New Study Reveals Large Firms' Role in Innovation
Megafirms create new technologies too!

While President Joe Biden's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) keeps trying to stop successful companies from growing through mergers and acquisitions, a new study highlights the significant role large firms play in developing new technologies, goods, and services.
In a July working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled "Mega Firms and Recent Trends in the U.S. Innovation: Empirical Evidence from the U.S. Patent Data," five researchers use sales data and patent data to evaluate the role of megafirms—"the top 50 firms by sales in any given year"—in developing "novel patents."
Critics often allege that firms have used their market power to accumulate patents strategically to crowd out competitors. This leads "to slower diffusion of knowledge and deceleration in business dynamism," argue the economists Ufuk Akcigit of the University of Chicago and Sina Ates of the Federal Reserve Board in a forthcoming study titled "What Happened to U.S. Business Dynamism."
But the working paper finds that it isn't just the total share of patents held by megafirms that's been growing in recent years. So has their share of novel patents, defined as "those that introduce new combinations of technological components that had never been utilized together before" (as opposed to patents that are "filed for purely strategic reasons and never used in applications"). They conclude from this that big firms have been playing "an increasingly important role in generating new technological trajectories in recent years."
"Mega firms, especially new mega firms…were small startups just some 20 years ago, and they became what they are today by winning in a competitive environment," says the study's lead author, Serguey Braguinsky of the University of Maryland.
According to the paper, the share of novel patents held by megafirms underwent a long decline from the 1980s to the mid-2000s. But then they began combining information and communication technologies (ICT) with non-ICT components. For example, in 2006 Nike combined "arrangements for transmitting signals characterized by the use of a wireless electrical link" with "footwear characterized by the shape and use." This led to the creation of the NIKE+iPod Sports Kit.
The authors add that the innovation generated by megafirms is not monopolized by those businesses. Novel patents can catalyze follow-on patents at other firms that use "the same new technological combination," diffusing the knowledge through society.
As the authors explain, "mega firms have more follow-on patents that are assigned to entities other than themselves."
All this suggests that regulations aimed at reining in megafirms could diminish their ability to innovate. The FTC is currently trying to make mergers more difficult through guidelines that lower the threshold for considering a market "highly concentrated" and that conflate mergers between companies that sell similar products with mergers between companies that don't.
These findings also counter prevailing narratives that big business can't innovate. "Given that the paper finds that very large firms, particularly IT firms, generate very important innovations at a higher rate than other firms, including small firms, this suggests that the current in vogue neo-Brandeisian view that 'big is bad' is bad: bad for innovation and by extension, U.S. global competitiveness," says Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
"I think this strongly suggests that free markets have a self-correcting mechanism built into it and should be able to keep the U.S. innovation engine running," says Braguinsky. "Provided," he adds, that "they are free from various distortions."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Megafirms
createbuy new technologiestoo!Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day….. Everybody must try this job now by just use this
Open this…. http://Www.Easywork7.com
I earn 200 dollars per hour working from home on an online job. I never thought I could accomplish it, but my best friend makes $10,000 per month doing this profession and that I learn more about it.
Here's how she did it............... https://Www.Coins71.Com
$26,000 or even more is very simple and easy to earns while staying and working online. start receiving paychecks every month simply by doing work online. i recently received $27493 in my bank of my last month’s working. i just gave this job 2 hours maximum from my day. simple and easy home based job.
.
.
.
HERE==>=>) http://www.join.salary49.com
Just look at how well the large long established auto manufacturers are introducing cutting edge new electric cars.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
New Study Reveals Large Firms' Role in Innovation
Megafirms create new technologies too!
This is true. Look at how some of the biggest tech firms drove AI research to greatly expand their censorship processes, freeing up thousands of human eyes from the process.
BTW, fun fact: The Feds are totes using facial recognition now. I was flying home from Canada last week, and YYZ has a kind of dual security layer in their airport. You go through normal Canadian security, then if you're flying to the US, you go to a separate set of gates, pass through "passport control" and then are in the 'US-bound terminal'. When I went through passport control, I got called up to the US Customs officer booth, I was about to hand over my passport when he said, "Hello sir, look into the camera... thank you, so, Diane Reynolds, are you bringing any goods into the US today?"
I wonder if they play YYZ at YYZ. And if O Canada has been replaced with the Temples of Syrinx.
I bet they play Y&T. Probably Summertime Girls.
What's up, Peanuts?
“New study suggests pedos should be fed to woodchippers.”
Underutilized tools.
Where would Koch Industries fit in here I wonder.
Didn’t they develop the turducken?
Even Koch doesn't have access to that kind of technology.
