Strategic management of intellectual property: An integrated approach

California Management Review

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 157-183

  Fisher, William W ^a   Oberholzer Gee, Felix ^b  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Innovation management; Intellectual property; Knowledge management; Legal aspects of business; Licensing; Strategic management

Indexed keywords

EID: 84910138262     PISSN: 00081256     EISSN: 21628564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/cmr.2013.55.4.157     Document Type: Article

References (136)

1. J. Wild, "The State of Play", in J. Wild, ed., IP Value 2011: Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value-An International Guide for the Boardroom (London: Globe White Page, 2010), pp. 10-14.
2. See I. M. Cockburn and M. J. MacGarvie, "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry", Management Science, 57/5(May 2011):915-933.
3. For empirical evidence supporting this view, see J. Lerner, "", RAND Journal of Economics, 25/2(Summer 1994):319-332;
4. H. Ernst, "Patent Applications and Subsequent Changes of Performance: Evidence from Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses on the Firm Level", Research Policy, 30/1(January 2001):143-157;
5. S. Shane, "Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation", Management Science, 47/2(February 2001):205-220.
6. Fabrizio Cesaroni and Andrea Piccaluga, "Operational Challenges and ST's Proposed Solutions to Improve Collaboration between IP and R&D in Innovation Processes", California Management Review, 55/4 (Summer 2013);
7. Ove Granstrand and Marcus Holgersson, "Managing the Intellectual Property Disassembly Problem", California Management Review, 55/4 (Summer 2013).
8. See B. Anand and A. Galetovic, "How Market Smarts Can Protect Property Rights", Harvard Business Review, 82/12(December 2004):73-79.
9. William Fisher, Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp. 59-70.
10. For examples of how knowledge-intensive business-services companies choose among the available forms of protection, see N. Amaraa, R. Landrya, and N. Traoréb, "Managing the Protection of Innovations in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services", Research Policy, 37/9(October 2008):1530-1547.
11. For an analysis comparing patents and trade secrets, see A. Arundel, "The Relative Effectiveness of Patents and Secrecy for Appropriation", Research Policy, 30/4(April 2001):611-624.
12. "Two Sentenced in Coke Trade Secret Case", CNN Money, May 23, 2007, .
13. R. Bone, "Trade Secrecy, Innovation, and the Requirement of Reasonable Secrecy Precautions", in R. Dreyfuss and K. Strandberg, eds., The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Press, 2010).
14. See R. Agarwal, M. Ganco, and R. H. Ziedonis, "Reputations for Toughness in Patent Enforcement: Implications for Knowledge Spillovers via Inventor Mobility", Strategic Management Journal, 30/13(December 2009):1349-1374.
15. See S. J. H. Graham and T. M. Sichelman, "Why Do Start-Ups Patent?" Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23/3(2008):1063-1097.
16. Empirical evidence for the value of patents as signals is provided by D. H. Hsu and R. H. Ziedonis, "Resources as Dual Sources of Advantage: Implications for Valuing Entrepreneurial-Firm Patents", Strategic Management Journal (forthcoming 2013);
17. A. Conti, M. C. Thursby, and F. Rothaermel, "Show Me the Right Stuff: Signals for High Tech Startups", NBER Working Paper No. 17050, July 2011;
18. C. Haeussler, D. Harho, and E. Mueller, "To Be Financed or Not: The Role of Patents for Venture Capital Financing", CEPR Discussion Papers 7115, 2009.
19. J. Anton and D. Yao, "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property", RAND Journal of Economics, 35/1(Spring 2004):1-22.
20. J. Richards, "The Nonobviousness Requirement of Patentability", Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 17(2007):875.
21. R. J. Gilson, "The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete", New York University Law Review, 74(1999):575;
22. C. T. Graves and J. A. Diboise, "Do Strict Trade Secret and Non-Competition Laws Obstruct Innovation", Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal, 1(2006):323;
23. N. D. Bishara, "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Employer: Relative Enforcement of Covenants Not to Compete, Trends, and Implications for Employee Mobility", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 13(2011):751-795.
24. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 10(1), .
25. For (somewhat exaggerated) evidence that copyright protection is incomplete, see Business Software Alliance, 2011 Piracy Study, .
26. nd Cir. 1992);
27. P. Samuelson, "Copyright and Specific Industries: The Uneasy Case for Software Copyrights Revisited", George Washington Law Review, 79(2011):1746, at pp. 1765-1771.
28. See D. L. Burk and M. A. Lemley, "Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?" Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17/4(September 2002):1155, at pp. 1160-1173 (discussing the lenient treatment by U. S courts of software patents when applying the enablement and best-mode requirements).
29. F. Oberholzer-Gee, D. Yao, and F. A. Jorge, "Brighter Smiles for the Masses-Colgate vs. P&G", Harvard Business School case 706435, March 2007;
