If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies

Research Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1478-1488

  Leiponen, Aija ^a,b   Byma, Justin ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Innovation; Intellectual property rights; SMEs

Indexed keywords

COLLABORATION; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EXISTING SYSTEMS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; SMALL FIRM; SMES; SPEED-TO-MARKET; STRATEGIC CHOICE; TRADE SECRETS;

COMMERCE; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INVESTMENTS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 70349559656     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arundel A. The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy 30 4 (2001) 611-624
2. Arundel A., and Kabla I. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy 27 (1998) 127-141
3. Audretsch D.B. Innovation and Industry Evolution (1995), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
4. Audretsch D.B. The dynamic role of small firms: evidence from the US. Small Business Economics 18 1-3 (2004) 13-40
5. Berger A.N., and Udell G.F. The economics of small business finance: the roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of Banking & Finance 22 6-8 (1998) 613-673
6. Brouwer E., and Kleinknecht A. Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent: an exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy 28 6 (1999) 615-624
7. Cassiman B., and Veugelers R. R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review 92 4 (2002) 1169-1184
8. Christensen C.M., and Rosenbloom R.S. Explaining the attacker's advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy 24 (1995) 233-257
9. 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 7552, Cambridge, MA.
10. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., and Walsh J.P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48 (2002) 1-23
11. De Jong J.P.J., and Marsili O. The fruit flies of innovations: a taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy 35 2 (2006) 213-229
12. European Commission, 2001. The Drive Towards Competitiveness in European SMEs: Innovation and Internationalisation. Conference program retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr1611en.html (Accessed June 11, 2009).
13. European Commission, 2003a. The Sixth Framework Program-A New Era for European Research. Retrieved from http://sme.cordis.europa.eu/research/home.cfm (Accessed November 2, 2006).
14. European Commission, 2003b. SME Definition. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en .htm (Accessed November 6, 2009).
15. European Commission, 2006. SMEs in the Seventh Framework Program. Retrieved from http://sme.cordis.europa.eu/news/ (Accessed November 2, 2006).
16. Federal Reserve Board, 2003. The 2003 Survey of Small Business Finances. Retrieved from http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss3/ssbf03/methodology/method_re port.pdf (Accessed November 6, 2009).
17. Gallini N.T. The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 2 (2002) 131-154
18. Gans J.S., Hsu D.H., and Stern S. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?. Rand Journal of Economics 33 4 (2002) 571-586
19. Gans J.S., and Stern S. The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32 (2003) 333-350
20. Gilbert R.J., and Newbery D.M.G. Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review 72 (1982) 514-526
21. Harabi N. Appropriability of technical innovations: an empirical analysis. Research Policy 24 6 (1995) 981-992
22. Hatzichronoglou, T., 1997. Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper 1997/2.
23. Henderson R., and Clark K.B. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1990) 9-30
24. Hyytinen A., and Pajarinen M. Small Business Finance in Finland-A Descriptive Study (2002), The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki ETLA Discussion Papers: 59
25. Hyytinen A., and Pajarinen M. Financial Systems and Firm Performance. Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives (2003), ETLA, Helsinki
26. Hyytinen A., and Pajarinen M. Financing of technology-intensive small businesses: some evidence on the uniqueness of the ICT sector. Information Economics and Policy 17 1 (2005) 115-132
27. Hyytinen A., and Toivanen O. Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth? Evidence on the role of public policy. Research Policy 34 (2005) 1385-1403
28. Kingston, W., 2000. Enforcing Small Firms' Patent Rights. Research Report. University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/innovation-policy/studies/studies_enforci ng_firms_patent_rights.pdf (Accessed December 6, 2009).
29. Kitching J., and Blackburn R. Intellectual property management in the small and medium enterprise (SME). Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 5 4 (1998) 327-335
30. Kultti K., Takalo T., and Toikka J. Simultaneous model of innovation, secrecy, and patent policy. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, May (2006) 82-86
31. Lanjouw J.O., and Schankerman M. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. Rand Journal of Economics 32 1 (2001) 129-151
32. Lanjouw J.O., and Schankerman M. Protecting intellectual property rights: are small firms handicapped?. Journal of Law and Economics 47 April (2004) 45-74
33. Leiponen A. Organization of knowledge and innovation: the case of Finnish business services. Industry and Innovation 12 2 (2005) 185-203
34. Leiponen A., and Drejer I. What exactly are technological regimes? Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities. Research Policy 36 (2007) 1221-1238
35. 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 No. 3 3 (1987) 783-820
36. Miles I., and Boden M. Introduction: Are Services Special?. In: Miles I., and Boden M. (Eds). Services and the Knowledge-Based Economy (2000), Continuum, London pp. 1-20
37. OECD, 2006. Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World. OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. Retrieved from www.pisa.oecd.org (Accessed November 6, 2009).
38. OECD, 2008. Science, Technology, and Industry Outlook. pp. 116-117. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/sti/outlook (Accessed November 6, 2009).
39. OECD, 2009. Glossary of Statistical Terms. Retrieved 6/11/2009 from http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3123 (Accessed November 6, 2009).
40. Scherer F.M. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (1980), Rand McNally, Chicago
41. Sobrero M., and Roberts E.B. Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development. Research Policy 31 1 (2002) 159-182
42. Tether B. Who cooperates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis. Research Policy 31 (2002) 947-967
43. Tether B.S. Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European Innobarometer survey. Industry and Innovation 12 2 (2005) 153-184
44. Tether, B., Massini, S., 2007. Services and the Innovation Infrastructure. Innovation in Services. London, UK Department of Trade and Industry Occasional Paper No. 9, pp. 135-192.