Can technology lead to a competitive advantage? A case study of flanders using European patent data

Scientometrics

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 379-400

  Debackere, K ^a   Luwel, M ^b   Veugelers, Reinhilde ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Sci and Innovation Administration   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038272891     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02458486     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. BALASSA, An empirical demonstration of classical comparative cost theory, Review of Economics and Statistics, 4( (1961).
2. DEBACKERE, K., D. ROLLEZ, Design capabilities to support innovation strategies, Research Report DTEW (1998).
3. GAMBARDELLA, A., S. TORRISI, Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry, Research Policy, 27, (1998), 445-464.
4. GRILICHES, Z., (Ed.) R&D, Patents and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1984).
5. GRILICHES, Z., Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 28, (1990) 1661-1707.
6. GRINDLEY, P. C., D. J. TEECE, Mánaging intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics, California Management Review, 39, 2, (1997) 8-41.
7. HENDERSON, R., Underinvestment and incompetence as a response to radical innovation, Rand Journal of Economics, 24, (1993), 465-482.
8. HENDERSON, R., JAFFE, A., TRAJTENBERG M., The Bayh-Dole Act and trends in university patenting, CEPR Discussion paper Nr 433 (1995).
9. LEVIN, R. et al., Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, (1987) 783-820.
10. MAZZOLENI, R., R. NELSON, Benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate, Research Policy, 27, (1998), 273-284.
11. MERGES, R., R. NELSON, On the complex economics of patent scope, Columbia Law Review, 90, (1990), 839-916.
12. NARIN, F., NOMA, E., R. PERRY, Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength, Research Policy, 16, (1987), 143-155.
13. NARIN, F., R. P. ROZEK, Bibliometric analysis of US pharmaceutical industry research performance, Research Policy, 17, (1988), 139-154.
14. NARIN, F., Linkage between patents and papers: an interim EPO/US comparison, Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, (1997), Jerusalem, Israel.
15. PATEL, P., K. PAVITT, The continuing, widespread importance of improvements in mechanical technologies, Research Policy, 23, (1994), 533-545.
16. PATEL, P, K. PAVITT, The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety, Research Policy, 26 (1997), 141-156.
17. RAPPA, M. A., DEBACKERE, K., R. GARUD, Technological progress and the duration of contribution spans, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 42, (1992), 133-145.
18. SCHMOCH, U., N. KIRSCH, Internationaler Vergleich von Forschung und Entwicklung im Telekommunikationsbereich: Aktualisierung 1991/92, ISI-reports, (1992).
19. SCHMOCH, U., HINZE, S., N. KIRSCH, Analysis of the dynamic relationship between technical and economic performances in information and telecommunication sectors, ISI-reports, (1992).
20. TEECE, D. J., Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15, (1986) 285-305.
21. TRAJTENBERG, M., A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations, The Rand Journal of Economics, 21, 1. (1990).
22. VERSPAGEN, B., MERIT ISIC-IPC Concordance Table, MERIT Research Memorandum, (1994).
23. VEUGELERS, R., B. CASSIMAN, Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms, Research Policy, (1998), to appear.