Frugal Innovation and Innovative Creation

Appendix 3Inter-organization and Patents

The protection of invention and innovation is not simple. From strong appropriability (exclusive, linked to the supposed effectiveness of the patent as protection: Arrow (1962a)), it was necessary to consider weak appropriability (presence of uncontrollable externalities, specific and tacit knowledge, differentiated absorptive capacities companies present on a market or the fragmentation of knowledge). Furthermore, the question arises of reconciling the protection of the pioneering innovator and dissemination to competitors (Ordover 1991).

An essential criterion for filing a patent is based on the concept of novelty (implying a difference between a before and an after: because it did not exist before). The alleged novelty therefore lapses when a third party can assert anteriority materialized by any publicity emanating from a public (and not secret) source, even though it is in a segmented or disseminated way. In addition, there is a gradation of novelty via the criterion of the degree of comparative inventiveness in relation to what exists or is proposed. All in all, it should be admitted that assessing who the “pioneer” is contains an element of subjectivity.

The patent is granted according to three criteria of appreciation: social utility, nonobviousness, and novelty by non-anteriority. However, the formal recognition of an invention by the patent does not provide information on the effectiveness of the induced novelty. To assess ...