Appropriability and commercialization: Evidence from MIT inventions

Management Science

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 893-906

  Dechenaux, Emmanuel ^a   Goldfarb, Brent ^b   Shane, Scott ^c   Thursby, Marie ^d  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Competing risks; Innovation; Lead time; Learning; Optimal stopping problem; Patent scope; Termination; University licensing

Indexed keywords

COMPETING RISKS; LEAD TIME; LEARNING; OPTIMAL STOPPING PROBLEM; PATENT SCOPE; TERMINATION; UNIVERSITY LICENSING;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 61849176368     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0780     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abbring, J. H., G. J. van den Berg. 2003. The identifiability of the mixed proportional hazards competing risks model. J. Royal Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statistical Methodology) 65 701-710.
2. Arora, A., M. Ceccagnoli. 2006. Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms' incentives for technology licensing. Management Sci. 52 293-308.
3. Arora, A., M. Ceccagnoli, W. M. Cohen. 2007. R&D and the patent premium. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. Forthcoming.
4. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella. 2001. Markets for Technology : The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Arrow, K. J. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. R. R. Nelson, ed. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 609-625.
6. Bayus, B. L., S. Jain, A. G. Rao. 1997. Too little, too early: Introduction timing and new product performance in the personal digital assistant industry. J. Marketing Strategy 34 50-63.
7. Benoit, J. P. 1987. Innovation and imitation in a duopoly. Rev. Econom. Stud. 52 99-106.
8. Cabral, R., M. Leiblein. 2001. Adoption of a process innovation with learning-by-doing: Evidence from the semiconductor industry. J. Indust. Econom. 49 269-280.
9. Cabral, L., M. Riordan. 1997. The learning curve, predation, antitrust and welfare. J. Indust. Econom. 45 155-169.
10. Choi, J. P. 2001. Technology transfer with moral hazard. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 19 249-266.
11. Cohen, W., R. Levin. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. R. Schmalensee, R. Willig, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. II. Elsevier, New York, 1059-1107.
12. Cohen, W., D. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35 128-152.
13. Cohen, W., R. Nelson, J. Walsh. 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.
14. Dechenaux, E., M. C. Thursby, J. Thursby. 2007. Shirking, sharing risk, and shelving: The role of university license contracts. Working Paper 11128, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
15. Dixit, A. K., R. S. Pindyck. 1994. Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
16. Elfenbein, D. 2005. Contract structure and performance of technology transfer agreements. Mimeo, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO.
17. Gallini, N. T. 1992. Patent policy and costly imitation. Rand J. Econom. 23 52-63.
18. Gallini, N. T. 2002. The economics of patents: Lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. J. Econom. Perspectives 16 131-154.
19. Gans, J. S., D. H. Hsu, S. Stern. 2003. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? Rand J. Econom. 33 571-586.
20. Gans, J. S., D. H. Hsu, S. Stern. 2007. The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: Evidence from patent grant delays. Management Sci. Forthcoming.
21. Goldfarb, B., M. Henrekson. 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Res. Policy 32 639-658.
22. Hahn, R. W. 2003. The economics of patent protection: Policy implications from the literature. Mimeo, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, D.C.
23. Hall, B. H., A. B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg. 2001. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
24. Han, A., J. Hausman. 1990. Flexible parametric estimation of duration and competing risk models. J. Appl. Econometrics 5 1-28.
25. Jensen, R., M. Thursby. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91 240-259.
26. Kamien, M., N. Schwartz. 1972. Timing of innovations under rivalry. Econometrica 40 43-60.
27. Lerner, J. 1994. The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. Rand J. Econom. 25 319-333.
28. Levin, R., A. Klevorick, R. Nelson, S. Winter. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity 3 783-820.
29. Lilien, G. L., E. Yoon. 1990. The timing of competitive market entry: An exploratory study of new industrial products. Management Sci. 36 565-585.
30. Lowe, R., A. Ziedonis. 2006. Overoptimism and performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Sci. 52 173-186.
31. Mansfield, E. 1986. Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Sci. 32 173-181.
32. Mansfield, E., M. Schwartz, S. Wagner. 1981. Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Econom. J. 91 907-918.
33. Matutes, C., P. Regibeau, K. Rockett. 1996. Optimal patent design and the diffusion of innovations. Rand J. Econom. 27 60-83.
34. McCall, B. 1996. Unemployment insurance rules, joblessness, and part-time work. Econometrica 64 647-682.
35. Pacheco-de-Almeida, G., P. Zemsky. 2007. The timing of resource development and sustainable competitive advantage. Management Sci. 53 651-666.
36. Pakes, A. 1986. Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks. Econometrica 54 755-784.
37. Reinganum, J. F. 1982. A dynamic game of R and D: Patent protection and competitive behavior. Econometrica 50 671-688.
38. Santoro, M. D., A. K. Chakrabarti. 2002. Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Res. Policy 31 1163-1180.
39. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ. Sci. 11 448-469.
40. Shane, S. 2002. Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Sci. 48 122-137.
41. Takalo, T., V. Kanniainen. 2000. Do patents slow down technological progress? Real options in patent research, patenting, and market introduction. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 18 1105-1127.
42. Taylor, C., Z. Silberston. 1973. The Economic Impact of the Patent System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
43. Teece, D. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration and public policy. Res. Policy 15 285-305.
44. Teece, D., G. Pisano, A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management J. 18 509-533.
45. Thursby, J., M. C. Thursby. 2002. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Sci. 48 90-104.
46. Thursby, J., M. C. Thursby. 2004. Buyer and seller views of university/industry licensing. D. Stein, ed. Buying In or Selling Out : The Commercialization of the American Research University. Rutgers Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 103-116.
47. Thursby, J., M. C. Thursby. 2007. University licensing. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy 23 620-639.
48. Thursby, J., R. Jensen, M. C. Thursby. 2001. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. J. Tech. Transfer 26 59-72.
49. Ziedonis, A. 2007. Real options in technology licensing. Management Sci. 53 1618-1633.