Corporate science in the patent system: An analysis of the semiconductor technology

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 118-135

  Malva, Antonio Della ^a   Hussinger, Katrin ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

Author keywords

Defensive corporate publishing; Freedom to operate; Patents; Semiconductor

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866151600     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Adams S., Henson-Apollonio V. Defensive publishing: a strategy for maintaining intellectual property as public goods. International Service for National Agriculture Research 2002, 53:1-8.
2. Arundel, A., van de Paal, G., Soete, L., 1995. Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms. PACE Report, MERIT, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
3. Bacchiocchi E., Montobbio F. International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect: do USPTO and EPO citations tell the same story. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 2010, 112(3):441-470.
4. Baker S., Mezzetti C. Disclosure as a strategy in the patent race. Journal of Law and Economics 2005, 48:173-194.
5. Bar T. Defensive publications in an R&D race. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 2006, 15:229-254.
6. Barrett B. Defensive use of publications in an intellectual property strategy. Nature Biotechnology 2002, 20:191-193.
7. Breschi S., Catalini C. Tracing the linkages between science and technology: an exploratory analysis of the research networks among scientists and inventors. Research Policy 2010, 39(1):14-26.
8. Buxbaum P. Publish or Perish. The Bridge 2001, Fall 2001:2-8.
9. Callaert J., Van Looy B., Verbeek A., Debackere K., Thijs B. Traces of prior art: an analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics 2006, 69(1):3-20.
10. Cohen W., Levinthal D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990, 35:128-152.
11. 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). Working Paper No. W7552, National Bureau of Economic Research.
12. Colson T.J. Leveraging the power and value of intellectual property rights. Ivey Business Review 2001, July/August:28-33.
13. Cotropia, C.A., Lemley, M.A., Sampat, B.N., 2010. Do applicant patent citations matter? Implications for the presumption of validity. Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 401.
14. Criscuolo P., Verspagen B. Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy 2008, 37:1892-1908.
15. Cusumano M., Gawer A. Platform Leadership. How Microsoft, Intel and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation 2002, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard.
16. Czarnitzki D., Hussinger K., Schneider C. Why challenge the ivory tower? New evidence on the basicness of academic patents. Kyklos 2009, 62:488-499.
17. Czarnitzki D., Hussinger K., Schneider C. Wacky patent meet economic indicators. Economics Letters 2011, 113:131-134.
18. Dasgupta P., David P. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 1994, 23:487-521.
19. De Fraja G. Strategic spillovers in patent races. International Journal of Industrial Organization 1993, 11:139-146.
20. Deng Y. The effects of patent regime changes: a case study of the European Patent Office. International Journal of Industrial Organization 2007, 25:121-138.
21. Ducor P. Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 2000, 289:873-875.
22. Efron B. Regression and ANOVA with zero-one data: measures of residual variation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1978, 73:113-212.
23. Eisenberg R. The promise and perils of strategic publication to create prior art: a response to Professor Parchomovky. Michigan Law Review 2000, 98:2358-2370.
24. Eisenberg R. Genomics in the public domain: strategy and policy. Nature Reviews Biotechnology 2000, 1:70-74.
25. Graham, S.J.H., Hall, B.H., Harhoff, D., Mowery, D.C., 2002. Post-issue patent quality control: a comparative study of U.S. patent re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions. NBER Working Paper 8807.
26. Greene, W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. New York.
27. Guellec D., Martinez C., Zuniga M.P. Preemptive patenting: securing market exclusion and freedom of operation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 2012, 21:1-29.
28. Guellec D., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. The Economics of the European Patent System 2007, Oxford University Press, New York.
29. Hall B.H., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics 2005, 36:16-38.
30. Hall B.H., Ziedonis R.H. The determinants of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1980-1994. RAND Journal of Economics 2001, 32:101-128.
31. Harhoff D. Strategic spillovers and incentives for R&D. Management Science 1996, 42:907-925.
32. Harhoff D., Henkel J., von Hippel E. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovation. Research Policy 2003, 32:1753-1769.
33. Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Webb, C., 2005. European patent citations. How to count and how to interpret them. LMU Discussion Papers, Munich.
34. Harhoff D., Reitzig M. Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants - the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization 2004, 22:443-480.
35. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights - evidence from Germany. Research Policy 2003, 32:1343-1363.
36. Harhoff D., Wagner S. The duration of patent examination at the European Patent Office. Management Science 2009, 55(12):1969-1984.
37. Henderson R., Cockburn I. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effect in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 1994, 15:63-84.
38. Henkel, J., Pangerl, S., 2008. Defensive publishing - an empirical study. DRUID Working Paper No. 08-04.
39. Hicks D. Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change 1995, 4(2):363-400.
40. Jerak A., Wagner S. Modeling probabilities of patent oppositions in a Bayesian semiparametric regression framework. Empirical Economics 2006, 31(2):513-533.
41. Johnson J.P. Defensive Publishing by a Leading Firm 2004, Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=606781.
42. Lanjouw J., Schankerman M. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics 2001, 32:129-151.
43. Lazardis G., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. The rigor of EPO's patentability criteria: an insight into the induced withdrawals. World Patent Information 2007, 29(4):317-326.
44. Lemley M.A. Rational ignorance at the Patent Office. Northwestern University Law Review 2001, 95:1495-1532.
45. Lerner J. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics 1994, 25:319-333.
46. Levin R.C., Klevorik A.K., Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 1987, 75:783-820.
47. Lichtman D.S., Baker S., Kraus K. Strategic disclosure in the patent system. Vanderbilt Law Review 2000, 53:2175-2217.
48. Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., 2008. Inventorship and authorship in patent-publication pairs: an enquiry in the economics of scientific credit. CESPRI Working Paper 224, Milan.
49. Maurer, S.M., 2002. Promoting and disseminating knowledge: the public/private interface. Paper prepared for the U.S. National Research Council's Symposium on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain, Washington, D.C., September 5-6, 2002. Information Services and Use 22(4), 83-189.
50. McMillan G.S., Hamilton R.D. Corporations need to publish or perish. Research Technology Management 2000, 43:8-10.
51. Merges R. A new dynamism in the public domain. University of Chicago Law Review 2004, 71:183-203.
52. Merton R.K. The sociology of science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigation 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. N.W. Storer (Ed.).
53. Michel J., Bettels B. Patent citation analysis. Scientometrics 2001, 51:185-201.
54. Murray F., Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2007, 63(4):648-687.
55. Parchomovsky G. Publish or perish. Michigan Law Review 2000, 98:926-951.
56. Penin J. Open knowledge disclosure: an overview of the evidence and economic motivations. Journal of Economic Surveys 2007, 21:326-348.
57. Ponce C.J. Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2011, 10.1016/jebo.2011.04.005.
58. Reinganum J.F. A dynamic game of R&D: patent protection and competitive behavior. Econometrica 1982, 50:671-688.
59. Rinner T.E. Protecting minor improvements on core patents: complementing traditional patent protection with strategic disclosure. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 2003, 2:398-422.
60. Sampat B.N., Mowery D., Ziedonis A. Changes in university patent quality after Bayh-Dole: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 2003, 21:1371-1390.
61. Science Watch World Institutional Rankings in Select Fields, by Total Citations, 1991-2001 2001, http://archive.sciencewatch.com/july-aug2001/sw_july-aug2001_page2.htm (July/August 2001).
62. Schmoch, U., 2008. Concept of a technology classification for country comparison. Final report to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe.
63. Silverman A.B. Duty to disclose prior art to the United States Patents and Trademarks Office. JOM: Journal of the Minerals Metals and Materials Society 2003, 55(10):64.
64. Spencer J.W. 'Firms' knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the global flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal 2003, 24:217-233.
65. Trajtenberg M., Jaffe A., Henderson R. University versus corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1997, 5:19-50.
66. Webb, C., Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., 2005. Analyzing European and international patent citations: a set of EPO database building blocks. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper No. 2005/9, Paris.
67. Ziedonis R.H. Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science 2004, 50:804-820.