It freaks me out that the turducken has no legs wings or even a spine. How did it get around when it was alive? Who would breed an animal with such an obviously miserable life?
Q: What do you call a Turducken in a pool?
A: Bob.
🙂
Q. What do you call a turducken nailed to a wall?
A. Art
Q: What do you call a turducken on the ground?
A: Nothing. It won’t come anyway!
🙂
You know, I was there in the middle of The Cuban Sandwich Incident and I was also there in the middle of The Turducken Incident. Could I be a jinx for Sarc and Mike?
😉
What do you call a turducken in the middle of Coeur d’Alene Lake?
Idaho Bob
Poor Mike.
Well this website wouldn't exist in the Free Market (tm) without their generous support, for one.
That everyone who writes and contributes to it are just stenographers for whatever message these creepy, out-of-touch Oligarchs want to disseminate, is a feature not a bug.
Lookin' at you, Nick Gillespie, you old turd in a leather jacket
Breaking. The judge in Hunter Biden's indictment is tossing the plea deal. And Hunter's lawyer apparently called the court clerk pretending to represent a republican congressman and asked her to withdraw an amicus brief containing the whistleblower testimony. If these reports are true the shit is hitting the fan. I'm guessing Sullum will go dark for a few days.
Looks like the deal is back after the judge forced the government to strike the broad immunity and limit it to tax and gun crimes from 2014 to 2019. Asks if he could theoretically be charged under FARA. Government says yes.
I wish that there were editors at this rag who would spend a few minutes questioning the base assumptions of these advocacy authors.
Since ~2000 the share of patents and novel patents among mega firms has been growing, with hockey-stick acceleration of that trend around 2008-2010. Reason's Memorial Intern thinks that is evidence of how the government should leave those big firms alone. But is it really?
Hey everyone, what else started happening circa 2000, and accelerated in 2008-2010? If you said "Massive government interventions in the markets responsible for capital formation" you are correct. Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and even ACA were all legislation that made it HARDER to be a small corporation. For most of the 2000's startups ONLY real exit plan was selling to megafirms, not going IPO. And after the financia-pocalypse, rules became even more difficult.
This study isn't data explaining why we should leave mega-firms alone. It is data telling us yet one more symptom of a metastasized federal leviathan.
Good perspective.
This was basically my thought. If the government didn't want so many huge firms, then the neofeudalists running it shouldn't have passed so many laws tilting the market in that direction.
It's so much easier to extort "campaign contributions" cash as well as in-kind assistance like suppressing scandals from a few big firms instead of hundreds of little ones.
> “less competition is good actually!”
this is now a pro-Corporatist, pro-Monopoly website that has nothing to do with libertarianism, a similarly dumb, adjacent ideology.
The thesis seems plausible, but there's a possible selection bias here, though - it can cost upwards of $20,000 to file a patent nowadays, and it's also expensive to defend one. Large firms can afford both expenses more readily than small ones - which may deter the latter from filing altogether.
The cost of patents doesn’t prevent innovation.
No. But it does mean that patents are an imperfect proxy for innovation.
Some perspective here:
In the U.S. system, a Patent is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only if no prior art is found in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Registry, certain conditions are met, and fees are paid on schedule.
(Prima facie, ipso facto, a priori, the U.S. PTO does not even consider application for perpetual motion machines.)
Even then, a U.S. Patent only grants exclusivity in producing the Patented invention for 12 years, after which the invention becomes public domain for anyone to produce.
And even then, there is no guarantee that the Patent owner will make a profit off of the Patented invention within the 12 years of exclusivity. Patents don't carry with them manufacturing technique, distribution channels, or marketing savvy, nor do they warranty the product or exempt the Patent owner from product liability.
Anyone who who buys Patents takes on the risks involved with invention production as well as the benefits and profits. Megacorporations are no exception.
Government prohibiting mergers and aquisitions adds a new barrier to innovation, profit, and success--indeed could be used as a tool by a Crony-ist corporation against a newcomer-- and just makes things worse for everybody, whether Megacorporation or Mom-and-Pop or end user consumer.
No spam-plugged blog required to see that. As Condorcet would proclaim with a street twist: Laissez-Faire ou fou toi!
Thank you for those points. I take issue with this, though:
In the U.S. system, a Patent is not a right, but a privilege,
The Constitution disagrees. From Art1 S8:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Hence authors and inventors have rights,. and Congress has the explicitly delegated power to protect that right. In fact, the right to one's IP is the only right referred to in the original pre-BOR constitution, and, I think, uniquely, the only right where Congress has the explicit authority to protect it as opposed to the specific restriction on infringement.
It is true that the U.S. Constitution does recognize the rights of authors and inventors here, but granting of a Patent, however, is still not guaranteed, as indeed nothing that comes from another human being is guaranteed.
