Different characteristics between auctioned and non-auctioned patents

Scientometrics

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 135-148

  Lee, Yong Gil ^a,b   Lee, Ji Hoon ^b  

^a Korea Institute of Science and Technology   (South Korea)

^b University of Science and Technology (UST)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Marketplace for technology; Open innovation; Patent auctions; Patent characteristics

Indexed keywords

EID: 75549085873     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0029-7     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Abramowicz, M. (2006). Patent auctions, Bepress Legal Series, Working Paper 1177, http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1177.
2. Ahonen, M., Antikainen, M., Makipaa, M. (2007). Supporting collective creativity within open innovation. In EURAM 2007 conference proceedings, May 16-19. Paris: EURAM.
3. Aldrich, H., & von Glinow, M. A. (1991). Business starts-ups: The HRM imperative. In S. Subramony (Ed.), International perspectives on entrepreneurship research (pp. 233-253). New York, NY: Elsevier Publications.
4. Arya, A., & Mittendorf, B. (2004). Purchasing sleeping patents to curtail budget padding. Economics Letters, 82, 221-226.
5. Astebro, T. (2003). The return to independent invention: Evidence of unrealistic optimism, risk seeking or skewness loving? The Economic Journal, 113, 226-239.
6. Barzel, Y. (1968). Optimal timing of innovations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 50(3), 348-355.
7. Benassi, M. (2007). Playing in between: IP brokers in markets for technology, Econpapers, Working paper from Department of Economics University of Milan Italy, http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/milwpdepa/2007-15.htm.
8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
9. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation model. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard business School Press.
10. Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
11. Choi, C.-W., Kim, S.-K., & Park, Y.-T. (2007). A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: The case of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 1296-1314.
12. Connor, D., & Cooper, M. (2005). Participatory processes: Creating a marketplace of ideas with open space technology. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(1), 1-12.
13. Dahlin, K., Taylor, M., & Fichman, M. (2004). Today's Edison or weekend hobbyists: Technical merit and success of inventions by independent inventors. Research Policy, 33, 1167-1183.
14. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1985). Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology. Review of Economic Studies, 52, 383-401.
15. Gambardella, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36, 1163-1183.
16. Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2000). Incumbency and R& D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9, 485-551.
17. Gilfillan, C. S. (1935). The sociology of invention. Chicago, Illinois: Follett Publishing.
18. Graham, S. J. H., & Mowrey, D. C. (2004). Submarines in software? Continuations in US software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(5), 443-456.
19. Guellec, D., & Potterie, B. V. P. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69, 109-114.
20. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16-38.
21. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly in Business, 42(4), 716-749.
22. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition, and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.
23. He, Z.-L., Lim, K., & Wong, P.-K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35, 1147-1165.
24. Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698-701.
25. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715-728.
26. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
27. Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405-432.
28. Lee, Y.-G. (2008). Patent licensability and life: A study of U. S. patents registered by South Korean public research institutes. Scientometrics, 75(3), 463-471.
29. Lee, Y.-G. (2009a). What affects a patent's value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach, Scientometrics, 79(3), Forthcoming.
30. Lee, Y.-G. (2009b). Sectoral strategic differences of technological development between electronics and chemistry: A historical view from analyses of Korean-invented US patents during the period of 1989 to 1992, Scientometrics, Forthcoming.
31. Lee, Y.-G., Lee, J.-D., Song, Y.-I., & Lee, S.-J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(1), 27-39.
32. Lerner, J. D., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of the open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2, 197-234.
33. Merges, R., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 91, 839-916.
34. Niioka, H. (2006). Patent auctions: Business and investment strategy in IP commercialization. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 1(11), 728-731.
35. Prusa, T., & Schmitz, J. (1991). Are new firms an important source of invention? Evidence from the PC software industry. Economics Letters, 35, 339-342.
36. Rammert, W. (2006). Two styles of knowing and knowledge regimes: Between "exploitation" and "exploration" under conditions of functional specialization or fragmental distribution. In J. Hage (Ed.), Innovation, science, and institutional change (pp. 256-284). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
37. Reinganum, J. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73, 741-748.
38. Schrage, M. (June, 2003). In the weed: Amateur innovation. In Technology review (p. 18). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
39. Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row, New York.
40. Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 1-32.
41. Shohert, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: Institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R& D Management, 26, 283-298.
42. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
43. Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Rankin, N. (1996). Bricoleurs and boundary riders: Managing basic research and innovation knowledge networks. R& D Management, 26, 267-282.
44. van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R& D Management, 36(3), 347-363.
45. Perry, J., Viscounty, M. W. D. V., Eric, M. K. (2006, May 8), Patent auctions: Emerging trend? The National Law Journal.
46. Wang, S.-J. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71(3), 509-522.
47. Wartburg, W. I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591-1607.
48. West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Open innovation in open source software. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 82-106). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.