30. A. Dutra, J. Frary, and R. Wise, "Finding New Growth in Tough Consumer Markets: An Array of Moves Address Consumers' Higher-Order Needs", Mercer Management Journal, 17(2004):24-34.
31. U. S Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, "Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property", Washington, D. C., April 6, 1995.
32. N. T. Gallini, "Deterrence Through Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing", American Economic Review, 74/5(December 1984):931-941.
33. N. T. Gallini, "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation", RAND Journal of Economics, 23/1(Spring 1992):52-63.
34. J. Carlton, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders (New York, NY: Times Business, Random House, 1997);
35. D. B. Yoffie and R. Kim, "Apple Inc. in 2010", Harvard Business School case 710467, March 2011.
36. Apple relied on legal and technical measures to protect the Macintosh. Prior to 1995, the company refused to license its operating system. Because the system's software embodied the Mac's entire set of APIs, cloning the Macintosh was technically complex (for a list of early Macintosh clone manufacturers and their eventual demise, see ).
37. Apple licensed many components of its interface to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0. When Microsoft released Windows 2.0, substantially increasing the similarity of its interface to the Macintosh's, Apple filed a suit, which it eventually lost (Apple Computer, Inc. V. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)).
38. D. B. Yoffie, R. Casadesus-Masanell, and S. Mattu, "Wintel (A): Cooperation or Conflict", Harvard Business School case 704419, March 2004.
39. F. Oberholzer-Gee and K. Strumpf, "File Sharing and Copyright", in J. Lerner and S. Stern, eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy 10 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010), pp. 19-55.
40. D. Ferguson, "Trends and Statistics in Peer-to-Peer", CacheLogic, presented at Workshop on Technical and Legal Aspects of Peer-to-Peer Television, The Netherlands, 2006.
41. T. C. Leung, "Should the Music Industry Sue Its Own Customers? Impacts of Music Piracy and Policy Suggestions", University of Minnesota Working Paper, 2009.
42. th edition (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909), 932-933.
43. H. Chesbrough, "The Market for Innovation: Implications for Corporate Strategy", California Management Review, 49/3(Spring 2007):45-66.
44. K. Arrow, "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions", in R. Nelson, ed., The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962).
45. W. M. Cohen, R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh, "Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U. S Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)", NBER Working Paper, Cambridge, MA, 2000;
46. W. Cohen, A. Goto, A. Nagata, R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh, "R&D Spillovers, Patents and the Incentives to Innovate in Japan and the United States", Research Policy, 31/8-9(December 2002):1349-1367;
47. L. Davis, "Licensing Strategies of the New 'Intellectual Property Vendors, '" California Management Review, 50/2(Winter 2008):6-30.
48. J. Anton and D. Yao, "Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights", American Economic Review, 84/1(March 1994):190-209.
49. J. Anton and D. Yao, "The Sale of Ideas: Strategic Disclosure, Property Rights, and Contracting", The Review of Economic Studies, 69/3(July 2002):513-531;
50. J. S. Gans, D. H. Hsu, and S. Stern, "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays", Management Science, 54/5(May 2008):982-997.
51. M. Benassi and A. Di Minin, "Playing in Between: Patent Brokers in Markets for Technology", R&D Management, 39/1(2009):68-86.
52. M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, "On the Licensing of Innovations", RAND Journal of Economics, 16/4(Winter 1985):504-520.
53. J. Palfrey, Intellectual Property Strategy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 98-100;
54. R. Parloff, "Monsanto's Seeds of Discord", CNN Money, May 11, 2010,
55. "Monsanto Squeezes Out Seed Business Competition, AP Investigation Finds", Huffington Post, .
56. See M. Katz and C. Shapiro, "R&D Rivalry with Licensing or Imitation", American Economic Review, 77/3(June 2001):402.
57. The Justice Department initiated its inquiry in 2010 with some fanfare (see S. Kilman and T. Catan, "U. S Opens Inquiry into Monsanto", Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2010, )
58. but recently terminated the inquiry without explanation (see T. Philpott, "DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation", Mother Jones, December 1, 2012, ). The civil lawsuit is still ongoing.
59. See P. S. Aulakh, M. S. Jiang, and Y. Pan, "International Technology Licensing: Monopoly Rents, Transaction Costs and Exclusive Rights", Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2010):587-605.
60. M. Schecter "The Emerging Global Market for Intellectual Property", Forbes, April 4, 2012, .
61. The literature describing and assessing those rules is enormous. A useful sampler would include: R. Bekkers, G. Duysters, and B. Verspagen, "Intellectual Property Rights, Strategic Technology Agreements and Market Structure: The Case of GSM", Research Policy, 31/7(September 2002):1141-1161;
