Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of the literature

Technovation

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 895-931

  Hanel, Petr ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs); Management; Property protection

Indexed keywords

FINANCE; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PERSONNEL; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

COMPUTER INFRINGEMENT; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR); LEGAL COSTS; PROPERTY PROTECTION;

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT;

EID: 33745858316     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (263)

1. Abeysekera I. A framework to audit intellectual capital. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice August (2001)
2. Adams K., et al. Modelling and forecasting US patent application filings. Journal of Policy Modelling 19 5 (1997) 491-535
3. Amesse F. The individual inventor and the role of entrepreneurship: a survey of the Canadian evidence. Research Policy 20 1 (1991) 13-27
4. In: Anderson R.D., and Gallini N.T. (Eds). Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Industry Canada Research Series vol. 9 (1998), University of Calgary Press, Calgary xiv, 477pp
5. Anonymous. Cost of patenting in Europe. Patent World (1995) 26-30
6. Aoki R., and Prusa T.J. Product development and the timing of information disclosure under US and Japanese patent systems. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 10 3 (1996) 233-249
7. Archibugi D., and Iammarino S. The policy implications of the globalization of innovation. The internationalisation of corporate R&D. Review of International Political Economy 9 1 (2002) 98-122
8. Arora A., and Fosfuri A. The market for technology in the chemical industry: causes and consequences. Revue d'Economie Industrielle, 2nd-3rd Trimesters 92 (2000) 317-334
9. Arora, A., Gambardella, A., 2000. Evolution of industry structure in the chemical industry. In: Ashish, A., Ralph, L., Nathan, R., (Eds.), Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical Industry, August 2000, 576pp.
10. Arora A., and Merges R.P. Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries. Industrial and Corporate Change 13 3 (2004) 451-475
11. Arundel A. The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy 30 4 (2001) 611-624
12. Arundel A., and Kabla I. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy 27 2 (1998) 127-141
13. Audretsch D.B. The dynamic role of small firms: evidence from the US. Small Business Economics 18 1-3 (2002) 13-40
14. Aylen D. Knowledge management: harnessing the power of intellectual property. Ivey Business Journal 65 4 (2001) 58-64
15. Baldwin J.R. Innovation and Intellectual Property (1997), Statistics Canada, Microeconomic Analysis Division, Ottawa
16. Baldwin J.R., and Hanel P. Innovation and Knowledge Creation in an Open Economy-Canadian Industry and International Implications (2003), Cambridge University Press, New York and Cambridge, UK
17. Baldwin, J.R., Hanel, P., Sabourin, D., 2000. Determinants of innovative activity in Canadian manufacturing firms. Research Paper Series No. 122 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada; a revised version. In: Kleinknecht, Mohnen (Eds.), Innovation and Firm Performance. Palgrave, 2001).
18. Bardehle H. Expectations of international and national offices: a user's view. In: Tager U., and von Witzleben A. (Eds). PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
19. Barton, J., 1998. Competition and competitive uses of intellectual property. In: Stanford Workshop on Intellectual Property and Industry Competitive Standards 98, http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Symposia/Antitrust/index.htm
20. Baruch, L., 2001. Taking stock of a company's most valuable assets. Business Week, June 18.
21. Baumgarten J.A., Gorman R.A., and Schwartz E.J. Copyright law and certain tax treatment of software transactions: United States. Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation 49 11 (1995) 522-528
22. Beynon Kerry, S., Davies, I.R., Moore, N.J., 2003. Legal Expense Insurance Report. Intellectual Property Wales (IP Wales) ED Cymru, Department of Law, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea.
