This is commonsense, but fortunately less crude economic methodology than has been pursued hitherto seems to be uncovering it:
A strong tradition in economic history, which primarily relies on qualitative evidence and statistical correlations, has emphasized the importance of patents as a primary driver of innovation. Recent improvements in empirical methodology – through the creation of new data sets and advances in identification – have produced research that challenges this traditional view. The findings of this literature provide a more nuanced view of the effects of intellectual property, and suggest that when patent rights have been too broad or strong, they have actually discouraged innovation. This paper summarizes the major results from this research and presents open questions.
Author: Petra Moser
No sooner had I posted this than I came across the lame exercise below. Note it’s hardly surprising that start-ups with patents do better than others. 1. That suggests they’re both better funded and may have better technology. 2. If the hold up rights in patents have a net effect of holding up innovation in general, it’s kind of obvious that those with hold up rights will be benefiting from them. Not something that at least the abstract considers though it suggests its results question the need for patent reform.