Veranstaltungen

We study belief updating about relative performance in an ego-relevant task. Manipulating the perceived ego relevance of the task, we show that subjects update their beliefs optimistically because they derive direct utility flows from holding positive beliefs. This finding provides a behavioral explanation why and how overconfidence can evolve in the presence of objective information. Moreover, we document that subjects, who received more bad signals, downplay the ego-relevance of the task. Taken together, these findings suggest that subjects use two alternative strategies to protect their ego when presented with objective information.

Ansprechpartnerin: Marina Chugunova

Eintragung in den Einladungsverteiler und mehr Informationen auf der Seminarseite.

The Perks of Being Unknown: Implied Costs of Knowledge Seeking on Organizational Platforms

Presenter: Maren Mickeler (ISTO)

Discussant: Carolin Formella (Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb)

Everyone Likes to Be Liked: Experimental Evidence from Matching Markets

Presenter: Timm Opitz (Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb)

Discussant: Gresa Latifi (TUM)

This paper analyzes the contribution of entrepreneurial activities to gender earnings gaps among university faculty. Administrative data from universities (UMETRICS) linked to the universe of confidential W2 and 1099 tax records allow me to precisely classify earnings sources and measure faculty commercial engagement. I find substantial faculty gender gaps. Female faculty are 20 percentage points less likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities, with the entire participation gap driven by the gap in self-employment. The raw total male-female faculty earnings gap is $63k (on a base of $162k), with the gap in non-university earnings accounting for $18k (29%). Thus, though university earnings account for most of the total gap, commercial engagement opportunities substantially expand the gap. Earnings gaps also exist for all components of non-university earnings, including earnings from self-employment as well as from incumbent, young/startup, high-tech, and low-tech firms. Quantile regressions show that, as faculty move up the earnings distribution, gender earnings gaps grow and entrepreneurial activity becomes a more important contributor to the total gap, which is suggestive of a “glass ceiling” effect for female faculty. I also find that earnings gaps are small at career outset and then grow over time, but that the contribution of entrepreneurial activities to the total gap is relatively constant over the lifecycle.

Ansprechpartner: Michael Rose

Eintragung in den Einladungsverteiler und mehr Informationen auf der Seminarseite.

Gemeinsam mit

• Scientific and Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine (Kyjiw, Ukraine)
• Institute of Law of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyjiw, Ukraine)
• ‘100 % of Life’ (Kyjiw, Ukraine)

Ziel

Ermittlung möglicher Lösungen im Rahmen des Rechts des geistigen Eigentums (IP) zur Linderung der Krise im Bereich der öffentlichen Gesundheit in der Ukraine durch den Austausch mit internationalen Rechtsgelehrten. 
 

Internationale Experten/Podiumsteilnehmende

• Matthias Leistner, Professor, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Deutschland
• Geertrui Van Overwalle, Professorin, KU Leuven, Belgien
• Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Professor, Universität von Cambridge, UK
• Mohammed El Said, Professor, Universität von Central Lancashire, Vereinigtes Königreich
• Peter K. Yu, Regents Professor für Recht und Kommunikation, Texas A&M University, USA
• Erika Dueñas Loayza, Weltgesundheitsorganisation, Abteilung Zugang zu Arzneimitteln und Gesundheitsprodukten (tbc)

Moderation der Diskussion: Dr. Oksana Kashyntseva, Dr. Daria Kim

Women are underrepresented in patenting and the gap is not closing quickly. One major roadblock is the dearth of causal evidence on the potential effectiveness of interventional policies to address the gender patenting gap. Using a randomized control trial (RCT) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), we identify the heterogeneous causal impacts across gender and technologies of increased patent examination assistance on the probability of obtaining patent rights. Women applicants were about 11 percentage points more likely than men to benefit from this assistance, and the benefits were largest for U.S. inventors, new U.S. inventors, and in technology areas where women had the worst relative outcomes. Our results suggest that a portion of the gender patenting gap could be eliminated through the provision of additional resources and assistance during patent prosecution.

Autoren des Papiers: Nicholas Pairolero, Andrew Toole, Peter-Anthony Pappas, Charles deGrazia, Mike Teodorescu

Ansprechpartnerin: Svenja Friess

Since the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Mayo vs. Prometheus, the United States has arrived at a regime where scientific discoveries are patentable only to the extent that a claim represents an ‘inventive application’ of the underlying principle. Under this regime, not only have medical diagnostics become nearly unpatentable, but the doctrine of patent eligibility has begun to supplant the requirements of disclosure and non-obviousness as well. This work shows that the Mayo regime relies on a particular set of premises, both stated and unstated: an ontological premise about ‘laws of nature’; a historical premise about the treatment of discoveries in 19th-century Anglo-American patent law; a jurisprudential premise about legislative intent in the U.S. patent statutes; a doctrinal premise about the relationship of patent-eligibility to other patentability doctrines; and an economic premise about the basic research and the effect of patents on fundamental principles on innovation. I examine these premises, particularly the historical and economic ones, and show that most, if not all, are unfounded.  These findings have significant implications for current legislative efforts in the United States to reform the doctrine of patent eligibility.

