The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes

Long Range Planning

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 303-319

  Holgersson, Marcus ^a   Granstrand, Ove ^a   Bogers, Marcel ^b  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Appropriation; Innovation ecosystem; Intellectual property right; Litigation; Open innovation; Patent; Technology licensing

Indexed keywords

LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

APPROPRIABILITY REGIMES; APPROPRIATION; INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIES; LITIGATION; OPEN INNOVATION; PATENT; SYSTEMIC INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGY LICENSING;

ECOSYSTEMS;

COMPETITIVENESS; INNOVATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; MOBILE COMMUNICATION; PLANNING PROCESS; STRATEGIC APPROACH; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

EID: 85029787420     PISSN: 00246301     EISSN: 18731872     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (120)

1. Adner, R., Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84:4 (2006), 98–107.
2. Adner, R., Kapoor, R., Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Manag. J. 37:4 (2016), 625–648.
3. Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation?. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 51:1 (2009), 71–77.
4. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A., Markets for Technology: the Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Arrow, K.J., Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, 1962, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 609–625 National Bureau of Economic Research.
6. Arundel, A., van de Paal, G., Soete, L., Innovation Strategies of Europe's Largest Industrial Firms: Results of the PACE Survey for Information Sources, Public Research, Protection of Innovations and Government Programmes. 1995, Maastricht: MERIT.
7. Baden-Fuller, C., Haefliger, S., Business models and technological innovation. Long. Range Plan. 46:6 (2013), 419–426.
8. Baldwin, C.Y., von Hippel, E., Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organ. Sci. 22:6 (2011), 1399–1417.
9. Bekkers, R., West, J., The limits to IPR standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in UMTS. Telecommun. Policy 33:1–2 (2009), 80–97.
10. Bekkers, R., Duysters, G., Verspagen, B., Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: the case of GSM. Res. Policy 31:7 (2002), 1141–1161.
11. Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B., Smits, J., Intellectual property rights and standardization: the case of GSM. Telecommun. Policy 26:3–4 (2002), 171–188.
12. Bel, R., Access, veto, and ownership in the theory of the firm. J. Law Econ. Organ. 29:4 (2013), 871–897.
13. Besen, S.M., The European telecommunications standards Institute: a preliminary analysis. Telecommun. Policy 14:6 (1990), 521–530.
14. Bessen, J., Holdup and licensing of cumulative innovations with private information. Econ. Lett. 82:3 (2004), 321–326.
15. Bessen, J., Maskin, E., Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. Rand J. Econ. 40:4 (2009), 611–635.
16. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U., Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany. Res. Policy 35:5 (2006), 655–672.
17. Bogers, M., The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. Eur. J. Innovation Manag. 14:1 (2011), 93–117.
18. Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M.G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I.P., Moeslein, K.M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F.T., Radziwon, A., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Sims, J., Ter Wal, A.L.J., The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry & Innovation 24:1 (2017), 8–40.
19. Bohlin, E., Economics and Management of Investments: an International Investigation of New Technology Decision-making in Telecommunications. PhD, 1995, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
20. Bohlin, E., Granstrand, O., (eds.) The Race to European Eminence: Who Are the Coming Tele-service Multinationals?: North-Holland, 1994.
21. Bouncken, R.B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., Bogers, M., Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 9:3 (2015), 577–601.
22. Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J., Co-opetition. 1996, Doubleday, New York, NY.
23. Brismark, G., Alfalahi, K., Patent strategies - a fork in the road toward 4G. Ericsson Bus. Rev. 2008:3 (2008), 62–65.
24. Cantwell, J., Gambardella, A., Granstrand, O., The Economics and Management of Technological Diversification. 2004, Routledge.
