Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services

Research Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1530-1547

  Amara, Nabil ^a   Landry, Réjean ^a   Traoré, Namatié ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b Regulatory   (Canada)

Author keywords

Complementarity; Correlation approach; KIBS; Multivariate Probit regression; Protection methods of intellectual property

Indexed keywords

CHLORINE COMPOUNDS; COMPETITION; ELECTRIC BREAKDOWN; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERNET PROTOCOLS; JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; MECHANISMS; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; TECHNOLOGY; TRADEMARKS;

COMPLEMENTARITY; CORRELATION APPROACH; DESIGN PATTERNS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION; IP PROTECTION; KIBS; KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE BUSINESSES; LEAD-TIME; MULTIVARIATE PROBIT REGRESSION; PROTECTION MECHANISMS; PROTECTION METHODS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY;

INNOVATION;

EID: 50649092007     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ahire S.L., and Devaraj S. An empirical comparison of statistical construct validation approaches. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48 3 (2001) 319-329
2. Andersen B., and Howells J. Intellectual property rights shaping innovation in services. In: Andersen B., et al. (Ed). Knowledge and Innovation in the New Service Economy (2000), Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA 229-247
3. Arora A. Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions: a note. Economics Letters 50 (1996) 51-55
4. Arora A. Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry. Research Policy 26 (1997) 391-403
5. Arundel A., Van de Paal G., and Soete L. Innovation Strategies of Europe's Largest Industrial Firms (1995), MERIT, Maastricht
6. Arundel A. The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy 30 (2001) 611-624
7. Arundel, A., 2000. Patents-the Viagra of innovation policy? Internal Report to the Expert Group. MERIT.
8. Athey, S., Stern, S., 1998. An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organizational design. NBER Working Paper No. W6600. NBER, Cambridge.
9. Baldwin J. Innovation and Intellectual Property (1997), Statistics Canada (catalogue 88-515-XPE)
10. Baldwin J., and Hanel P. Innovation and Knowledge Creation in an Open Economy (2001), Cambridge University Press
11. Belderbos R., Carree M., Diederen B., and Lokshin B. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22 (2004) 1237-1263
12. Blind K., Edler J., Frietsch R., and Schmoch U. Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy 35 5 (2006) 655-672
13. Blind K., and Thumm N. Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy 33 10 (2004) 1583-1598
14. Blind K., Elder J., Schmoch U., Anderson B., Howells J., Miles I., Roberts J., Green L., Evangilista R., Hipp C., and Herstatt C. Patents in the Service Industries (2003), Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research
15. Brouwer E., and Kleinknecht A. Innovative output and a firm's propensity to patent: an exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy 28 (1999) 615-624
16. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., and Walsh J. Appropriability Conditions and why Firms Patent and Why They do not in the American Manufacturing Sector (1998), Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
17. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER, Working paper No. 7552.
18. Encaoua D., Guellec D., and Martinez C. Patent systems for encouraging innovation: lessons from economic analysis. Research Policy 35 9 (2006) 1423-1440
19. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. second ed. (2006), Thousand Oaks, London
20. Galia F., and Legros D. Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: evidence from France. Research Policy 33 (2004) 1185-1199
21. Greene W.H. Limdep Version 7.0 User's Manual (1995), Econometric Software, Bellpart, New York
22. Hall B.H., and Ham Ziedonis R. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32 1 (2001) 101-128
23. Hanel P. Intellectual property rights business management practices: a survey of the literature. Technovation 26 (2006) 895-931
24. Hanel, P., 2001. Current intellectual protection practices by manufacturing firms in Canada. Working paper 09-01. Université de Sherbrooke, Département d'économie.
25. Harabi N. Appropriability of technical innovations: an empirical analysis. Research Policy 24 (1995) 981-992
26. Hill C.W.L., and Jones G.R. Strategic Management, An Integrated Approach. fifth ed. (2001), Houghton Mifflin
27. Howells J., Blind K., Elder J., and Evangelista R. Knowledge regimes, appropriability and intellectual property protection: a conceptual framework for services. In: Blind K., Elder J., Schmoch U., Anderson B., Howells J., Miles I., Roberts J., Green L., Evangilista R., Hipp C., and Herstatt C. (Eds). Patents in the Service Industries (2003), Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research (chapter 3)
28. Hussinger, K., 2005. Is Silence golden? Patents versus secrecy at the firm level. GESY, Discussion Paper No. 37.
29. Ichniowski C., Shaw K., and Prennushi G. The Effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review 87 3 (1997) 291-313
30. Jorda K., and Kaeschke W. Harvesting new intellectual assets: the role of business methods patents and trade secrets in strategic IP management. In: Kahn E. (Ed). Innovate or Perish: Managing the Enduring Technology Company in the Global Market (2007), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ 49-72