Ansprechpartnerin: Marina Chugunova

Active markets for intellectual property (IP) are desirable because they facilitate the reallocation of new inventions to those who can best commercialize them. Therefore, active IP markets provide an incentive for inventors and specialized startups to invent in the first place, which promotes economic growth. However, IP markets are thought to be relatively inefficient. They are mostly decentralized and opaque markets, with substantial search frictions. Although non-practicing entities (NPEs) play an intermediary role to reduce such frictions, their operations are costly and their net effect on innovation and the IP market’s efficiency is unclear. Against this background, I structurally estimate a search-and-bargaining model of the brokered patent market. The model suggests that, compared to the Walrasian benchmark, the brokered patent market is relatively inefficient and NPEs’ net effect on patent market efficiency is negative.

Ansprechpartner: David Heller

Does grant peer review punish risk taking?  While risk is an inherent aspect of innovation, those projects with high degrees of risk may be more likely to lead to breakthrough innovation yet may face challenges in winning the support necessary to be carried out.  To study this, we analyze 103,164 R01-equivalent grants from the National Institutes of Health, 1980-2015.  To measure risk taking, we use four distinct approaches — extreme tail outcomes, disruptiveness, pivoting from an investigator’s prior work, and pursuing intellectually distant ideas from other investigators — that each capture a different aspect of what it means to take risks.  After carefully controlling for investigator, grant, and institution characteristics, we measure the association between risk taking and grant renewal.  Across each of these measures, we find grants with high levels of risk taking are renewed at lower rates than those with lower levels of risk taking. The magnitudes of these effects are large: when comparing grants in the top and bottom deciles of risk taking, grants with greater risk taking have a 20.5%, 24.4%, 16.9%, and 12.4% decline in renewal rate for each measure of risk taking, respectively.  We conclude with a discussion of the implications for policy-makers and managers of innovation for fostering risky research.

Ansprechpartner: Michael Rose

Anmeldung

Aus organisatorischen Gründen bitten wir Sie, Ihre Teilnahme bis zum 14. Oktober 2022 an Valentina Moscon zu melden.

Über das Buch

With John Willinsky’s new (open access) book from MIT Press as a starting point, this workshop considers how copyright may be a remediable problem in our pursuit of what we now agree is best for science, namely, open access. After all, copyright offers publishers no legal support for open access, while bringing the full weight of the law to bear on journal subscription payments. Willinsky asks whether this is impeding the move to open access in a timely manner at a fair price; does it call for more than copyright workarounds, such as sharing final drafts? Willinsky invites consideration of two legislative remedies. The first is strengthening copyright’s research exceptions and limitations; the second is introducing statutory licensing for research publications. He inquires after the international implications of such reforms, particularly amid current European copyright initiatives. He asks, ultimately, whether it is time for those interested in the progress of science to take up copyright reform.

Über den Autor

John Willinsky is Professor, Simon Fraser University, and Khosla Family Professor Emeritus, Stanford University. Having founded the Public Knowledge Project in 1998, he has seen its open source Open Journal Systems (OJS) grow into the world’s most widely used journal platform. His dozen books include The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (MIT Press 2006) and The Intellectual Properties of Learning: A Prehistory from Saint Jerome to John Locke (Chicago 2017).

Allocating innovation resources to their most productive uses is a challenge for innovators because they have incomplete information about which projects will be most productive. I empirically study how a group of large scientific labs traded off the exploitation of existing opportunities versus the exploration of new ones, that is whether they pursued safe projects to maximize short-term productivity or undertook high-variance projects to acquire information and improve long-term productivity. To recover how these labs made the exploitation-exploration tradeoff, I estimate a dynamic model of decision-making, assuming the labs approximated the value of exploration with a simple index. The type of index is well-studied in theory and well-used in practice but has not been applied to estimation of empirical decision models. The index model captures the labs’ decision-making well. Estimates of its free parameters suggest that the labs explored extensively. Counterfactual simulations show that, had the labs not explored, their output quantity would have decreased by 51%, and their citations would have decreased by 57%.

Ansprechpartner: Michael Rose