23. In: Berman B. (Ed). From Ideas to Assets: Investing Wisely in Intellectual Property (2001), Wiley, New York
24. Blundell R., Griffith R., and van Reenen J. Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Review of Economic Studies 66 3 (1999) 529-554
25. Boer P.F. The Valuation of Technology (1999), Wiley, New York
26. Bosworth D., and Rogers M. Market value, R&D and intellectual property: an empirical analysis of large Australian firms. Economic Record 77 239 (2001) 323-337
27. Bosworth D., and Jobome G. The rate of depreciation of technological knowledge: evidence from patent renewal data. Economic Issues 8 1 (2003) 59-82
28. Bouju, A., 1991. Costs and risks of patent infringement litigation-possibilities for conciliation. In: Tager, U., von Witzleben, A. (Eds.), PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, Dordrecht and Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Cologne, xi, 337pp
29. Bratic W., Bersin B., and Benson P. Measuring intellectual property portfolio performance. In: Berman B. (Ed). From Ideas to Assets, Investing Wisely in Intellectual Property (2002), Wiley, New York
30. Breesé P. Stratégies de Propriété Industrielle (2002), Dunod, Paris
31. Brookings Institution. Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles (2001), Brookings Institution, Washington, DC
32. Burge D.A. Patent and Trademark Tactics and Practice (1999), Wiley, New York
33. Cantwell J., and Santangelo G.D. Capitalism, profits and innovation in the new techno-economic paradigm. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10 1-2 (2000) 131-157
34. Ch'ang, S., Yastreboff, M., 2002. How to identify your invisible advantage. Management of Intellectual Property, December 2002/January 2003.
35. Charles, S., McDougall, G., Tran, J., 2001. L'importance des industries de la propriété intellectuelle dans l'économie canadienne. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
36. Chestek P. Control of trademarks by intellectual property holding company. IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 41 (2001)
37. Cincera, M., 2001. The determinants of patenting activities in Belgium: are there differences between domestic firms and MNEs' foreign subsidiaries? Presented at the 78th International Conference of the Applied Econometrics Association 'Innovations and Intellectual Property-Economic and Managerial Perspectives', Brussels, November 23.
38. Cockburn, I., Lanjouw, J., 2000. Do patents matter? Empirical evidence after GATT, Washington, NBER working paper no. 7495.
39. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper, wp 7552.
40. Cohen W., Florida M., Randazzese L., and Walsh J. Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: Noll R. (Ed). Challenges to Research Universities (1998), Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
41. 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 8-9 (2002) 1349-1367
42. Comerford K. Licence selling and buying: the viewpoint of a small firm. In: Tager U., and von Witzleben A. (Eds). PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
43. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure. The Digital Dilemma-Intellectual Property in the Information Age (2000), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
44. Conley J.M. The international law of business method patents. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 4th Quarter 88 4 (2003) 15-33
45. Cooter R.D. Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution. Journal of Economic Literature 27 (1989) 1067-1097
46. Damodoran A. Damodoran on Valuation (1994), Wiley, New York
47. David P.A. A tragedy of the public knowledge 'commons'? Global science, intellectual property and the digital technology boomerang. Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (2000). http://www.oiprc.oxac.uk/EJINDEX.html
48. Davis L. Intellectual property rights, strategy and policy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13 5 (2004) 399-415 Special Issue July 2004
49. Davis J.L., and Harrison S.S. Edison in the Boardroom: How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Assets (2001), Wiley, New York
50. De Melto, D.P., McMullen, K.E., Wills, R.M., 1980. Preliminary report: innovation and technological change in five Canadian industries. Discussion Paper No. 176, Economic Council of Canada, Ottawa.
51. Duguet E., and Kabla I. Appropriation strategy and the motivation to use the patent system: an econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Annales d'économie et de statistique 49/50 49 (1998)
52. Digital professor, 2003. Managing The Digital Enterprise. http://digitalprofessor.org/
53. Doern G.B., and Sharaput M. Canadian Intellectual Property: The Politics of Innovating Institutions and Interests (2000), University of Toronto Press, Toronto; Buffalo and London xii, 210pp
54. Eisenberg R.S. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. In: Stephan N.P.-E., and David B.A. (Eds). The Economics of Science and Innovation. Vol. 1. Elgar Reference Collection. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics vol. 117 (2000), Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA 357-411 (distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, VT)
55. Elias S. Trademarks: Legal Care for Your Business & Product Name (2003), Nolo Press, New York
56. ETAN Expert Working Group, 1999. Strategic dimensions of intellectual property rights in the context of science and technology policy. Final report for the European Commission Directorate General XII-Science, Research and Development Directorate AP-Policy Co-ordination and Strategy.
57. Etemad H., and Seguin-Dulude L. Patenting patterns in 25 multinationals. In: Hamid E., and Séguin-Dulude L. (Eds). Managing the Multinational Subsidiary: Response to Environmental Changes and to Host Nation R&D Policies (1986), Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
58. EPO, 1994. Utilisation of Patent Protection in Europe. European Patent Office, Munich.
59. Ferrantino M.J. The effect of intellectual property rights on international trade and investment. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 129 2 (1993) 300-331
60. Firestone J. Economic Implications of Patents (1971), University of Ottawa
61. Fishman S. The Copyright Handbook: How to Protect & Use Written Works. sixth ed (2002), Nolo Press, New York
62. Fleischer M. Innovation, patenting and performance. Economie Appliquée 52 2 (1999) 95-119
63. Forbes, T., 2000. The Increasing importance of intellectual Property in M&A. Brand Finance, September.
64. Foudree B., and Trzyna P. Trade, service marks, domain names soar. National Underwriter 103 (1999) 9-12
65. Foster J. Your patent has been infringed-what to do?. Massachussets High Tech-The Journal of New England Technology 20 41 (2002). 〈www.masshightech.com〉 October 14-20
66. Frank R.-G., and Salkever D.-S. Pricing, patent loss and the market for pharmaceuticals. Southern Economic Journal 59 2 (1992) 165-179
67. Friedman D.D., Landes W.M., and Posner R.A. Some economics of trade secret law. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1991) 61-72
68. Fry, J.P., 2001. Counting the cost of trade secret theft. Managing Intellectual Property, London, July/August.
69. Fung, M.K., 2003. Technological proximity and co-movements of stock returns. Economics Letters 79 (1), 131-136, ISSN: 0165-1765.
70. Galarza P. Shave and a lawsuit.... Financial World 165 (1996)
71. Gallini N.T. The economics of patents: lessons from recent US patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 2 (2002) 131-154
72. Gallini, N., Putnam, J., Tepperman, A., 2001. Intellectual property rights and the propensity to patent. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
73. Gilbert R., and Shapiro C. Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1990) 106-112
74. Goldsborough, R., 2001. Warding off Internet legal woes. Public Relations Tactics, Jul, 8(7).
75. Ginarte J.C., and Park W.G. Determinants of Patent Rights: A Cross National Study. Research Policy 26 (1997) 283-301
76. Goldscheider R. Licensing-in: a key to continued corporate health. The Journal of Law and Technology IDEA 38 (1998) 361-382
77. Goldscheider R. Licensing Best Practices (2002), Wiley, New York
78. In: Goto A., and Odagiri H. (Eds). Innovation in Japan (1997), Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, Oxford and New York viii, 311pp
79. Graham, S., Mowery, D.C., 2001. Intellectual property protection in the US software industry. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
80. Granstrand O. Internationalization of corporate R&D: a study of Japanese and Swedish corporations. Research Policy 28 2-3 (1999) 275-302
81. Granstrand O. The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism (1999), Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA xv, 464pp. (distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, VT)
82. Granstrand O. The shift towards intellectual capitalism-the role of infocom technologies. Research Policy 29 9 (2000) 1061-1080
83. Green J., and Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 26 (1995) 20-33
84. Greenhalgh, C., Longland, M., 2002. Running to Stand Still?-Intellectual Property and Value Added in Innovating Firms. Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk
85. Greenhalgh, C., Longland, M., Bosworth, D., 2001. Protecting intellectual property: British, European and American patents and trade marks of selected UK companies, 1986-95. Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, http://www.oiprc.oxac.uk/EJINDEX.html
86. Greenlee J.S. Spies like them. Management Accounting 78 (1996) 31-32
87. Griliches Z. R&D patents and productivity. NBER (1984)
88. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature XXVIII 4 (1990) 1661-1707
89. Grindley P., and Teece D.J. Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronic. California Management Review 39 (1997) 1-34
90. Guellec D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy 30 8 (2001) 1253-1266
91. Hagedoorn J. Sharing intellectual property rights-an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies. Industrial and Corporate Change 12 5 (2003) 1035-1050
92. Hall, B., 1998a. Innovation and market value. In: Conference Innovation Survey Data/TSER Network on R&D, Innovation and Productivity. Ministère de l'industrie, Service des Statistiques Industrielles.
93. Hall B. Innovation and market value. In: Barrell R., and Mason G. (Eds). Productivity and Competitiveness (1998), Cambridge University Press, London
94. Hall B., and Ham-Ziedonis R. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32 (2001) 101-128
95. Ham R.M., Greg L., and Melissa M. Appleyard, The evolving role of semiconductor consortia in the United States and Japan. California Management Review 41 1 (1998) 137-163
96. Hanel P. Protection of intellectual property by manufacturing firms in Canada. In: Fred G. (Ed). Understanding Innovation in Canadian Industry (2003), McGill-Queen's University Press 261-292
97. Hanel P., and St-Pierre A. Effects of R&D spillovers on the profitability of firms. Review of Industrial Organization 20 (2002) 305-322
98. Harabi N. Sources of technical progress: empirical evidence from Swiss industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 4 1 (1995) 67-76
99. Harper R.K. Intellectual property and unfair trade: market response to ITC actions. International Journal of the Economics of Business 1 3 (1994) 343-353
100. Hart D.M. Antitrust and technological innovation in the US: ideas, institutions and impacts, 1890-2000. Research Policy (2001) 923-936
101. Headley, W., 1998. The Stanford Workshop on Intellectual Property and Industry Competitive Standards. Stanford, CA, http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Symposia/Antitrust/99_VS_71
102. Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. The Bayh-Dole Act and Trends in University Patenting 1965-1988 (1995), Center for Economic Policy Research, London, UK
103. Hermans J.P. Strategies for protection of innovations, the case of a research intensive multinational corporation. In: Tager U., and von Witzleben A. (Eds). PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
104. Himmelberg C., and Petersen B. R&D and internal finance: a panel study of small firms in high-tech industries. Review of Economics and Statistics 78 (1994) 38-51
105. Hiraoka K., Kuzuwa K., Ukai K., and Mori O. Description: The Improved Multi-Claim System and the Extended Patent Protection Period (1988), Association of Invention, Tokyo, Japan
106. Hirschey M., and Richardson V.J. Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors?. Journal of Empirical Finance 11 1 (2004) 91-107
107. Holger E. Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy 30 (2001) 143-157
108. Hoshi T., and Kashyap A.K. Evidence on q and investment for Japanese firms. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 4 (1990) 371-400
109. Howell, R., 1998. Database protection and Canadian laws. Prepared for Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage (also available on the Internet).
110. Hunt R.M. Patentability, Industry Structure and Innovation (2001), Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
111. Hunt R.M. You can patent that? Are patents on computer programs and business methods good for the new economy?. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, 1st Quarter (2001) 5-15
112. Industry, 1989. Science and Technology Canada & al. appendices for the survey of intellectual property rights in Canada (2 exemplaires). Final Report 89, Industry, Science and Technology Canada.
113. Industrial Research Institute, 1996. Research on the Procedures of Lawsuits on Intellectual Property Rights. Tokyo, Japan.
114. Japan Patent Association, 1988. Amendment of the patent law on the multi-claim system: guideline to utilize the multi-claim system. Patent Committee, the Second Sub-committee, No. 151, Tokyo, Japan.
115. Jarvis S. ICANN sets rules for resolving disputes. Marketing News 34 (2000) 5-6
116. Jaffe A.B. The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy 29 4-5 (2000) 531-557
117. Jones J.C.H., Potashnik T., and Zhang A. Patents, brand-generic competition and the pricing of ethical drugs in Canada: some empirical evidence from British Columbia, 1981-1994. Applied Economics 33 7 (2001) 947-956
118. Kang P.H., and Snyder K.A. A practitioner's approach to strategic enforcement and analysis of business method patents in the post-state street era. The Journal of Law and Technology IDEA 40 (2000) 267-296
119. Kanwar S., and Evenson R. Does intellectual property protection spur technological change?. Oxford Economic Papers 55 2 (2003) 235-264
120. Kash, D.E., Kingston, W., 2000. Patents in the world of complex technologies. Mimeo, Mason University.
121. Kefauver W. Intellectual property rights and competitive strategy: an international telecommunication firm. In: Wallerstein M., Mogee M.E., and Schoen R. (Eds). Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology (1993), National Academy Press, Washington, DC 236-240
122. Kingston W. Reducing the cost of resolving intellectual property disputes. European Journal of Law and Economics 2 (1995) 85-92
123. Kingston W. Innovation needs patents reform. Research Policy 30 3 (2001) 403-423
124. Kitch E.W. The nature and function of the patent system. Journal of Law and Economics 20 (1977) 265-290
125. Kneller R. Intellectual property rights and university-industry technology transfer in Japan. In: Branscomb L.M., Kodama F., and Florida R. (Eds). Industrializing Knowledge (1999), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
126. Knight H. Patent Strategy: For Researchers and Research Managers. second ed (2001), Wiley, New York
127. Knopf H.P. The database dilemma in Canada: is 'Ultra' copyright required?. University of New Brunswick Law Journal (1999)
128. Kortum, S., Lerner, J., 1997. Stronger Protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting? NBER Working Papers #6204.
129. Kortum S., and Lerner J. What Is behind the recent surge in patenting?. Research Policy 28 1 (1999) 1-22
130. Kortum S., and Putnam J. Assigning patens to industries: tests of the Yale technology concordance. Economic Systems Research 9 (1997) 161-176
131. Kreikenbohm K. Successful strategies for small firms. In: Tager U., and von Witzleben A. (Eds). PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
132. Kumar N. Intellectual property protection, market orientation and location of overseas R&D activities by multinational enterprises. World Development 24 4 (1996) 673-688
133. Kusonaki K., Nonaka I., and Nagata A. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms. Organization Science 9 (1998) 699-718
134. Kwestel M., and Nusbaum E.E. Required disclosures imperil trade secrets. Corporate Cashflow 17 (1996)
135. Lall, S., and Albaladejo, M., 2002. Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries. Elkectronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, EJWP 03/02. January.
136. Lanjouw J.O., and Lerner J. The enforcement of intellectual property rights: a survey of the empirical literature. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique January-June 49-50 (1998) 223-246
137. Lanjouw J.O., and Lerner J. Tilting the table? The use of preliminary injunctions. Journal of Law and Economics Part 1 44 2 (2001) 573-603
138. Lanjouw, J.O., Schankerman, M., 1997. Stylised facts of patent litigation: value, scope and ownership. NBER Working Paper wp# 6297. (revised and published as Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129-151, Spring 2001).
139. Lanjouw J.O., Pakes A., and Putnam J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: the uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics XLVI (1998) 405-432
140. Lans-Retsky M. Web names need intellectual protection. Marketing News 31 (1997)
141. Lazarus, G., 2001. On the role of patenting in innovation for the biotechnology industry in Canada. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
142. Lee J.Y., and Mansfield E. Intellectual property protection and US foreign direct investment. Review of Economics and Statistics 78 2 (1996) 181-186
143. Legler H., Licht G., and Spielkamp A. Germany's Technological Performance: A Study on Behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. 2000. ZEW Economic Studies (2000), Physica, Heidelberg and New York ix, 191pp
144. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. Rand Journal of Economics 25 2 (1994) 319-333
145. Lerner J. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics 38 (1995) 463-495
146. Lerner J. 150 Years of Patent Protection. American Economic Review 92 2 (2002) 221-225
147. Lerner J. Where does state street lead? A first look at finance patents, 1971-2000. Journal of Finance 57 2 (2002) 901-930
148. Levin R.C., Klevorick A.K., Nelson R.R., and Winter S.G. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1987) 783-831
149. Licht G., and Zoz K. Patents and R&D: an econometric investigation using applications for German, European and US patents by German companies. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique January-June 49/50 (1998) 329-360
150. Lipner S. The Legal and Economic Aspects of Gray Market Goods (1990), Quorum Books, New York
151. Likhovski M., et al. The first mover monopoly: a study on patenting the business methods in Europe by Olswang and Orford Intellectual Property Research Centre. Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (2000). http://www.oiprc.oxac.uk/EJINDEX.html
152. Lubove S. Ron Katz, enforcer. Forbes 160 (1997) 78-79
153. Malerba F., and Orsenigo L. Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data. Research Policy 28 6 (1999) 643-660
154. Mandeville, T., 1996. Understanding Novelty: Information, Technological Change and the Patent System. Communication and Information Science Series. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, viii, 122pp.
155. Manfroy W. Expanding business of Licensing. In: Goldscheider R. (Ed). Licensing Best Practises (2002), Wiley, New York
156. Mansfield E. R&D and innovation: some empirical findings. In: Griliches Z. (Ed). R&D, Patents and Productivity. NBER Conference Report (1984), University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 127-148
157. Mansfield E. How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out?. The Journal of Industrial Economics 34 (1985) 217-223
158. Mansfield E. Patents and innovation: an empirical study. Management Science 32 (1986) 173-181
159. Mansfield E. The speed and cost of industrial innovation in Japan and the US: external vs. internal technology. Management Science 34 (1988) 1157-1168
160. Mansfield, E., 1994. Intellectual property protection, foreign direct investment and technology transfer. Discussion Paper No. 19, The World Bank, International Finance Corporation.