62. F. Berger, K. Blind, and N. Thumm, "Filing Behaviour Regarding Essential Patents in Industry Standards", Research Policy, 41/1(February 2012):216-225;
63. K. Blind, and N. Thumm, "Interrelation Between Patenting and Standardisation Strategies: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications", Research Policy, 33/10(December 2004):1583-1598;
64. B. Chiao, J. Lerner, and J. Tirole, "The Rules of Standard-Setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis", RAND Journal of Economics, 38/4(Winter 2007):905-930;
65. J. Lerner and J. Tirole. "A Model of Forum Shopping", American Economic Review, 96/4(September 2006):1091-1113;
66. C. Shapiro, "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting", in A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner and S. Stern, eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1 (Boston: MIT Press, January 2001), pp. 119-150;
67. Jorge Contreras, "The FRAND Wars: Who's on First?" Patently O, April 17, 2012, .
68. See, for example, Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. V. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U. S 492 (1988);
69. Qualcomm Inc. V. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
70. Wang Labs., Inc. V. Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc., 103 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
71. In re Dell Computer Corp., 121 F. T. C. 616 (1996).
72. Bart Leten, Wim Vanhaverbeke, Nadine Roijakkers, André Clerix, and Johan Van Helleputte, "IP Models to Orchestrate Innovation Ecosystems: IMEC, a Public Research Institute in Nano-Electronics", California Management Review, 55/4 (Summer 2013).
73. See J. Zittrain, The Future of the Internet-And How to Stop It (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), p. 2.
74. See Matt Buchanan, "Why We Still Need the iPhone Black Market", Gizmodo, July 23, 2008, .
75. See Nathan Clevenger, "Apple's App Review Criteria", iPhone Life Magazine, January/February 2011, . A document containing the current review criteria-which Apple makes available to developers but not to the public at large-is on file with the authors.
76. See, for example, E. Sadun, "Apple Changes to App Store Review Policy Worry Developers", ArsTechnica, May 8, 2009,
77. R. Piper, "Former Apple Employee Explains the Problem with the App Review Process", July 4, 2012, .
78. See CEO Tim Cook's letter of apology at , accessed on December 7, 2012.
79. H. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003);
80. E. Almirall and R. Casadesus-Masanell, "Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence", Academy of Management Review, 35/1(January 2010):27-47.
81. H. Hovencamp, M. Janis, and M. Lemley, IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (New York, NY: Aspen Law & Business, 2002).
82. W. Fisher, "The Implications for Law of User Innovation", Minnesota Law Review, 94(2010):101, at pp. 102-114.
83. J. D. Lasica, Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 250-251.
84. N. Franke and F. Piller, "Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of the Watch Market", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21/6(November 2004):401-415.
85. F. Piller and D. Walcher, "Toolkits for Idea Competitions: A Novel Method to Integrate Users in New Product Development", R&D Management, 36/3(June 2006):307.
86. C. Berger, K. Moslein, F. Piller, and R. Reichwald, "Co-Designing Modes of Cooperation at the Customer Interface: Learning from Exploratory Research", European Management Review, 2/1(Spring 2005):70-87;
87. P. Kristensson, A. Gustafsson, and T. Archer, "Harnessing the Creative Potential Among Users", Journal of Product Innovation and Management, 21/1(January 2004):4-14;
88. F. Piller, P. Schubert, M. Koch, and K. Moslein, "Overcoming Mass Confusion: Collaborative Customer Co-Design in Online Communities", Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10/4(2005), article 8, .
89. See E. Von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
90. See Y. Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006).
91. Detailed descriptions of some examples can be found on the website of Global Access in Action, .
92. R. Merges, "A New Dynamism in the Public Domain", University of Chicago Law Review, 71/1(Winter 2004):183-203;
93. G. Pisano and D. Teece, "How to Capture Value from Innovation: Shaping Intellectual Property and Industry Architecture", California Management Review, 50/1(Fall 2007):278-296.
94. S. Bhattacharya and J. R. Ritter, "Innovation and Communication: Signaling With Partial Disclosure", Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 15/4(November 1980):853.
95. T. Bromfield and H. Barnard, "The Evolution of the Intellectual Property Management Strategy of an Emerging Multinational: Learning the Purpose of Patenting and Scientific Publications", IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 57/1(February 2010):118-131.
96. See C. S. Hemphill and M. Lemley, "Earning Exclusivity: Generic Drug Incentives and the Hatch-Waxman Act", Antitrust Law Journal, 77(2011):947.
97. See, for example, Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. S 340 (1991) (ruling that a "white-page" telephone directory is not shielded by U. S copyright law).
98. See, for example, Murphy Door Bed Co. V. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc., 874 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1989).
