The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis

Technovation

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 133-144

  Hurmelinna, Pia ^a   Kyläheiko, Kalevi ^a   Jauhiainen, Tiina ^a  

^a LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Appropriability regime; Intellectual property; Open innovation; Tacit knowledge

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; STANDARDS; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

APPROPRIABILITY REGIME; OPEN INNOVATIONS; TACIT KNOWLEDGE;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

EID: 33846344232     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. AIPPI, International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property, 2001. Summary report: Question Q157 the relationship between technical standards and patent rights. Available at: http://www.aippi.org/reports/q157/q157-Summary-e.htm
2. Argote L. Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (1999), Kluwer, Boston, MA
3. Armstrong S.J., and Overton T.S. Estimating non-response in mailed surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1977) 263-264
4. Arrow K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R. (Ed). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity and Social Factors (1962), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
5. Baughn C.C., Stevens J.H., Denekamp J.G., and Osborn R.N. Protecting intellectual assets in international alliances. Journal of World Business 32 2 (1997) 103-117
6. Bekkers R., Verspagen B., and Smits J. Intellectual property rights and standardization: the case of GSM. Telecommunications Policy 26 (2002) 171-188
7. Blomqvist K., Kyläheiko K., and Virolainen V.-M. Filling the gap in traditional transaction cost economics. Towards transaction benefits-based analysis. International Journal of Production economics 79 1 (2002) 1-14
8. Boisot M., and Griffiths D. Possession is nine tenths of the law: managing a firm's knowledge base in a regime of weak appropriability. Journal of Technology Management 17 6 (1999) 662-676
9. Caloghirou Y., Kastelli I., and Tsakanikas A. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?. Technovation 24 (2004) 29-39
10. Carlaw K.I., and Lipsey R.G. Externalities, technological complementarities and sustained economic growth. Research Policy 31 (2002) 1305-1315
11. Carow K., Heron R., and Saxton T. Do early birds get the returns? An empirical investigation of early mover advantages in acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal 25 6 (2004) 563-585
12. Chesbrough H. Open Innovation, The New Imperative for Crating and Profiting from Technology (2002), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
13. Chesbrough H. The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review 45 3 (2003) 33-58
14. Chesbrough H. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 44 3 (2003) 35-41
15. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
16. Cohendet P., and Steinmueller W.E. The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 2 (2000) 195-210
17. Conner K., and Rumelt R.P. Software piracy: an analysis of protection strategies. Management Science 37 2 (1991) 125-139
18. De Castro, J., Balkin, D.B., Shepherd, D.A., 2005. Can firms benefit from the piracy of their products? In: The Proceedings of European Academy of Management, EURAM 2005, Fifth Annual Conference, May 4-7, Munich, Germany.
19. Davis, L., 2001. Profiting from innovations in digital information goods, In: Kocaoglu, D.F., Anderson, T.R. (Eds.), The Role of Intellectual Property Rights. Technology Management in The New Knowledge Era, pp. 471-480.
20. Dosi G., and Nelson R.R. An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 4 (1994) 153-172
21. Earnshaw, A., 2002. Patent strategy helps protect intellectual property. The Business Journal, Portland, January.
22. Eisenhardt K.M., and Martin J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they?. Strategic Management Journal 21 10-11 (2000) 1105-1121
23. Farrell J., and Saloner G. Standardization, compatibility and innovation. Rand Journal of Economics 16 1 (1985) 70-83
24. Foss, N., 1997. On the relations between evolutionary and contractual theories of the firm. Working Paper 97-4, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy.
25. Gallaugher J.M., and Wang Y. Understanding network effects in software markets: evidence from web server pricing. MIS Quarterly 26 4 (2002) 303-327
26. Hopen, A.J., 2000. Developing patent portfolios gives defense, offense. The Business Journal of Tampa Bay, June 2nd. Also available at: http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2000/06/05/focus6.html.
27. Katz M.L., and Shapiro C. Network externalities, competition and compatibility. American Economic Review 75 3 (1985) 424-440
28. Katz M.L., and Shapiro C. Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economy 94 (1986) 822-841
29. Kelley D.J., and Rice M.P. Leveraging the value of proprietary technologies. Journal of Small Business Management 40 1 (2002) 1-16
30. Knight J.H. Patent Strategy for Researchers and Research Managers (2001), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester
31. Kogut B., and Zander U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies 24 4 (1993) 625-645
32. Kuivalainen O., Kyläheiko K., Puumalainen K., and Saarenketo S. Knowledge-based view on internationalization: Finnish telecom software suppliers as an example. In: Von Zedtwitz M., Haour G., Khalil T., and Lefebvre L. (Eds). Management of Technology: Growth through Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2003), Pergamon Press, Oxford 1-25
33. Lang J.C. Management of intellectual property rights. Strategic patenting. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 1 (2001) 8-26
34. Langlois R.N. Knowledge, consumption, and endogenous growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 11 (2001) 77-93
35. Lemley M. Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations. California Law Review 90 (2002) 1889-1980
36. Levin R.C. Appropriability, R&D spending, and technological performance. The American Economic Review 78 3 (1988) 424-428
37. 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 3 (1987) 783-831
38. Lieberman M.B., and Montgomery D.B. First-mover (dis)advantages: retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 19 12 (1998) 1111-1125
39. Liebowitz S.J., and Margolis S.E. Are network externalities a new source of market failure?. Research in Law and Economics 17 (1995) 1-22
40. Malerba F., and Orsenigo L. Knowledge, innovative activities and industrial evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 2 (2000) 289-314
41. Martin X., and Salomon R. Tacitness, learning and international expansion: a study of foreign direct investment in a knowledge-intensive industry. Organization Science 14 3 (2003) 297-311
42. Miller D. An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal 24 (2003) 961-976
43. Mueller, J.M., 2002. Patent misuse through the capture of industry standards. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 17 (2). Available at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol17/mueller.pdf
44. Nelson R.R., and Winter S.G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
45. Norman P.M. Protecting knowledge in strategic alliances. Resource and relational characteristics. Journal of High Technology Management Research 13 (2002) 177-202
46. Nunnally J.C. Psychometric Theory (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York
47. Patel, R.P., 2000. Potent Portfolio. The San Francisco Daily Journal, December 15.
48. Pisano G.P. The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 1 (1990) 153-176
49. Pitkethly R.H. Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: Patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy 30 (2001) 425-442
50. IVA, Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, 1993. Profit from innovation. A comparison of Swedish and Japanese Intellectual Property Management.
51. Rao P.M., and Klein J.A. Growing importance of marketing strategies for the software industry. Industrial Marketing Management 23 (1994) 29-37
52. Shapiro, C., 2001. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Available at http://haas.Berkeley.edu/~shapiro/thicket.pdf
53. Shapiro C., and Varian H.R. Information Rules. A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (1999), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
54. Spencer J.W. Firms' knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal 24 (2003) 217-233
55. Stuart, T., 2000. Appropriability regimes (Presentation). Available at: gbswww.uchicago.edu/fac/toby.stuart/teaching/sharp.pdf. [2 November 2001].
56. Sullivan P.H. Profiting from Intellectual Capital. Extracting Value from Innovation (1998), Wiley, New York
57. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 (1986) 285-305
58. Teece D.J. Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review 40 3 (1998) 55-79
59. Teece D.J. Managing Intellectual Capital (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford
60. Teece D., and Pisano G. The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. In: Dosi G., Teece D.J., and Chytry J. (Eds). Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness (1998), Oxford University Press, Oxford
61. Teece D.J., Pisano G., and Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 7 (1997) 509-533
62. Tuppura, A., Hurmelinna, P., Puumalainen, K., Jantunen, A., 2005. The influence of appropriability conditions on the firm's entry timing orientation. In The Proceedings of European Academy of Management, EURAM 2005, Fifth Annual Conference, May 4-7, Munich, Germany.
63. Van Dijk M. Technological regimes and industrial dynamics: the evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 2 (2000) 173-194
64. Zander U., and Kogut B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76-92