161. Mansfield E., and Romeo A. Technology transfer to overseas subsidiaries by US-based firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics (1980) 737-750
162. Mansfield E., Schwartz M., and Wagner S. Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study. The Economic Journal 91 (1981) 907-918
163. Maskus K.E., and McDaniel C. Impacts of the Japanese patent system on productivity growth. Japan and the World Economy 11 4 (1999) 557-574
164. Matutes C., Regibeau P., and Rockett K. Optimal patent design and the diffusion of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics 27 (1996) 60-83
165. Mayer T., and Pfister E. Investissement direct et droits de propriete intellectuelle dans les pays en voie de developpement: une etude empirique des choix de localisation des multinationales francaise. (Direct investments and intellectual property rights in developing countries: an empirical study of french multinationals location choices. With English summary.). Région et Developpement 13 (2001) 99-123
166. Mazzoleni R., and Nelson R.R. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy 27 3 (1998) 273-284
167. Merges R.P. Patent Law and Policy, Cases and Materials (1997), Michie Law Publishers, Charlottesville, VA
168. Merges R.P. The Uninvited Guest: Patents on Wall Street. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 4th Quarter 2003 88 4 (2003) 1-14
169. Merges R.P., and Nelson R.R. On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: the effect of patent scope decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 25 (1994)
170. Merges R., and Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90 4 (1990) 839-917
171. Moore K.A. Judges, juries and patent cases-an empirical peek inside the black box. Michigan Law Review 99 2 (2000) 365-409
172. Mowery D.C. The International Computer Software Industry: A comparative Study of Industry Evolution and Structure (1996), Oxford University Press, New York
173. Mowery D.C. The computer software industry. In: Mowery D.C., and Nelson R.R. (Eds). The Success of Industrial Leadership (1999), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
174. Mowery D.C., and Nelson R.R. Explaining industrial leadership. In: Mowery D.-C., and Nelson R.-R. (Eds). Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries (1999), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York and Melbourne 359-382
175. Mowery, D., Ziedonis, A.A., 2001. Numbers, quality and entry: how has the Bayh-Dole Act affected US university patenting and licensing?. In: Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J., Stern, S. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy. vol. 1. MIT Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge and London, xiii, 252pp.
176. Mowery D.C., Oxley J.E., and Silverman B.S. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy 27 5 (1998) 507-523
177. Mowery D.C., et al. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy 30 1 (2001) 99-119
178. Nelson R.R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33 (2004) 455-471
179. Nermien Al-Ali. Comprehensive Intellectual Capital Management (2003), Wiley, New York
180. New Focus Research Pty Ltd., 2000. Report on Awareness of Intellectual Property. Prepared for Intellectual Protection Australia.
181. Nonaka I., Toyama R., and Nagata A. A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 1 (2000) 1-20
182. Nordhaus W.D. Invention, Growth and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change (1969), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
183. Nordhaus W.D. The optimum life of a patent: reply. American Economic Review 62 (1972) 428-431
184. OECD. Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations (2003), Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development, Paris
185. Okada, N., Asaba, T., 1997. The patent system and R&D in Japan. In: Goto, A., Odagiri, H. (Eds.), Innovation in Japan. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, Oxford and New York, viii, 311pp.
186. Okamaoto, T., et al., October 1996. Total Patent Costs (Filing and Maintenance Costs). Presented at the 27th Pacific Intellectual Property Association General Meeting in Hiroshima.
187. Oppenlander, K.H., 1991. Description of the IP practices in the Solvay Group (Belgium). In: Tager, U., von Witzleben, A. (Eds.), PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA and Dordrecht; Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Cologne, xi, 337pp.
188. Ordover, J.A., 1999. Competition, innovation and the Microsoft monopoly. In: Eisenach, J.-A., Lenard, T.-M. (Eds.). Antitrust in the Digital Marketplace: Proceedings of a Conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation in Washington, DC, February 5, 1998, Kluwer Academic, Boston; Dordrecht and London, x, 297pp.
189. Ordover J.A. A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1991) 43-61
190. Ostergard Jr. R.L. The measurement of intellectual property rights protection. Journal of International Business Studies, 2nd Quarter 31 2 (2000) 349-360
191. Oxley J.E. Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: the impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 38 3 (1999) 283-309
192. Pakes A. On patents, R&D and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy 93 2 (1985) 390-409
193. Pakes, A., Schankerman, M., 1984. The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In: Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984, pp. 73-88.
194. Park, W.G., 2001. Do Intellectual Property Rights Stimulate R&D and Productivity Growth? Evidence from Cross-National and Manufacturing Industry Data. International, Industry Canada Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto. May.
195. Parr R.L. Intellectual Property Infringement Damage (1999), Wiley, New York
196. Patterson M.R. Inventions, industry standards and intellectual property. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 17 3 (2002) 1043-1083
197. Pazderka B. Patent protection and pharmaceutical R&D spending in Canada. Canadian Public Policy (1999)
198. Pazderka, B., Stegeman, K., 2001. Patent policy and diffusion of pharmaceutical innovation. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
199. Pitkethly, 1999. The European patent system: implementing patent law harmonization. Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, WP/99; Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJINDEX.html
200. Pitkethly R.H. Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy (2001) 425-442
201. Prahalad, C.K., Hansel, G., 1990. The core competence of corporation. Harvard Business Review, May 6.
202. Prakash G.G. Trends in patent cases. The Journal of Law and Technology IDEA 41 (2001) 283-295
203. Rafiquzzaman, M., 2001. Foreign protection of intellectual property rights and the effect on Canadian exports. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
204. Rafiquzzaman, M., Ghosh, S., 2001. The importance of the intellectual property rights systems to economic performance: a study of the Canadian experience. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
205. Rafiquzzaman, M., Mahmud, A., 2002. Is Canada still missing the technology boat? Evidence based on the quality and quantity of innovations. Mimeo, Industry Canada.
206. Rafiquzzaman, M., Whewell, L., 1999. Trends in cross-country innovative performance and the determinants of international patenting activities. Mimeo, Industrie Canada, Ottawa.
207. Raincock, B.J.D., 1991. Possibilities and limitations of insurance cover for patent disputes. In: Tager, U., von Witzleben, A. (Eds.), PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA and Dordrecht; Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Cologne, xi, 337pp.
208. Ramsay J.T. Dreadful drafting: the do's and don'ts of licensing agreements. In: Goldscheider R. (Ed). Licensing Best Practices (2002), Wiley, New York
209. Razgaitis R. Early Stage Technologies (1999), Wiley, New York
210. Razgaitis R. Technology valuation. In: Goldscheider R. (Ed). Licensing Best Practices (2002), Wiley, New York
211. Reback G.L. Patently absurd. Forbes ASAP 169 (2002) 44-48
212. Reilly, and Schweihs. Valuing Intangible Assets (1998), McGraw-Hill, New York
213. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy 33 6-7 (2004) 939-957
214. 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 (special issue)
215. Reitzig M. What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy 32 1 (2003) 13-26
216. Rivette, K.G., Klein, D., 2000. Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents Harvard Business School.
217. Robson M., Townsend J., and Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of production and use of innovations in the UK: 1945-1983. Research Policy 17 (1988) 1-14
218. Rosenberg N., and Steinmueller O. Can Americans learn to become better imitators?. In: Edward W., and Rosenberg N. (Eds). Exploring the Black Box: TECHNOLOGY, Economics and History (1994), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York and Melbourne 121-138
219. Roycroft R.W., and Kash D.E. The complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21st Century (1999), Pinter, London
220. Rudolph, J.R., Managing Intellectual Property-there may be more to it than you think. www.bereskinparr.com
221. Sakakibara, M., 2001. U.S.-Japan patent systems. In: Burgelman, R.A., Henry, C. (Eds.), Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution, Research on Technological Innovation; Management and Policy, vol. 7. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, New York, Tokyo, pp. xvi, 261.
222. Sakakibara, M., Branstetter, L., 1999. Do stronger patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1998 Japanese patent law reforms. NBER Working Paper, wp#7066.
223. Sandri S. Transnational licensing: company strategies. In: Tager U., and von Witzleben A. (Eds). PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
224. Sani P. Licensing in and licensing out from the viewpoint of a large company. In: Tager U., and von Witzleben A. (Eds). PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
225. Schankerman M. How valuable is patent protection? Estimates by technology field. RAND Journal of Economics 29 (1998) 77-107
226. Scherer F.M. Nordhaus' theory of optimal patent life: a geometric reinterpretation. American Economic Review 62 (1972) 422-427
227. Scherer F.M. Edwin Mansfield: an appreciation. The Journal of Technology Transfer 30 1/2 (2005) 3-9
228. Scherer F.M., and Harhoff D. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 29 (2000) 559-566
229. Scherer F.M., 1959. Patents and the Corporation. Boston, privately published.
230. Scotchmer S. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 1 (1991) 29-41
231. Scotchmer S. Protecting early innovators: should second-generation products be patentable?. Rand Journal of Economics 27 2 (1996) 322-331
232. Scotchmer S., and Green J. Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1990) 131-147
233. Scotchmer, S.A., Mauer, S.M., 2001. Across two worlds: database protection in the US and Europe. In: Industry Canada International Conference on Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Toronto, May.