25. Cassiman, B., Valentini, G., Open innovation: are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary?. Strategic Manag. J. 37:6 (2016), 1034–1046.
26. Chesbrough, H.W., Open Innovation: the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
27. Chesbrough, H., Bogers, M., Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., (eds.) New Frontiers in Open Innovation, 2014, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28. Chesbrough, H.W., Rosenbloom, R.S., The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial Corp. Change 11:3 (2002), 529–555.
29. Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., (eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
30. Chesbrough, H., Kim, S., Agogino, A., Chez panisse: building an open innovation ecosystem. Calif. Manag. Rev. 56:4 (2014), 144–171.
31. Dahlander, L., Gann, D.M., How open is innovation?. Res. Policy 39:6 (2010), 699–709.
32. Di Minin, A., Bianchi, M., Safe nests in global nets: internationalization and appropriability of R&D in wireless telecom. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 42:7 (2011), 910–934.
33. Dittrich, K., Duysters, G., Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of open innovation in mobile telephony. J. Prod. Innovation Manag. 24:6 (2007), 510–521.
34. Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E., Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J. Bus. Res. 55:7 (2002), 553–560.
35. Duguet, E., Kabla, I., Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: an econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Ann. Econ. Statistics/Ann. d'Économie de Statistique(49/50), 1998, 289–327.
36. Faems, D., de Visser, M., Andries, P., van Looy, B., Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance: value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. J. Prod. Innovation Manag. 27:6 (2010), 785–796.
37. Fairfield Resources International, 3G Cellular Standards and Patents. Available for download at company website, 2005 http://www.frlicense.com/.
38. Fairfield Resources International, Analysis of Patents Declared as Essential to GSM as of June 6, 2007. Available for download at company website, 2007 http://www.frlicense.com/.
39. Fairfield Resources International, Review of Patents Declared as Essential to LTE and SAE (4G Wireless Standards) through June 30, 2009. Available for download at company website, 2009 http://www.frlicense.com/.
40. Fairfield Resources International, Review of Patents Declared as Essential to WCDMA through December, 2008. Available for download at company website, 2009 http://www.frlicense.com/.
41. Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., Gnyawali, D.R., Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Ind. Mark. Manag. 43:2 (2014), 222–235.
42. Fuentelsaz, L., Maícas, J.P., Polo, Y., The evolution of mobile communications in Europe: the transition from the second to the third generation. Telecommun. Policy 32:6 (2008), 436–449.
43. Galetovic, A., Haber, S.H., Zaretzki, L., Is there an anti-commons tragedy in the smartphone industry?. Berkeley Technol. Law J., 2017.
44. Gandal, N., Salant, D., Waverman, L., Standards in wireless telephone networks. Telecommun. Policy 27:5–6 (2003), 325–332.
45. Gawer, A., Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework. Res. Policy 43:7 (2014), 1239–1249.
46. Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A., Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J. Prod. Innovation Manag. 31:3 (2014), 417–433.
47. Gnyawali, D.R., Park, B.-J., Co-opetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Res. Policy 40:5 (2011), 650–663.
48. Graham, S., Vishnubhakat, S., Of smart phone wars and software patents. J. Econ. Perspect. 27:1 (2013), 67–85.
49. Granstrand, O. forthcoming. Patents and Innovations for Growth and Welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
50. Granstrand, O., Technology, Management and Markets: an Investigation of R&D and Innovation in Industrial Organizations. 1982, Frances Pinter, London.
51. Granstrand, O., The Evolution of Nordic Mobile Telephony. 1993, Department of Industrial Management of Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
52. Granstrand, O., Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Res. Policy 27:5 (1998), 465–489.
53. Granstrand, O., The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: towards Intellectual Capitalism. 1999, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
54. Granstrand, O., The shift towards intellectual capitalism: the role of infocom technologies. Res. Policy 29:9 (2000), 1061–1080.
55. Granstrand, O., Holgersson, M., The anatomy of rise and fall of patenting and propensity to patent: the case of Sweden. Int. J. Intellect. Prop. Manag. 5:2 (2012), 169–198.
56. Granstrand, O., Holgersson, M., Managing the intellectual property disassembly problem. Calif. Manag. Rev. 55:4 (2013), 184–210.
57. Granstrand, O., Holgersson, M., The challenge of closing open innovation: the intellectual property disassembly problem. Research-Technology Manag. 57:5 (2014), 19–25.
58. Granstrand, O., Lindmark, S., Technology Collaborations in Corporate Innovation Systems. 2002, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
59. Granstrand, O., Oskarsson, C., Technology diversification in “MUL-TECH” corporations. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 41:4 (1994), 355–364.
60. Granstrand, O., Sjölander, S., Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Res. Policy 19:1 (1990), 35–60.
61. Granstrand, O., Bohlin, E., Oskarsson, C., Sjöberg, N., External technology acquisition in large multi-technology corporations. R&D Manag. 22:2 (1992), 111–133.
62. Granstrand, O., Patel, P., Pavitt, K., Multi-technology corporations: why they have 'distributed' rather than 'distinctive core' competences. Calif. Manag. Rev. 39:4 (1997), 8–25.
63. Grossman, S.J., Hart, O.D., The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration. J. Political Econ. 94:4 (1986), 691–719.
64. Hacklin, F., J. Björkdahl, and M. W. Wallin. forthcoming., Strategies for business model innovation: How firms reel in migrating value Long Range Planning.
65. Hagedoorn, J., Zobel, A.-K., The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technol. Analysis Strategic Manag. 27:9 (2015), 1050–1067.
66. Hall, B.H., Ziedonis, R.H., The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND J. Econ. 32:1 (2001), 101–128.
67. Hargadon, A., Douglas, Y., When innovations meet institutions: edison and the design of the electric light. Adm. Sci. Q. 46:3 (2001), 476–501.
68. Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., von Hippel, E., Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy 32:10 (2003), 1753–1769.
69. Hart, O., Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure. 1995, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
70. Henkel, J., Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux. Res. Policy 35:7 (2006), 953–969.
71. Henkel, J., Baldwin, C.Y., Shih, W., IP modularity: profiting from innovation by aligning product architecture with intellectual property. Calif. Manag. Rev. 55:4 (2013), 65–82.
72. Holgersson, M., Innovation and Intellectual Property: Strategic IP Management and Economics of Technology. PhD, 2012, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology.
73. Holgersson, M., Granstrand, O., Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation. Manag. Decis. 55:6 (2017), 1265–1284.
74. Holgersson, M., Wallin, M.W., The patent management trichotomy: patenting, publishing, and secrecy. Manag. Decis. 55:6 (2017), 1087–1099.
75. Iversen, E., Standardisation and intellectual property rights: conflicts between innovation and diffusion in new telecommunications systems. Jakobs, K., (eds.) Information Technology Standards and Standardization: a Global Perspective, 1999, Idea Group, Hershey, PA, 80–101.
76. Jell, F., J. Henkel, and M. W. Wallin. Forthcoming. Offensive Patent Portfolio Races, Long Range Planning.
77. Jick, T.D., Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm. Sci. Q. 24:4 (1979), 602–611.
78. Karlsson, M., The Liberalisation of Telecommunications in Sweden: Technology and Regime Change from the 1960s to 1993. PhD, 1998, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Linköping University.
79. Klein, B., Crawford, R.G., Alchian, A.A., Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. J. Law Econ. 21:2 (1978), 297–326.
80. Langley, A., Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:4 (1999), 691–710.
81. Laursen, K., Salter, A., Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Manag. J. 27:2 (2006), 131–150.
82. Laursen, K., Salter, A., The paradox of openness: appropriability, external search and collaboration. Res. Policy 43:5 (2014), 867–878.
83. Lee, K., Kim, Y.K., IPR and technological catch-up in Korea. Odagiri, H., Goto, A., Sunami, A., Nelson, R.R., (eds.) Intellectual Property Rights, Development and Catch-up: an International Comparative Study, 2010, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 133–167.
84. Leiponen, A.E., Competing through cooperation: the organization of standard setting in wireless telecommunications. Manag. Sci. 54:11 (2008), 1904–1919.
85. Lemley, M.A., Shapiro, C., Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Tex. Law Rev. 85 (2007), 1991–2049.
