[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Concerns regarding the high level of research and development (R&D) expenditure on military technology have prompted many nations to pursue a dual-use regime in military R&D. However, the value of dual-use military technology has not yet been quantitatively investigated. We explore whether military technology with a higher level of duality has been more valuable than that with a lower level of duality. We assume that the patent of valuable military technology was renewed until its termination. We retrieve military patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office during 1976–2014 based on their International Patent Classification (IPC) as F41 or F42. Then, we propose three indicators to assess the duality level of them. The first indicator is based on the determination of whether the patented technology is utilizable in both the military and the civilian sectors using its IPC. For the second indicator, we estimate the potential of convergence of a patented technology with various technological fields using the degree of centrality of the IPC’s co-occurrence network. The third indicator is based on ratio of forward citation by the civilian sector over the total number of forward citations as a measurement of technology diffusion toward the civilian sector. Using logistic regression, we found that the first two indicators are positively associated with patent renewal decision, while the last indicator is nonsignificant. The effects of the two significant indicators suggests that military technologies are more valuable when the technology itself can be used in various sectors, including the civilian sector, and can be converged with technologies in different fields. However, the nonsignificant influence of the third variable suggests that the relation between patent value and diffusion effects toward following inventions is not confined to the civilian sector. Our findings provide evidence of the impact of dual-use policies in military R&D.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although dual-use technology includes bilateral technology spillovers between the military sector and the civilian sector, most studies have considered the spillover from the military sector to the civilian sector as dual-use technology. Thus, this paper also focuses on the technology spillover from the defense industry to the civilian industry as dual-use technology.

  2. Maintenance fees are required three times during the life of a patent: at 3–4, 7 –8 , and 11–12 years after the date of issue.

  3. Among collaborated patents, five technologies were developed by Germany and France. For US applicants, 5 patents were developed through joint endeavors with ones in Argentina, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Sweden. The other four patents were applied for by France and Sweden; France and Belgium; the Netherlands and Germany; and the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.

  4. F42B: EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, e.g., FOR BLASTING; FIREWORKS; AMMUNITION.

  5. F41I, F41 N, F41S, F41 V, F42E, F42L, and F42S are not found in IPC codes published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Thus, we consider that 11 military patents that are associated with these IPCs contain typos in their documents.

  6. Among them, 512 patents have no forward citation. Because CIVIL_FCR measures the impact on the civilian sector, we consider that a patent with no forward citation has no impact on the civilian sector.

  7. In Harhoff et al.’s (2003) study, the full model result shows that the coefficient value of the scope of the patent is −0.150 **(p value = 0.084).

  8. In Fischer and Leidinger’s (2014) study, the result of an OLS regression on the price of all sold patents shows that the coefficient value of the scope of the patent is −0.45 (p value = 0.057).

References

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Marín, R., & Prats, P. (2013). Factors affecting the diffusion of patented military technology in the field of weapons and ammunition. Scientometrics, 94, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, M. C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alic, J. A. (1994). The dual use of technology: Concepts and policies. Technology in Society, 16, 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alptekin, A., & Levine, P. (2012). Military expenditure and economic growth: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 28, 636–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baudry, M., & Dumont, B. (2006). Patent renewals as options: improving the mechanism for weeding out lousy patents. Review of Industrial Organization, 28, 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J. (2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37, 932–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bojnec, Š. (2016). Dual-use products export multipliers with the indirect effects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. F., & Reitzig, M. (2007). Measuring patent assessment quality—analyzing the degree and kind of (in) consistency in patent offices’ decision making. Research Policy, 36(9), 1404–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, A. C., & Lai, C. C. (2012). On the growth and welfare effects of defense R&D. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 14, 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1995). Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development. Research Policy, 24, 851–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumais, S. T. (1991). Improving the retrieval of information from external sources. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 23, 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, J. P., & Braddon, D. (2008). Economic Impact of Military R&D. Brussels: Flemish Peace Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, J. P., & Tian, N. (2015). Military expenditure, economic growth and heterogeneity. Defence and Peace Economics, 26, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enger, S. (2013). Dual-Use Technology and Defence–Civilian Spillovers: Evidence from the Norwegian Defence Industry. Master’s Thesis. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/35932/Engerx-xMaster.pdf?sequence=1.

