Econ 522 Economics of Law Dan Quint Fall 2011 Lecture 7 Monday… Established properties of an efficient property law system Private goods are privately owned, public goods are not Owners have maximum liberty over how they use their property Injunctive relief used when transaction costs are low, damages used when transaction costs high We tried “testing Coase” through an experiment Can UW undergrads reallocate poker chips efficiently? (Cost me $124) 1 Our experiment… Take 1: Full Information (values on nametags) starting allocation efficient allocation actual final allocation 12 red chip red chip 10 purple chip purple chip 10 purple chip purple chip 8 red chip 8 6 fraction of potential gains realized purple chip purple chip purple chip purple chip purple chip 6 (sorry) 4 purple chip 4 purple chip 2 purple chip 32 60 58 26/28 = 93% 2 Our experiment… Take 2: Private Information (values hidden) starting allocation efficient allocation actual final allocation 10 red chip purple chip 8 purple chip purple chip 8 purple chip purple chip 6 red chip 6 4 fraction of potential gains realized purple chip purple chip purple chip red chip purple chip 4 3 purple chip 3 purple chip 2 purple chip 24 48 42 18/24 = 75% 3 Our experiment… Take 3: Uncertainty starting allocation efficient allocation actual final allocation chip chip 12 12 100% efficient allocation actual final allocation fraction of potential gains realized 3 X die roll (actually 12) 2 X die roll (actually 8) fraction of potential gains realized chip 8 Take 4: Adverse Selection starting allocation 3 X die roll (actually 18) 2 X die roll (actually 12) chip chip chip 12 18 12 0% 4 Conclusion Coase works pretty well, except under asymmetric info Full info: 93% of gains achieved Private info: 75% Uncertainty: 100% Asymmetric info: 0% Comparing “uncertainty” to “asymmetric info”… Seller’s value was 2 X die roll, buyer’s value was 3 X die roll If nobody knows die roll, no problem – they can trade based on the expected value But if seller knows die roll, problem In strategic settings, information can have negative value – the seller could be worse off for having information! 5 Discussion question (old exam question, question by Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution blog) In Virginia, the common law has long held that if a neighbor’s tree encroaches on your yard you may cut the branches as they cross the property line, but any damage the tree does to your property is your problem. Your neighbor can even sue if your pruning kills the tree. In 2007, the Virginia Supreme Court overruled this 70-yearold precedent, making it your neighbor’s duty to prune or cut down the tree if it is a “nuisance.” Which is better: the new rule or the old? What would the Coase Theorem say about the two rules? 6 Applications of Property Law 7 Intellectual Property Intellectual property: broad term for ways that an individual, or a firm, can claim ownership of information Patents – cover products, commercial processes Copyrights – written ideas (books, music, computer programs) Trademarks – brand names, logos Trade Secrets 8 Information: costly to generate, easy to imitate up-front investment: 1,000 monopoly profits: 2,500 duopoly profits: 450 each Example: new drug Requires investment of $1,000 to discover Monopoly profits would be $2,500 Once drug has been discovered, another firm could also begin to sell it Duopoly profits would be $450 each 9 Information: costly to generate, easy to imitate up-front investment: 1,000 monopoly profits: 2,500 duopoly profits: 450 each FIRM 1 (innovator) Don’t Innovate FIRM 2 (imitator) (0, 0) Imitate (-550, 450) Don’t (1500, 0) Solve the game by backward induction: Subgame perfect equilibrium: firm 2 plays Imitate, firm 1 plays Don’t Innovate, drug is never discovered (Both firms earn 0 profits, consumers don’t get the drug) 10 up-front investment: 1,000 monopoly profits: 2,500 duopoly profits: 450 each Patents: one way to solve the problem Patent: legal monopoly Other firms prohibited from imitating Firm 1’s discovery FIRM 1 (innovator) Don’t Innovate FIRM 2 (imitator) (0, 0) Imitate (-550, 450) Don’t (1500, 0) 450 – P Subgame perfect equilibrium: firm 2 does not imitate; firm 1 innovates, drug gets developed 11 Comparing the two outcomes up-front investment: 1,000 monopoly profits: 2,500 duopoly profits: 450 each FIRM 1 (innovator) FIRM 2 (imitator) Innovate Don’t Without patents: Drug never discovered (0, 0) Imitate (-550, 450) Don’t (1500, 0) FIRM 1 (innovator) With patents: Drug gets discovered But… FIRM 2 (imitator) Innovate Don’t (0, 0) Imitate (-550, 450 – P) Don’t (1500, 0) 12 Patents solve one inefficiency by introducing another up-front investment: 1,000 monopoly profits: 2,500 duopoly profits: 450 each Without patents, inefficient