Appropriability regime for radical and incremental innovations

R and D Management

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 278-289

  Hurmelinna Laukkanen, Pia ^a,b   Sainio, Liisa Maija ^b   Jauhiainen, Tiina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43849101677     PISSN: 00336807     EISSN: 14679310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00513.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Abernathy, W. Clark, K. (1984) Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Resea 14, 3 22.
2. Adner, R. (2002) When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Manageme 23, 667 688.
3. Anderson, P. Tushman, M. (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604 633.
4. Armstrong, S.J. Overton, T.S. (1977) Estimating non-response in mailed surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 263 264.
5. Arrow, K. (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson, R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. New York : Princeton University Press, pp. 609 625.
6. Arundel, A. (2001) The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30, 4, 611 624.
7. Baughn, C.C., Stevens, J.H., Denekamp, J.G. Osborn, R.N. (1997) Protecting intellectual capital in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 32, 2, 103 117.
8. Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B. Smits, J. (2002) Intellectual property rights and standardization: the case of GSM. Telecommunications Policy, 26, 171 188.
9. Boxall, P. (1998) Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: towards a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3, 265 288.
10. Brown, S.L. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1 34.
11. Chesbrough, H. (2003) The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45, 3, 33 58.
12. Christensen, C. (2000) The Innovator's Dilemma. Boston, MA : HarperBusiness, Harvard Business School Press.
13. Christensen, C. Overdorf, M. (2000) Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78, 2, 67 76.
14. Christensen, C. Raynor, M. (2003) The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.
15. Christensen, C. Rosenbloom, R. (1995) Explaining the attacker's advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24, 233 257.
16. Cockburn, I. Griliches, Z. (1988) The estimation and measurement of spillover effects of R&D investment. Industry effects and appropriability measures in the stock market's valuation of R&D and patents. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 78, 2, 419 423.
17. Cohen, W.M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R.R. Walsh, J.P. (2002) R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31, 1349 1367.
18. Cohen, W.M. Levinthal, D.A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1, 128 152.
19. 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.
20. Conner, K. Rumelt, R.P. (1991) Software piracy: an analysis of protection strategies. Management Science, 37, 2, 125 138.
21. Day, G. Schoemaker, P. (2000) Avoiding the pitfalls of emerging technologies. California Management Review, 42, 2, 8 33.
22. Dosi, G. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147 162.
23. Garcia, R. Calantone, R. (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 110 132.
24. Gerde, V. Mahto, R. (2004) Disruptive technology and interdependence: the relationships of BioMEMS technology and pharmaseutical firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15, 73 89.
25. Govindarajan, V. Kopalle, P.K. (2006) The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 12 18.
26. Hall, B.H. (2005) Exploring the patent explosion. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 1/2, 35 48.
27. Henderson, R. (2006) The innovator's dilemma as a problem of organizational competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 5 11.
28. Hurmelinna, P., Kyläheiko, K. Jauhiainen, T. (2007) The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27, 3, 133 144.
29. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2005). Dynamics of appropriability - finding a balance between efficiency and strength in the appropriability regime. Doctoral thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 228.
30. Jantunen, A. (2005) Knowledge-processing capabilities and innovative performance: a case study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 3, 336 349.
31. Joly, P.-B. de Looze, M.-A. (1996) An analysis of innovation strategies and industrial differentiation through patent applications: the case of plant biotechnology. Research Policy, 25, 1027 1046.
32. Knott, A.M., Wu, B. Posen, H. (2004). Spillover asymmetry. Paper presented at the Fall Conference, College on Organization Science, November 7th 2004, Tuck School of Business, Darthmouth.
33. Koberg, C., Detienne, D. Heppard, K. (2003) An empirical test of environmental, organizational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 21 45.
34. Laursen, K. Salter, A. (2005). My Precious. The role of appropriability strategies in shaping innovative performance. Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics: DRUID. Working paper No. 05-02.
35. Lemley, M. (2002) Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations. California Law Review, 90, 1889 1980.
36. Lerner, J. (1995) Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law & Economics, 38, 2, 463 495.
37. Levin, R.C. (1988) Appropriability, R&D spending, and technological performance. The American Economic Review, 78, 2, 424 428.
38. Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R. Winter, S.G. (1987) Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783 831.
39. Lockett, A. Thompson, S. (2001) The resource-based view and economics. Journal of Management, 27, 723 754.
40. Markides, C. (2006) Disruptive innovation: in need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19 25.
41. McDermott, C.M. O'Connor, G.C. (2002) Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 424 438.
42. McEvily, S.K., Eisenhardt, K.M. Prescott, J.E. (2004) The global acquisition, leverage, and protection of technological competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 8-9, 713 722.
43. Minderhoud, S. Fraser, P. (2005) Shifting paradigms of product development in fast and dynamic markets. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 88, 127 135.
44. O'Connor, G.C. McDermott, C.M. (2004) The human side of radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 11 30.
45. OECD (1997) Oslo Manual - Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris : OECD.
46. Pleatsikas, C. Teece, D. (2001) The analysis of market definition and market power in the context of rapid innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 665 693.
47. Riggs, W. von Hippel, E. (1994) Incentives to innovate and sources of innovation: the case of scientific instruments. Research Policy, 23, 459 469.
48. Sattler, H. (2003) Appropriability of product innovations: an empirical analysis for Germany. International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 5/6, 502 516.
49. Saviotti, P.P. (1998) On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge. Research Policy, 26, 843 856.
50. Slater, S.F. Mohr, J.J. (2006) Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: insights based on strategy type. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 26 33.
51. Strang, D. Still, M.C. (2006) Does ambiguity promote imitation or hinder it? An empirical study of benchmarking teams. European Management Review, 3, 101 112.
52. Stringer, R. (2000) How to manage radical innovation. California Management Review, 42, 4, 70 88.
53. Teece, D.J. (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285 305.
54. Teece, D.J. (2000) Managing Intellectual Capital. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
55. Teece, D.J. Pisano, G.P. (2007) How to capture value from innovation: shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50, 1, 278 296.
56. Tellis, G.J. (2006) Disruptive technology or visionary leadership? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 34 38.
57. Tushman, M. (1997) Winning through innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 25, 4, 14 19.
58. Van Dijk, M. (2000) Technological regimes and industrial dynamics: the evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 2, 173 194.
59. Willman, P. (1992) Playing the long game; reaping the benefits of technological change. Business Strategy Review, 3, 1, 89 98.