Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany

Research Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 655-672

  Blind, Knut ^a,b   Edler, Jakob ^a   Frietsch, Rainer ^a   Schmoch, Ulrich ^a  

^a FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS AND INNOVATION RESEARCH ISI   (Germany)

^b TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Appropriability; Competition; Patents; Protection; R D

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; PERSONNEL; PROTECTION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

APPROPRIABILITY; FINANCIAL SECTOR; PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; STRATEGIC MOTIVES;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 33646888407     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Arundel A. The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy 30 4 (2001) 611-624
2. Arundel, A., Patel, P., 2003. Strategic patenting. Background Report for the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop. New Trends in IPR Policy.
3. Arundel, A., van de Paal, G., Soete, L., 1995. Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms. Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations and government programmes. In: MERIT, M., European, Commission/GD., Telecommunication, I., u.N., d.F. (Eds.). PACE Report, final report, European Commission, Brussels, GD XIII.
4. Blind K., and Thumm N. Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy 33 10 (2004) 1583-1598
5. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U., 2004. The patent upsurge in Germany: the outcome of a multi-motive game induced by large companies. Working paper presented at the Eighth Schumpeter Conference in Milan, Karlsruhe. Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
6. Blind K., Edler J., and Friedewald M. Software Patents: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications (2005), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/UK, and Northampton/USA
7. Blind, K., Edler, J., Schmoch, U., Andersen, B., Howells, J., Miles, I., Roberts, J., Hipp, C., Green, L., Herstatt, C., Evangelista, R., 2003. Patents in the Service Industries, final report. EC contract No ERBHPV2-CT-1999-06. European Commission, Brussels.
8. Bussy J.C., Kabla I., and Lehou T. The Role of Patents as an Appropriation Mechanism and the Other Functions of Patents (1994), INSEE, Paris
9. Cohen, W., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
10. Cohen W.M., Goto A., Nagata A., Nelson R.R., and Walsh J.P. R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy 31 (2002) 1349-1367
11. Duguet E., and Kabla I. Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: an econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique 49/50 (1998) 289-327
12. Frietsch, R., 2004. Entwicklung des internationalen Patentaufkommens. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Ed.), Berlin.
13. Granstrand O. The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property. Towards Intellectual Capitalism (1999), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/UK, and Northampton/USA
14. Hall B.H., and Ziedonis R.M. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. The Rand Journal of Economics 32 1 (2001) 101-128
15. Hussinger, K., 2006. Is silence golden? Patents versus secrecy at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15 (6), in press.
16. Jaffe, A.B., 1999. The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. NBER working paper series 7280. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
17. Janz N., Licht G., and Doherr Th. Innovation activities and European patenting for German firms. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Association of Research of Industrial Economics (EARIE). EARIE, Dublin (2001)
18. Kash D.E., and Kingston W. Patents in a world of complex technologies. Science and Public Policy 28 1 (2001) 11-22
19. Kingston W. Innovation needs patents reform. Research Policy 30 (2001) 403-423
20. Kortum S., and Lerner J. What is behind the recent surge in patenting?. Research Policy 28 (1999) 1-22
21. Mendonca S., Pereira T.S., and Godinho M.M. Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy 33 9 (2004) 1385-1404
22. OECD, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy (Ed.), 2003. Preliminary Results of OECD/BIAC Survey on the Use and Perception of Patents in the Business Community. Working Party on Innovation and Policy, 19-20 June, 2003.
23. Pitkethly R.H. Intellectual property in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy 30 3 (2001) 425-442
24. Pitkethly, R.H., 2003. The strategic management of intellectual property rights. Invited lecture at the Copenhagen Business School/Danish Patent Office Lecture, Copenhagen.
25. Rahn, G., 1994. Patentstrategien japanischer Unternehmen. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil 5 (377).
26. Rammer, C., 2003. Patente und Marken als Schutzmechanismen für Innovationen, Nr. 11-2003. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn.
27. Reitzig M. The private values of "thickets" and "fences": towards an updated picture of the use of patents across industries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13 5 (2004) 457-476
28. Roberts B. A tale of two patent strategies. Electronic Business 10 25 (1999) 79-84
29. Schalk, H.J., Täger, U.C., Brander, S. (Eds.), 1999. Wissensverbreitung und Diffusionsdynamik im Spannungsfeld zwischen innovierenden und imitierenden Unternehmen. Ifo-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, München.
30. Scherer F.M. Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. American Economic Review 55 (1965) 1097-1125
31. Schmoch U. Service marks as novel innovation indicator. Research Evaluation 12 3 (2003) 149-156
32. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 (1986) 285-305
33. Thumm N. Research and Patenting in Biotechnology: A Survey in Switzerland. (2003), Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern