Wealth of knowledge: converting intellectual property to intellectual capital in co-opetitive research and technology management settings

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 18, Issue 3-4, 1999, Pages 326-352

  Carayannis, Elias G ^a,c,d   Alexander, Jeffrey ^a,b  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Washingon Core   (United States)

^c RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d National Technical   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; STANDARDS; TECHNOLOGY;

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; KNOWLEDGE ECONOMICS; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH COLLABORATION; TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT;

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY;

EID: 0032596730     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: None    
DOI: 10.1504/ijtm.1999.002769     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Drucker, P. (1991) Post-capitalist Society, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
2. Carayannis, E. and Alexander, J. (1997) 'Electronic commerce and knowledge economics: trust and co-opetition in a global business environment,' Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, at http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBCy9703-05.htm.
3. Stewart, T. (1994) 'Your company's most valuable asset: intellectual capital', Fortune, 3 October, pp.68-74.
4. Brooking, A. (1997) Intellectual Capital, International Thomson Business Press, London.
5. Arthur, W.B. (1996) 'Increasing returns and the new world of business', Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.100-109.
6. Brandenburger and Nalebuff describe co-opetition as "a duality in every relationship - the simultaneous elements of cooperation and competition. War and peace. Co-opetition". See Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, J. (1996). Co-opetition, Currency Doubleday, New York, p.39.
7. Liebeskind, J.P. (1996) 'Knowledge, strategy and the theory of the firm', Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, Vol. 17, pp.93-107.
8. Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
9. A commonly-cited source using this framework is Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York.
10. Tsoukas, H. (1996) 'The firm as a distributed knowledge system: the constructionist approach', Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, Vol. 17, pp.11-25.
11. Thurow, L.C. (1997) 'Needed: a new system of intellectual property rights', Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp.94-103.
12. Oates, T.H. and W.A. Taylor. (1996) 'Technology as knowledge: towards a new perspective on knowledge management in electronics', Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 11, Nos. 3/4, pp.296-315.
13. Rogers, D.M. (1996) 'Knowledge management gains momentum in industry', Research-Technology Management, May-June, pp.5-7.
14. Sullivan, P. and Edvinsson, L. (1996b) 'Developing an intellectual capital management capability at Skandia.' In R.L. Parr and P. Sullivan (eds.), Technology Licensing: Corporate Strategies for Maximizing Value, John Wiley, New York, pp.261-266.
15. Mullin, R. (1996a) 'Knowledge management: a cultural evolution', Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.56-59.
16. Mullin, R. (1996b) 'Intellectual assets: know-how management systems', Chemical Week, pp.26-32.
17. Rogers, E. (1995) The Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.
18. Carayannis, E.G. (1996) 'Re-engineering high risk, high complexity industries through multiple level technological learning: a case study of the world nuclear power industry', Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 12, No. 4.
19. National Research Council. (1987) Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage, National Academy Press, Washington.
20. Morone, J. (1989) 'The strategic management of technology', California Management Review.
21. Roussell, P.A., Saad, K.M. and Erickson, T.J. (1991) Third Generation R&D, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.
22. There are different kinds of patents, e.g., design, utility and plant patents. Whether an invention is made by a flash of genius or painstaking research, to be patentable it must meet all of the following hard to satisfy criteria: (a) 'novelty' in that it was not previously known to others or in public use in the US, or patented or described in a printed publication anywhere, more than one year before the US application's filing date; (b) 'non-obvious' to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (c) 'utility' in that it has a useful purpose, actually works, and is not frivolous. A patent in essence grants permission to hold an exclusive monopoly over the exploitation of a technology. Complementary to a patent is the Statutory Invention Registration (SIR), which gives the holder the right to use the invention but does preclude others from using or selling it; these are frequently used for registering government inventions. Contrary to a patent, this is a right to use a technology rather than to prevent others from using it. SIRs are cheaper to register than patents as they are not normally subject to examination.
23. Trademarks include brand names identifying goods ('Pepsi-cola' for a soft drink), service marks identifying services ('The Four Seasons' for a restaurant service), certification marks identifying goods or services meeting certain qualifications ('UL' for appliances meeting the safety standards of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.) and collective marks identifying goods, services, or members of a collective organization ('AFL-CIO' for union locals). In the United States, unlike many other countries, the first user of a mark is normally considered its owner even if someone else has been the first to apply to register the same mark. Federal and State trademark law protects a mark whether or not it is registered, and protection endures as long as the mark is in use and the user takes steps to prevent others from using the same mark.
24. Copyrightable works include: literary, musical and dramatic works; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic and sculptural works (including non-utilitarian design features of useful articles); motion pictures and other audio-visual works; sound recordings; computer programs; and also compilations of works and derivative works. Copyright only protects particular expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Also, a protectable work must be 'original', i.e., not copied from another source (although two separately protectable works theoretically could be identical by coincidence), and the work must not be so elementary that it lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrightable (the standard for creativity is minimal).
25. One notable example of a trade secret is the formula for Coca-Cola. Trade secrets are defined and protected under individual state laws in the United States, and thus may be subject to different enforcement standards
26. Roberts, E. (1995) 'Benchmarking the strategic management of technology-I', Research-Technology Management, January-February, pp.44-56.
27. Day, K. (1997).'A reinvention of patent rules', The Washington Post, 24 April, p. E1.
28. Davis, A. and Lublin, J. (1997) 'More mid-level managers have trouble trying to jump ship', The Wall Street Journal, 3 April.
29. Ford, D. (1988) 'Develop your technology strategy', Long Range Planning, Vol. 21, October, pp.85-95.
30. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal S. (1997) 'Social capital, intellectual capital and the creation of value in firms', Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, pp.35-39.
31. Carayannis, Preston, and Awerbuch. (1996) 'Architectural innovation, technological learning, and the virtual utility concept', Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Technology Management, IEEE Engineering Management Society, Vancouver, Canada, 18-20 August.
32. Kogut, B. and Kulatilaka, N. (1994) 'Options thinking and platform investments: investing in opportunity', California Management Review, winter, pp.52-71.
33. Kotabe, M., Sahay, A. and Aulakh. P. (1996) 'Emerging role of technology licensing in the development of global product strategy: conceptual framework and research propositions', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, January, pp.73-88.
34. Kay, J. (1996) Why Finns Succeed, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
35. Teece, D.J. (1986) 'Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy', Research Policy, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.285-305.
36. Lang, J. (1996) 'Strategic alliances between large and small high-tech firms (the small firm licensing option)', Int. J. Technology Management, Special Issue on Access to Technological and Financial Resources for SME Innovation, Vol. 12, Nos. 7/8, pp.796-807.
37. Liyanage, S. and Mitchell, H. (1995) 'Management of intellectual property rights in Australian Cooperative Research Centres', Int. J. Technology Management, Special Issue of the Management of Intellectual Property, Vol. 10. Nos. 2/3, pp.343-364.
38. Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, The Free Press, New York, p.26.
39. Given that firms are unable to protect their knowledge absolutely, they may be able to pre-empt the misappropriation of their knowledge by sharing it with their competitors. This, in turn, can create the expectation that the competitor will in turn share its knowledge with the donor firm. Thus, knowledge becomes an object of barter between firms towards the development of a new form of economic relationship. The equal exchange of knowledge constitutes a 'quid pro quo' which, in turn, reinforces a growing trust between the parties to that transaction. As long as the knowledge exchanged between the firms is perceived by the recipients to be of equal value, trust can be built. See Carayannis, E. and Alexander, J. [2] 'The role of knowledge exchange in trust, co-opetition and post-capitalist economics', paper presented at the European Institute for the Advanced Study of Management, Belgium.
40. Inkpen, A.C. (1996) 'Creating knowledge through collaboration.' California Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.123-140.
41. Harvey, M. and Lucas, L. (1996) 'Intellectual property rights protection: what MNC managers should know about GATT?', Multinational Business Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.77-93, spring.
42. Frischtak, C.R. (1995) 'Harmonization versus differentiation in international property rights regimes', Int. J. Technology Management, Special Issue on the Management of Intellectual Property, Vol. 10. Nos. 2/3, pp.200-213.
43. Rushing and Brown. (1990) Intellectual Property Rights in Science, Technology and Economic Performance: International Comparisons, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
44. Balachandra, A. (1996) 'International technology transfer in small business: a new paradigm', Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 12, Nos. 5/6, pp.625-638.