234. Sears, M.H., 2002. Submarine patents under attack. Managing Intellectual Property, Issue 125, p. 45, December 2002-January 2003.
235. Séguin-Dulude L., and Desranleau C. The Individual Canadian Inventor (1988), Statistics Canada, Technology and Capital Stock Division, Catalogue pp. 88-510
236. Seyoum B. The impact of intellectual property rights on foreign direct investment. Columbia Journal of World-Business 31 1 (1996) 50-59
237. Shane H., and Klock M. The relation between patent citations and Tobin's Q in the semiconductor industry. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 9 (1997) 131-146
238. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross lincenses, patent pools and standard setting. In: Jaffe A.B., Lerner J., and Stern S. (Eds). Innovation Policy and the Economy vol. 1 (2001), MIT Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge and London xiii, 252pp
239. Sherry E., and Teece D.J. Royalties, Evolving Patent Rights, and the Value of Innovation. Research Policy 33 2 (2004) 179-191
240. Shilling D. Essentials of Trademarks and Unfair Competition (2002), Wiley, New York
241. Simensky M., et al. Intellectual Property in the Global Market Place (1999), Wiley, New York
242. Smith G.V. Trademark Valuation (1997), Wiley, New York
243. Smith G.V., and Parr R.L. Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets. third ed (1998), Wiley, New York
244. Smith P.J. How do foreign patent rights affect US exports, affiliate sales and licenses?. Journal of International Economics 55 2 (2001) 411-439
245. Stanzler J. Insurance coverage for intellectual property disputes. Computer Law 23 10 (1993)
246. Stolpe M. Protection against software piracy: a study of technology adoption for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 9 1 (2000) 25-52
247. Tager U., and von Witzleben A. PATINNOVA '90: Strategies for the Protection of Innovation: Proceedings of the First European Congress on Industrial Property Rights and Innovation (1991), Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA and Dordrecht; Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Cologne xi, 337pp
248. Taylor C.T., and Silberston Z.A. The Economic Impact of the Patent System (1973), Cambridge at the University Press, London
249. Thumm N. Intellectual property rights: National systems and harmonisation in Europe. Contributions to Economics (2000), Physica, Heidelberg and New York x, 186pp
250. Tilton J.E. International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors (1971), The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC
251. Tilton J.E. Research and development in industrial growth: a comment. Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973) 1245-1252
252. Trajtenberg, M., 2000. Is Canada missing the technological boat? Evidence from the patent data. Discussion Paper No. 9, Industry Canada, Ottawa.
253. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics 21 1 (1990) 172-187
254. UNIDO, 1996. Manual on Technology Transfer Negotiation. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna.
255. University of Dublin, Enforcing small firms patent rights. Eur-Op/European Comission, ISBN:92-894-0633-X.
256. University of Texas, 2003. Crash Course on the Internet and Copyright. http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty//cprtindx.htm
257. US Copyright Office, 2003. http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright
258. USPTO, 2000. Technology profile report semiconductor devices and manufacture 1/1969-12/1999 (A Technology Assessment and Forecast Report). US Patent and Trade Mark Office, Washington, DC.
259. Weston, H., 1998. Rapporteur's report. In: Proceedings of the Stanford Workshop on Intellectual Property and Industry Competitive Standards. Stanford Law and Technology Policy Center, Stanford, April 17-18.
260. WIPO, 2003. Intellectual property issues related to electronic commerce. http://www.wipo.int/sme
261. Zack C. How to Restructure Technology-Rich Companies (2001), Managing Intellectual Property, London
262. Zitt M., et al. Territorial concentration and evolution of science and technology activities in the European union: a descriptive analysis. Research Policy 28 5 (1999) 545-562
263. Zuniga, P., Combe, E., 2001. The effects of strengthening intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector; the Mexican case. Paper presented at 78th International Conference of the Applied Econometrics Association: Innovations and Intellectual Property-Economic and managerial perspectives, Bruxelles, Novembre 23.