31. König H., and Licht G. Patents, R&D, and Innovation. ifo Studien Zeitschrift für empirische Wirtschaftsforschung 4 95 (1995) 521-543
32. Landry R., Amara N., and Saïhi M. Complementarities between strategies to protect inventions and innovations: evidence from manufacturing firms. Paper presented at the Strategic Management Society 26th Annual International Conference. Hilton Vienna, October 29-November 01 (2006)
33. Laursen K., and Salter A. Searching low and high: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?. Research Policy 33 (2004) 1201-1215
34. Laursen K., and Salter A. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. Manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27 (2006) 131-150
35. Laursen K., and Mahnke V. Knowledge strategies, firm types, and complementarity in human-resource practices. Journal of Management and Governance 5 1 (2001) 1-27
36. Leiponen A. Organization of knowledge exchange: an empirical study of knowledge-intensive service relationships. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15 4/5 (2006) 443-464
37. Lerner J. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. Journal of Law and Economics 38 2 (1995) 463-495
38. 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
39. Lonmo, C., 2005. Innovation in selected professional, scientific and technical services: results from the survey of innovation 2003. Working Paper, Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division (SIEID). Statistics Canada (catalogue no. 88F0006XIE-No. 013).
40. Mancinelli, S., Massimiliano, M., 2007. SME Performance, Innovation and Networking Evidence on Complementarities for a Local Economic System. The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note di Lavoro Series Index: http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/WPapers/default.htm.
41. McLennan W. Innovation in Australian Manufacturing 1994 (1995), Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra (catalogue No. 8116.0)
42. Menard, S., 1995. Applied Logistic Regression analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-106. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
43. Miles I. Patterns of innovation in service industries. IBM Systems Journal 47 1 (2008) 115-128
44. Miles I., Andersen B., Boden M., and Howells J. Service production and intellectual property. International Journal of Technology Management 20 1/2 (2000) 95-115
45. Miles I., and Boden M. Services, knowledge and intellectual property. In: Andersen B., et al. (Ed). Knowledge and Innovation in the New Service Economy (2000), Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA 159-177
46. Miles R.E., and Snow C.C. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York
47. Mohnen, P., Röller, L.-H., 2002. Complementarities in innovation policy. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2712. CEPR, London.
48. Nesta L., and Saviotti P.P. Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm's innovative performance: evidence from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics (LIII) 1 (2005) 123-142
49. Nunally J.C. Psychometric Theory. second ed. (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York
50. OECD. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data: Oslo manual. second (revised) ed. (1996), OECD, Paris
51. Oude Lansink A., Van Den Berg M., and Huirne R. Analysis of strategic planning of Dutch pig farmers using a multivariate probit model. Agricultural Systems 78 (2003) 73-84
52. Porter M.E. What is strategy?. Harvard Business Review November-December (1996) 61-78
53. Rausch L. Estimates from the Manufacturer's Innovation Survey Pilot (1995), National Science Foundation, Mimeo, Washington, DC
54. Reed R., and DeFillippi R.J. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 15 (1990) 88-102
55. Salter, A., Tether, B.S., 2006. Innovation in services: through the looking glass of innovation studies. Background Paper for Advanced Institute of Management, April 2006.
56. Schmidt, T., 2007. Motives for innovation co-operation-evidence from the Canadian survey of innovation. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 07-018. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976316.
57. Somaya D. Firm strategies and trends in patent litigation in the United States. Intellectual property and entrepreneurship, advances in the study of entrepreneurship. Innovation and Economic Growth 15 (2004) 103-147
58. Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada Quality Guidelines. fourth ed. (October 2003), Statistics Canada, Ottawa (catalogue No. 12-539-XIE)
59. Traoré N. Biotechnology Use and Development Survey: Methodology, Issues and Responses (2004), Statistics Canada, Ottawa (catalogue No. 88F0006XIE-No-006)
60. Traoré N. Innovation commercialization by Canadian bioetch firms: pathways from ideas to market. Paper Presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Conference 2005 on Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 27-29 (2005) 2005
61. Veall M.R., and Zimmermann K.F. Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variable models. Journal of Economic Surveys 10 3 (1996) 241-259
62. Walsh E. The IP toolkit: maximizing business value from intellectual property. In: Kahn E. (Ed). Innovate or Perish: Managing the Enduring Technology Company in the Global Market (2007), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ 33-48