  • Fischer, T., & Leidinger, J. (2014). Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Research Policy, 43, 519–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R. K., Payne, J. E., & Ram, R. (2008). R&D expenditures and US economic growth: A disaggregated approach. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, M., Cricelli, L., Di Giovanni, M., & Rogo, F. (2015). The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 286–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönqvist, C. (2009). The private value of patents by patent characteristics: evidence from Finland. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.

  • Han, E. J., & Sohn, S. Y. (2016). Technological convergence in standards for information and communication technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 106, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32, 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jee, S. J., & Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Patent network based conjoint analysis for wearable device. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 338–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, Y., & Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining. Scientometrics, 102(1), 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized facts of patent litigation: Value, scope and ownership (no. w6297). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. G. (2009). 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), 623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. S., Han, E. J., & Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Predicting the pattern of technology convergence using big-data technology on large-scale triadic patents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. J., Lee, W. K., & Sohn, S. Y. (2016). Patent network analysis and quadratic assignment procedures to identify the convergence of robot technologies. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0165091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. K., & Sohn, S. Y. (2016). Patent portfolio-based indicators to evaluate the commercial benefits of national plant genetic resources. Ecological Indicators, 70, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.

  • Lichtenberg, F. R. (1995). Economics of defense R&D. Handbook of Defense Economics, 1, 431–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K., Arthurs, J., Cullen, J., & Alexander, R. (2008). Internal sequential innovations: How does interrelatedness affect patent renewal? Research Policy, 37, 946–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, W. M., Kweh, Q. L., Nourani, M., & Huang, F. W. (2016). Evaluating the efficiency of dual-use technology development programs from the R&D and socio-economic perspectives. Omega, 62, 82–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marco, A. C. (2007). The dynamics of patent citations. Economics Letters, 94, 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (1997). Which way to go? Defence technology and the diversity of ‘dual-use’ technology transfer. Research Policy, 26, 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A. (2005). Markman eight years later: Is claim construction more predictable. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 9, 231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (2010). Military R&D and innovation. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 1219–1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (2012). Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies. Research Policy, 41(10), 1703–1715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, C. E. (1969). The militarization of the American economy. In Corporations and the cold war, pp. 205–235.

  • Park, H., & Yoon, J. (2014). Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: The case of Korean national R&D. Scientometrics, 98, 853–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieroni, L. (2009). Military expenditure and economic growth. Defence and peace economics, 20(4), 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, J. D. (1996). The value of international patent rights. UMI dissertation services.

  • Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37, 492–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33, 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reppy, J. (1999). Dual-use technology: back to the future. Arming the Future: A Defense Industry for the 21st Century (pp. 269–284). New York: ***Council on Foreign Relations Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan, V. W. (2006). Is war necessary for economic growth?: military procurement and technology development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sapsalis, E., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Navon, R. (2006). Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy, 35, 1631–1645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, S. J., Han, E. J., & Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Trend analysis of academic research and technical development pertaining to gas hydrates. Scientometrics, 105(2), 905–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, W. A. (1995). Science, technology, and the military: Relations in transition. In Handbook of science and technology studies, pp 598–626.

  • Sterzi, V. (2013). Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting. Research Policy, 42, 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowsky, J. (2004). Secrets to shield or share? New dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age. Research Policy, 33, 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Te Kulve, H., & Smit, W. A. (2003). Civilian—Military co-operation strategies in developing new technologies. Research Policy, 32, 955–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (2016R1A2A1A05005270).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University, Yonsei-ro 50, Seoul, 03722, Korea

    Bo Kyeong Lee & So Young Sohn

Authors
  1. Bo Kyeong Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. So Young Sohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to So Young Sohn.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Eigenvalue of the SVD

Full size image

Appendix 2

See Table 9.

Table 9 Correlation matrix
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

ROC curves of the models

Full size image

Appendix 4

See Table 10.

Table 10 Result of the logistic regression for terminated military patents after eliminating outliers
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, B.K., Sohn, S.Y. Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision. Scientometrics 112, 1203–1227 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2443-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2443-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation