation. In a complementary result, Murray and Stern (2007) find that limits on openness with the grant of intellectual property rights over knowledge have the converse effect; it decreases follow-on citations. Taken together, these results highlight the sensitivity of follow-on researchers to a variety of openness conditions, and provide increasing support for the perspective that these results are driven by researchers shifting their research choices rather than shifting their citations { it is hard to imagine the research community being so strategic in their citations that they increase and decrease their citations according to the precise timing and degree of openness shocks. Furthermore, our results on temporal dynamics are consistent with our theoretical setup, specifically the multi-staged view of innovation: if openness leads to more research activity and potentially to a branching out of new research lines (a conjecture we test in our next set of regressions) then these new lines would themselves generate follow-on research activity, amplifying over time the effects of any shocks to openness." (pg 23) (Murray et all, 2009)
# Impact of openness in the TYPE of follow-on research: "While our theoretical predictions highlight the importance of openness on reducing the fixed cost of critical upstream inputs into research projects, another important aspect of openness is the degree to which it facilitates horizontal experimentation by researchers now free to match with a variety of ideas, particularly given the conditions of freedom existing in the academic sector that we examine here." (pg 25) (Murray et all, 2009) and "The specifications in (8-2a) and (8-2b) reveal that the Cre-lox shock is concentrated in basic citations, while the Onco shock has a significant effect only on applied citations. Specifically, the Cre-lox shock lead to a dramatic 78% increase in basic citations during the post-shock period, but has a 21% decrease on the applied-research citation  flows (significant at the 10% level). By contrast, the impact of the Onco shock is concentrated in the more applied research stages and leads to a 56% increase during the period through 2006 for applied citations; at the same time, the Onco shock has no significant impact on basic citations. This is consistent with the view that when upstream access is already secured (as in the case for Onco mice), then an agreement that shifts the balance of appropriability toward follow-on innovators and away from the initial innovator (DuPont), then there is more applied research." (pg 27)(Murray et all, 2009)

go back to [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Overview_of_Economics_of_Intellectual_Property_in_BGP Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in BGP]