outcome: drug not developed With patents, different inefficiency: monopoly! Monopoly Net Surplus = 2,750 P = 50 Duopoly Net Surplus = 3,950 CS 1,250 Profit 2,500 CS 4,050 P = 100 – Q DWL 1,250 Q = 50 P = 10 Profit 450 x 2 DWL 50 Q = 90 Once the drug has been found, the original incentive problem is solved, but the new inefficiency remains… 13 Patents: a bit of history First U.S. patent law passed in 1790 Patents currently last 20 years from date of application For a patent application to be approved, invention must be: novel (new) non-obvious have practical utility (basically, be commercializable) Patentholder whose patent has been infringed can sue for both damages and an injunction against future violations Patents are property – can be sold or licensed to others 14 Patent breadth Narrow patents might allow us each to patent own invention Broad patents might not “Winner-take-all” race to be first 15 Patent breadth Does a patent on the “pioneering invention” cover the application as well? Can you patent an improvement to an existing product? 16 Patent length Patent length Need to last long enough for firms to recover up-front investment… …But the longer patents last, the longer we have DWL from monopoly (Example from textbook: drug price drops from $15 to $1 per pill when patent expires) Tradeoff between ex-post inefficiency and ex-ante incentive provision U.S.: all patents last 20 years Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon) once suggested software patents should last just 3 years Germany: full-term patents for major inventions, 3 year “petty patents” for minor ones, annual renewal fees 17 Do the details matter? Coase: without transaction costs, initial allocation of rights irrelevant for efficiency But transaction costs may be high Uncertainty on whether a patent is valid Uncertainty of outcome of research Many parties 18 Do the details matter? Coase: without transaction costs, initial allocation of rights irrelevant for efficiency But transaction costs may be high Uncertainty on whether a patent is valid Uncertainty of outcome of research Many parties 19 Do the details matter? Coase: without transaction costs, initial allocation of rights irrelevant for efficiency But transaction costs may be high Uncertainty on whether a patent is valid Uncertainty of outcome of research Many parties 20 Alternatives to patents for encouraging innovation government purchase of drug patents prizes Google $30 million prize for landing a rover on the moon direct government funding of research ~25% of research spending in U.S. is funded by government 21 patents copyrights trademarks trade secrets 22 Copyright Property rights over original expressions writing, music, other artistic creations Creations like this tend to fit definition of public goods nonrivalrous nonexcludable so private supply would lead to undersupply Several possible solutions government subsidies charitable donations legal rights to creations – copyrights 23 Copyright Copyright law less rigid than patent law Unlike patent law, allows for certain exceptions Copyrights last much longer than patents Current U.S. law: copyright expires 70 years after creator’s death No application process Copyright law automatically applies to anything you’ve written/created Copyrights more narrow than patents Cover exact text, not general idea 24 Copyright Retelling of Gone With The Wind, from point of view of a slave on Scarlett’s plantation, published in 2001 Margaret Mitchell’s estate sued to halt publication Eventually settled out of court Was there really any harm? 25 Copyright Retelling of Gone With The Wind, from point of view of a slave on Scarlett’s plantation, published in 2001 Margaret Mitchell’s estate sued to halt publication Eventually settled out of court Was there really any harm? 26 patents copyrights trademarks trade secrets 27 Trademarks Reduce confusion over who made a product Allow companies to build reputation for quality Don’t expire, unless abandoned Generic names can’t be trademarked 28 Trademarks – example WSJ article 9/17/2010: “Lars Johnson Has Goats On His Roof and a Stable of Lawyers To Prove It” Restaurant in Sister Bay WI put goats on roof to attract customers “The restaurant is one of the topgrossing in Wisconsin, and I’m sure the goats have helped.” Suing restaurant in Georgia “Defendant has willfully continued to offer food services from buildings with goats on the roof” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704285104575492650336813506.html 29 Trademark dilution 30 patents copyrights trademarks trade secrets 31 Trade Secrets Protection against misappropriation But plaintiff must show… Valid trade secret Acquired illegally Reasonable steps taken to protect it 32 patents copyrights trademarks trade secrets 33