86. Lindmark, S., Evolution of Techno-economic Systems - an Investigation of the History of Mobile Communications. PhD, 2002, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology.
87. Lloyd, M., Spielthenner, D., Mokdsi, G., The Smartphone Patent Wars. 2011.
88. Manzini, R., Lazzarotti, V., Intellectual property protection mechanisms in collaborative new product development. R&D Manag. 46:S2 (2016), 579–595.
89. North, D.C., Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
90. O'Mahony, S., Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work. Res. Policy 32:7 (2003), 1179–1198.
91. Oskarsson, C., Technology Diversification - the Phenomenon, its Causes and Effects. PhD, 1993, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology.
92. Oskarsson, C., Sjöberg, N., Technology analysis and competitive strategy: the case of mobile telephones. Technol. Analysis Strategic Manag. 6:1 (1994), 3–20.
93. Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
94. Ostrom, E., Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu. Rev. Political Sci., 2(1), 1999, 493.
95. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., Policansky, D., Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284:5412 (1999), 278–282.
96. Pisano, G., Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Res. Policy 35:8 (2006), 1122–1130.
97. Pisano, G.P., Teece, D.J., How to capture value from innovation: shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. Calif. Manag. Rev. 50:1 (2007), 278–296.
98. Sadowski, B.M., Dittrich, K., Duysters, G.M., Collaborative strategies in the event of technological discontinuities: the case of Nokia in the mobile telecommunication industry. Small Bus. Econ. 21:2 (2003), 173–186.
99. Scotchmer, S., Innovation and Incentives. 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
100. Somaya, D., Patent strategy and management. J. Manag. 38:4 (2012), 1084–1114.
101. Somaya, D., Teece, D.J., Wakeman, S., Innovation in multi-invention contexts: mapping solutions to technological and intellectual property complexity. Calif. Manag. Rev. 53:4 (2011), 47–79.
102. Stasik, E., Royalty rates and licensing strategies for essential patents on LTE (4G) telecommunication standards. Les. Nouv., 2010, 114–119.
103. Teece, D.J., Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15:6 (1986), 285–305.
104. Teece, D.J., Reflections on 'profiting from innovation'. Res. Policy 35:8 (2006), 1131–1146.
105. Teece, D.J., Dynamic Capabilities & Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth. 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
106. Teece, D.J., Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long. Range Plan. 43:2–3 (2010), 172–194.
107. Teece, D.J., The “tragedy of the anticommons” fallacy: a law and economics analysis of patent thickets and FRAND licensing. Berkeley Technol. Law J., 2017.
108. Teece, D. J. Forthcoming. “Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Standards, complementary assets, and business models in the wireless world.” Research Policy.
109. Veer, T., Lorenz, A., Blind, K., How open is too open? The mitigating role of appropriation mechanisms in R&D cooperation settings. R&D Manag. 46:S3 (2016), 1113–1128.
110. von Hippel, E., Democratizing Innovation. 2005, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
111. von Krogh, G., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Haefliger, S., Phenomenon-based research in management and organisation science: when is it rigorous and does it matter?. Long. Range Plan. 45:4 (2012), 277–298.
112. West, J., Does Appropriability Enable or Retard Open Innovation?. Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., (eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 109–133.
113. West, J., Bogers, M., Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. J. Prod. Innovation Manag. 31:4 (2014), 814–831.
114. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H., Open innovation: the next decade. Res. Policy 43:5 (2014), 805–811.
115. Williamson, O.E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. 1975, Free Press, New York, NY.
116. Williamson, O.E., Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Adm. Sci. Q. 36:4 (1991), 269–296.
117. Williamson, O.E., The Mechanisms of Governance. 1996, Oxford University Press, New York.
118. Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 1994, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
119. Zobel, A.-K., Balsmeier, B., Chesbrough, H., Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry. Industrial Corp. Change 25:2 (2016), 307–331.
120. Zobel, A.-K., Lokshin, B., Hagedoorn, J., Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: the role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation 59 (2017), 44–54.