99. See, for example, Westinghouse V. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S 537 (1898).
100. See, for example, Perfect 10, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (CA9 2007).
101. See KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. V. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U. S 111 (2004).
102. Television History: The First 75 Years,
103. J. Schaeffler, Digital Video Recorders (Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2009), pp. 1-40.
104. Leichtman Research Group (Sept. 27, 2010), .
105. Sony Corp. of America V. Universal City Studios, 464 U. S 417 (1984).
106. B. Hamberger, "Digital Video Recorders, Advertisement Avoidance, and Fair Use", Harvard Journal on Law and Technology, 23/2(Spring 2010):567, at pp. 576-583;
107. Paramount Pictures Corp. V. RePlayTV, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 921, 923-924 (CD. Cal. 2004);
108. P. Menell and D. Nimmer, "Legal Realism in Action: Indirect Copyright Liability's Continuing Tort Framework and Sony's De Facto Demise", UCLA Law Review, 55(2007):143, pp. 194-195.
109. See C. Hall, "The Case for Network DVRs", The Online Reporter, October 21, 2006,
110. Matt Stump, "Digital Recording Comes Out of the Box: Cablevision Set to Light Up a Networked System", Multichannel News, March 26, 2006, .
111. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. V. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 607, 621-22, 624 (S. D. N. Y. 2007).
112. Cartoon Network LP V. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2008)
113. cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2890 (2009).
114. J. Baumgartner, "Cablevision's Network DVR Debuts in the Bronx", Light Reading Cable, January 24, 2011, .
115. J. Lerner, "The Impact of Copyright Policy Changes on Venture Capital Investment in Cloud Computing Companies", November 1, 2011, available at .
116. A comprehensive analysis of this intricate set of cases can be found in Janet Freilich, "The Paradox of Legal Equivalents and Scientific Equivalence", unpublished paper, 2012, on file with authors.
117. See R. Mergantz, Technology Management: Developing and Implementing Effective Licensing Programs (New York, NH: Wiley 2002).
118. Louis Kaplow, "The Patent-Antitrust Intersection", Harvard Law Review, 97/8(June 1984):1813-1892, at pp. 1855-1887.
119. For the theoretical underpinnings of this guideline, see R. Fisher, W. Ury, and B. Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1991), p. 100;
120. R. Mnookin, Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 18-21.
121. James G. Conley, Peter Bican, and Holger Ernst, "Value Articulation: A Framework for the Strategic Management of Intellectual Property", California Management Review, 55/4 (Summer 2013);
122. Tilo Peters, Jana Thiel, and Christopher Tucci, "Protecting Growth Options in Dynamic Markets: The Role of Strategic Disclosure in Integrated Intellectual Property Strategies", California Management Review, 55/4 (Summer 2013).
123. Y. Monori, "From Practice: IP Management in Japanese Companies", in C. Herstatt et al., eds., Management of Technology and Innovation in Japan (Berlin: Springer, 2006), pp. 355-384.
124. B. H. Hall and R. H. Ziedonis, "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U. S Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995", RAND Journal of Economics, 32/1(Spring 2001):101-128;
125. P. Grindley and D. Teece, "Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics", California Management Review, 39/2(Winter 1997):8-41.
126. th edition (Boston, MA: Focal Press, 2006), p. 35.
127. G. Ackhert, "An Argument for Exempting Prestige Goods from the Per Se Ban on Resale Price Maintenance", Texas Law Review, 73(1995):1185, at pp. 1189-1205.
128. th Cir. 2004).
129. Ferrari S. P. A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili e Corse V. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235 (6 Cir. 1991).
130. S. Scafidi, O. F. Afori, W. Gordon, M. Janis, and J. Moskin, "The Global Contours of IP Protection for Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, and Product Configuration", Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 20/3(2010):783.
131. For a case study describing efforts to integrate IP activities at a financial services firm, see M. A. Bader, "Managing Intellectual Property in the Financial Services Industry Sector: Learning from Swiss Re", Technovation, 28/4(April 2008):196-207.
132. Joachim Henkel, Carliss Y. Baldwin, and Willy Shih, "IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property", California Management Review, 55/4 (Summer 2013).
133. "Xbox 360 + Kinect", at , accessed on August 28, 2012.
134. J. Ellis, "Making the Connection: A Revolution Launched on the Back of IP", Intellectual Asset Management Magazine, 53(May/June 2012), pp. 51-59.
135. For a more general analysis of this deterrence effect, see G. Clarkson and P. K. Toh, "'Keep Out' Signs: The Role of Deterrence in the Competition for Resources", Strategic Management Journal, 31/11(November 2010):1202-1225.
136. A. Di Minin and M. Bianchi, "Safe Nests in Global Nets: Internationalization and Appropriability of R&D in Wireless Telecom", Journal of International Business Studies, 42/7(September 2011):910-934.