Also, it is easier for an author to claim and get Common Law Copyright protection for a published work than it is for an inventor to get a Patent. Moreover, unlike a 12-year Patent, a Copyright lasts the lifetime of the author plus 50 years.
Patents are government-manufactured "rights" that don't belong in the Constitution or in any libertarian version of a free market. See https://libertyunbound.com/do-patents-belong-in-the-constitution/
The precocious adolescent who wrote that misses the point entirely.
Consider the old saw, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Who enforces my right? Answer: in the US, the several states. There are rights that the states can protect through enforcement via the criminal law - even the most infantile libertarian can appreciate that. There are rights that are recognised that and hence constrain Federal or state power - to be found in the BoR. But what of rights whose infringements are both individual and transcend state boundaries? The states cannot conveniently enforce them, nor can a Bill of Rights recognition prevent infringement.
And the FFs reasonably regarded IP rights as one such class of rights, and delegated the power to prevent infringement of IP rights to Congress - else there might be no convenient prevention of infringement of IP rights at all! Any laws protecting IP would have to be covered by the unsatisfactory resorting to the general welfare clause - and the counterargument would be if the FFs had intended to let Congress protect IP, they would have said so. And it's not as though people like Franklin were unfamiliar with the idea of IP and its protection.
To adapt Einstein's principle concerning theories, for a strict axiomatic libertarian, government should be as small as possible, but no smaller.
“Precocious adolescent”, “infantile libertarian” – is this the best you can do? Did you even read the article? I don’t see a single point in the article being refuted. Again, here it is: https://libertyunbound.com/do-patents-belong-in-the-constitution/
As far as “progress” is concerned – your teenage scribbler seems to think that government should have no role in advancing society. Yet the argument in favour of libertarianism – indeed, for all other political systems (conservatism being a set of heuristics, not a system, it’s excluded) – is that it will advance society (else why advocate for it?) So it’s perfectly reasonable for the FFs both to protect IP and provide an explanation for doing so. And note that the explanation is not limiting, any more than the first clause of 2A is limiting.
No, the argument in favor of libertarianism is that it will protect and defend individual rights, not the utilitarian claim that it will "advance society". A government-enforced monopoly over a productive process is not a right.
US utility patents expire in 20 years if all maintenance fees are paid. The maintenance filing fees are reduced by approximately 50% for small entities and 75% for micro entities. The maintenance filings are due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years, and the patent will expire if a maintenance filing is missed.
Step 1: hire lots of smart people
Step 2: automatically take ownership of all their patents
Step 3: give them a 1500 dollar bonus for each patent, regardless of how much it earns for the firm
Seems fair.
It's work for hire. Companies pay engineers, etc. to create intellectual property for the company.
the economists Ufuk Akcigit
Now there's a kid that got teased a lot in school.
Does this study count the number of patents *filed* by megafirms, or merely the number *held* by them?
If the latter, the criticism could still hold true, they may be acquiring these patents by buying out the smaller firms that filed for them.
This doesn't seem like a very surprising or interesting result to me. Lots of big companies have large and active R&D departments. Of course they invent stuff.
And, as I noted above, the fact that we see a spike in the share of patents going to megafirms ought to be AT LEAST concerning to libertarians. For years and years, the percentage of patents owned by megafirms has been up and down, but suddenly in 2000, and then accelerating ~2010, the share of patents has skyrocketed among megafirms.
This is not the time to say "Hey, the economy is working, let's leave it be". It is the time to ask, "Now why are megafirms suddenly capturing more of the innovation in historically unprecedented numbers?"
Sometimes a couple of guys working in the corner can come up with something new and innovative and world changing. But sometimes you need economies of scale.
For the Left and much of the Right, that means Big Government. Government to fund the pure science, government to fund the basic research, etc. But the libertarians sees that ultimately it is the individual that innovates. And the best way to help them is to get government out of the way. The big firms that innovate are NOT government contractors, but fully private firms operating in a relatively free market. The firms are there for the funding and resources, but it is still the individuals who innovate.
When economies of scale are needed, the market can provide them. While government certainly is a convenient economy of scale, it's not at all the most efficient or effective.
Twelve months ago, after quitting my job , I was blessed to discover this awesome job opportunity on-line which saved me... They offer online home-based work. My latest check doing this job with them for 4 months was $10000... Great fact about the job is that the only requirement for the job is basic typing and internet access...
https://iplogger.com/2SZsh5.link
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Developing an online business in the gambling industry is now more than easy thanks to a large number of digital marketing agencies providing various promotion services. Well, they can help with sales. It is worth learning more about https://hellagood.marketing . I think it can be useful for those who want to develop in this direction.