More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms Incentives for Technology Licensing

Authors:

Marco CeccagnoliAuthors Info & Claims

Management Science, Volume 52, Issue 2

Pages 293 - 308

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0437

Published: 01 February 2006 Publication History

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship between technology licensing and the effectiveness of patent protection. Using the 1994 Carnegie Mellon survey on industrial research and development (R&D) in the United States, we develop and test a simple structural model in which the patenting and licensing decisions are jointly determined. We find that increases in the effectiveness of patent protection increases licensing propensity, but only when the firm lacks specialized complementary assets required to commercialize new technologies. In contrast, for firms with specialized complementary assets, increases in patent effectiveness increase patenting propensity but reduce the propensity to license. We present systematic cross-industry empirical support for the proposition that intellectual property protection is a key determinant of the vertical boundaries of the firm and the market for technology but that its impact is mediated by a firms ownership of specialized complementary assets.

References

[1]

Amit R., Schoemaker P. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14:33-46.

[2]

Anand B. N., Khanna T. The structure of licensing contract. J. Indust. Econom. (2000) 48:103-135.

[3]

Anton, J., Yao D. A. Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1994) 84:190-209.

[4]

Arora A. Contracting for tacit knowledge: The provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts. J. Development Econom. (1996) 50:233- 256.

[5]

Arora A., Fosfuri A. Licensing the market for technology. J. Econom. Behavior Organ. (2003) 52:277-295.

[6]

Arora A., Gambardella A. The changing technology of technical change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labor. Res. Policy. (1994) 23:523-532.

[7]

Arora A., Ceccagnoli M., Cohen W.M. R&D and the patent premium. (2003) Working paper 9431, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

[8]

Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. Markets for Technology: Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. (2001) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[9]

Arrow K., Nelson R.R. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. (1962) Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

[10]

Barney J. Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage. J. Management. (1991) 17:99- 120.

[11]

Bascavusoglu E., Zuniga M.P. Foreign patent rights, technology and disembodied knowledge transfer cross borders: An empirical application. (2002) Unpublished manuscript, University of Paris, Paris, France.

[12]

Bowker Co. R. R. Directory of American Research and Technology. (1995) 30th ed. R. R. Bowker, New Providence.

[13]

Branstetter L. G., Fisman R., Foley C.F. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from U.S. firm-level panel data. Quart. J. Econom. (2006) Forthcoming.

[14]

Cassiman B., Veugelers R. R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2002) 92:1169-1184.

[15]

Ceccagnoli M. Firm heterogeneity, imitation, and the incentives for cost reducing R&D effort. J. Indust. Econom. (2005) 53:83-100.

[16]

Cohen W. M. Patents and appropriation: Concerns, evidence and a Schumpeterian perspective. J. Tech. Transfer (2004) 30:57-71.

[17]

Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent or not. (2000) Working paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

[18]

d'Aspremont C., Jacquemin A. Cooperative and non-cooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1988) 78:1133-1137.

[19]

De Bondt R., Slaets P., Cassiman B. The degree of spillovers and the number of rivals for maximum effective R&D. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (1992) 10:35-54.

[20]

Dierickx I., Cool K. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Sci. (1989) 35:1504-1513.

Digital Library

[21]

DiMasi J. A. New drug innovation and pharmaceutical industry structure: Trends in the output of pharmaceutical firms. Drug Inform. J. (2000) 34:1169-1194.

[22]

Fink C. Intellectual property rights and U.S. and German international transactions in manufacturing industries. Fink C., Maskus K. E., eds. Intellectual Property and Development. Lessons from Recent Economic Research. (2005) World Bank and Oxford University Press, New York, 75-110.

[23]

Fosfuri A. The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of licensing. (2004a) Working paper 04-15, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

[24]

Fosfuri A. Determinants of international activity: Evidence from the chemical processing industry. Res. Policy (2004b) 33:1599-1614.

[25]

Gallant R. A. Nonlinear Statistical Models (1987) John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Digital Library

[26]

Gans J., Hsu D., Stern S. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND J. Econom. (2002) 33:571-586.

[27]

Grindley P., Teece D. Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Rev. (1997) 39:8-41.

[28]

Hall B. H. Exploring the patent explosion. J. Tech. Transfer (2004) 30:35-48.

[29]

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. Econom. (2001) 32:101-128 .

[30]

Helfat C. E. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management J. (1997) 18:339-360.

[31]

Hill C. W. L. Strategies for exploiting technological innovations: When and when not to license. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3:428-441.

[32]

Horstmann I., MacDonald J. M., Slivinski A. Patents as information transfer mechanisms: To patent or (maybe) not to patent. J. Political Econom. (1985) 9:837-858.

[33]

Kim J., Marschke G. Accounting for the recent surge in U.S. patenting: Changes in R&D expenditures, patent yields, and the high-tech sector. Econom. Innovation New Tech. (2004) 13:543-558.

[34]

Lamoreaux N. R., Sokoloff K. L. Inventors, firms, and the market for technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Lamoreaux N. R., Raff D. M., Temin P., eds. Learning by Doing in Firms, Markets, and Nations. (1998) The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

[35]

Levin R. C., Klevorick A. K., Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity (1987) 1987:783-820.

[36]

Maddala G. S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. (1983) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[37]

Mansfield E. Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Sci. (1986) 32:173-181.

Digital Library

[38]

McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P., ed. Frontier in Econometrics. (1973) Academic Press, New York.

[39]

Mowery D. The relationship between contractual and intra-firm forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900-1940. Explorations Econom. Hist. (1983) October:351-374.

[40]

Nagaoka S. Impact of intellectual property rights on international licensing: Evidence from licensing contracts of Japanese industry. (2002) Unpublished manuscript, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan.

[41]

Nelson R. R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Political Econom. (1959) 67:297-306.

[42]

Nerkar A., Roberts P. W. Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. (2004) 25:779-799.

[43]

Penner-Hahn J., Shaver M. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management J. (2005) 26:121-140.

[44]

Puttitanun T. Intellectual property rights and multinational firms modes of entry. (2003) Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.

[45]

Rivette K. G., Kline D. Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. (1999) Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Digital Library

[46]

Rothaermel, F. T., C. W. L. Hill . 2005 . Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance . Organ. Sci. 16 ( 1 ) 52 70 .

Digital Library

[47]

Schankerman M., Pakes A. Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. Econom. J. (1986) 96:1052-1076.

[48]

Scherer F. M., Harhoff D. Technology policy for a world of skew distributed outcomes. Res. Policy (2000) 29:559-566.

[49]

Shaked A., Sutton J. Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1982) 49:3-13.

[50]

Shane S. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Sci. (2001) 47:1173-1190.

Digital Library

[51]

Smith P. J. How do foreign patent rights affect U.S. exports, affiliate sales, and licenses? J. Internat. Econom. (2001) 55:411-439.

[52]

Teece D. J. Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Econom. J. (1977) 87:242-261.

[53]

Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15:285-305.

[54]

Teece D. J. Competition, cooperation and innovation. J. Econom. Behavior Organ. (1992) 18:1-25.

[55]

Thomke S., Kuemmerle W. Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change: Evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery. Strategic Management J. (2002) 23:619-635.

[56]

Tripsas M. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management J. (1997) 18:119-142.

[57]

Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. (1984) 5:171-180.

[58]

Williamson O. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1991) 36:269-296.

[59]

Winter S. G. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. Teece D. J., ed. The Competitive Challenge. (1987) Balling Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA. 159-184.

[60]

Yang G., Maskus K. Intellectual property rights and licensing: An econometric investigation. Fink C, Maskus K.E., eds. Intellectual Property and Development. Lessons from Recent Economic Research. (2005) World Bank and Oxford University Press, New York. 111-134.

[61]

Zhao Z., Anand W., Mitchell J. A dual networks perspective on inter-organizational transfer of R&D capabilities: International joint ventures in the Chinese automotive industry. J. Management Stud. (2005) 42:127-160.

Cited By

Agarwal SKapoor R(2023)Value Creation Tradeoff in Business EcosystemsOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2022.161534:3(1216-1242)Online publication date: 1-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2022.1615
Kwon JPark HDeng S(2022)When Do Firms Trade Patents?Organization Science10.1287/orsc.2021.147133:3(1212-1231)Online publication date: 1-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2021.1471
Chen XZhou DLu R(2022)Appropriability Mechanisms and the Performance of digital startups: The Moderating Role of Technology InnovativenessProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Management and Management Science10.1145/3564858.3564895(233-238)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564858.3564895
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms Incentives for Technology Licensing
1. Applied computing
  1. Enterprise computing
  2. Law, social and behavioral sciences
    1. Economics
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Computing / technology policy
    1. Intellectual property
  2. Professional topics
    1. Computing and business
    2. Management of computing and information systems

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Can external corporate venturing broaden firm's technological scope? The role of complementary assets

This study applies two theoretical perspectives-resource-based view (RBV) and organizational learning-to explore how a firm's external corporate venturing (CV) influences its technological scope. Using data from 583 electronics and information ...
Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance

We suggest that the type of complementary assets (generic versus specialized) needed to commercialize a new technology is critical in determining the industry- and firm-level performance implications of a competence-destroying technological ...
Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation
Although the relationship between competition and firm innovation has long been of scholarly interest, prior research has predominantly considered changes in internal research and development (R&D) as a strategic response to competitors’ actions. In this ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Management Science

Management Science Volume 52, Issue 2

February 2006

156 pages

ISSN:0025-1909

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2006

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 20 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Agarwal SKapoor R(2023)Value Creation Tradeoff in Business EcosystemsOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2022.161534:3(1216-1242)Online publication date: 1-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2022.1615
Kwon JPark HDeng S(2022)When Do Firms Trade Patents?Organization Science10.1287/orsc.2021.147133:3(1212-1231)Online publication date: 1-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2021.1471
Chen XZhou DLu R(2022)Appropriability Mechanisms and the Performance of digital startups: The Moderating Role of Technology InnovativenessProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Management and Management Science10.1145/3564858.3564895(233-238)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564858.3564895
Eggers JGrajek MKretschmer T(2020)Experience, Consumers, and FitOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2019.131131:2(245-265)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2019.1311
Melero EPalomeras NWehrheim D(2020)The Effect of Patent Protection on Inventor MobilityManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2019.350066:12(5485-5504)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3500
Laursen KMoreira SReichstein TLeone M(2017)Evading the Boomerang EffectOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2017.113028:3(514-530)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2017.1130
McCarthy IRuckman K(2017)Licensing speedJournal of Engineering and Technology Management10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.11.00246:C(52-66)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.11.002
Li MChen XZhang G(2017)How does firm size affect technology licensing? Empirical evidence from ChinaScientometrics10.1007/s11192-017-2451-6112:3(1249-1269)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-017-2451-6
Mihm JSting FWang T(2015)On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation RacesManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2014.212861:11(2662-2684)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2128
Huang KCheng T(2015)Determinants of firms' patenting or not patenting behaviorsJournal of Engineering and Technology Management10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.00336:C(52-77)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.003
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents