nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

20.01.2021

From discovery to commercialization: accretive intellectual property strategies among small, knowledge-based firms

verfasst von: Christopher S. Hayter, Albert N. Link

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 3/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper explores the use of publications and patents and their covariates among small, knowledge-based firms pursuing technology commercialization. It does so through an empirical examination of 1180 small firms’ R&D projects, all of which were funded through Phase II U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards. As such, the paper responds to recent calls to investigate not only how small, knowledge-based firms utilize specific IP strategies but also how accretive logic specifically differs from competitive publishing and patenting logic.

Vorheriger Artikel The entrepreneurial financing of the immigrant entrepreneurs: a literature review

Nächster Artikel The added value of management skill in the explanation of the distribution of firm size

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Field of use is defined as the right for a firm to utilize a specific technology that would otherwise require licensing from competitors or nonpracticing entities. Nonpracticing entities (otherwise known as “patent trolls”) generally have no in-house technical capability but patent or obtain exclusive licenses from an inventor in order to profit from patent prosecutions. See Cohen et al. (2019) for a more in-depth discussion.

As part of the SBIR program’s reauthorization in 2000, the U.S. Congress commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academies to conduct a survey of a representative sample of Phase II projects as a study to inform Congress prior to the scheduled 2008 reauthorization of the program. Congress authorized the NRC to conduct follow-up surveys in 2011 and in 2014, but not all of the relevant data from those surveys are available for this study.

The population of phase II projects is 1878; however, a number of phase II projects were deleted from the study. Those deleted were project that failed, that is were terminated for technical or other reasons prior to completion; projects that had not yet been completed at the time of the 2005 survey, and projects for which some of the relevant variable information was missing.

More detailed discussions of the history of the SBIR program and of the 2005 NRC survey and its related phase II data are in, for example, Link and Scott (2012), Link (2013), and Leyden and Link (2015).

There are exceptions to the upper limit on both phase I and phase II awards. Often the funding agency can broaden the scope of the initially funded phase II project, thus increasing the total budget above $1 million. It is not uncommon for this to happen among selected phase II projects funded by the Department of Defense.

See Link and Strong (2016) and Link and Morrison (2019) for a review of the relevant literature on ownership gender and the innovative behavior of firms. See also Audretsch et al. (2019) for a study of knowledge spillovers from university involvement in research.

See also Audretsch and Link (2018, 2019).

Ács, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ács, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.CrossRef

Amoroso, S. and Link, A.N. (2019). Intellectual property protection mechanisms and the characteristics of founding teams. European Commission Joint Research Centre working paper 01–2019.

Anton, J. J., & Yao, D. A. (2003). Patents, invalidity, and the strategic transmission of enabling information. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12, 151–178.

Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.CrossRef

Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2018). Innovation capital. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1760–1767.CrossRef

Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2019). Sources of knowledge and entrepreneurial behavior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Audretsch, D. B., Boente, W., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2012). Financial signaling by innovative nascent ventures: the relevance of patents and prototypes. Research Policy, 41, 1407–1421.CrossRef

Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Hinger, J. (2015). From knowledge to innovation: the role of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. In C. Antonelli & A. N. Link (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the economics of knowledge (pp. 20–28). New York: Routledge.

Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2019). Knowledge begets knowledge: university knowledge spillovers and the output of scientific papers from U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Projects. Scientometrics, 121, 1367–1383.CrossRef

Baker, S., & Mezzetti, C. (2005). Disclosure as a strategy in the patent race. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 173–194.CrossRef

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRef

Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 365–570.CrossRef

Braunerhjelm, P., Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34, 105–125.CrossRef

Chen, M. J., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). Nonresponsive and relayed response to competitive mores: the roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 539–570.CrossRef

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper No. 7552.

Cohen, W. M., Gurun, U. G., & Kominers, S. D. (2019). Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms. Management Science, 65, 5449–5956.CrossRef

Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2021). Latent technology as an outcome of R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120371.CrossRef

Elfenbein, D. W. (2007). Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 688–715.CrossRef

Gallini, N., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). Intellectual property: when is it the best incentive system? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2, 51–77.CrossRef

Gill, D. (2008). Strategic disclosure of intermediate search results. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 17, 733–758.

Graham, S. J. H., & Sichelman, T. (2008). Why do start-ups patent? Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23, 1063–1097.

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014a). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43, 57–74.

Hall, B. H. (2019). Is there a role for patents in the financing of new innovative firms? Industrial and Corporate Change, 28, 657–680.CrossRef

Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 101–128.CrossRef

Hall, B. H., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: a review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 375–423.CrossRef

Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.

Harhoff. (2009). The role of patents and licenses in securing external finance for innovation. European Investment Bank Papers, 14, 74–97.

Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340–352.

Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003–1015.

Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: a knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.CrossRef

Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2018). Why do knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms publish their innovative ideas? Academy of Management Perspectives, 32, 141–155.CrossRef

Hayter, C. S., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2018). Public-sector entrepreneurship. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34, 676–694.

Henkel, J. and Pangerl, S. (2008). Defensive publishing: an empirical study, DRUID Working Paper No. 08–04.

Hicks, D. (1995). Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 401–424.CrossRef

Hoenig, D., & Henkel, J. (2015). Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing. Research Policy, 44(5), 1049–1064.

Hopenhayn, H., Llobet, G., & Mitchell, M. (2006). Rewarding sequential innovators: prizes, patents, and buyouts. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 1041–1068.CrossRef

Hottenrott, H., Hall, B. H., & Czarnitzki, D. (2015). Patents as quality signals? The implications for financing constraints on R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25, 197–217.

Hottenrott, H., Hall, B. H., & Czarnitzki, D. (2017). Patents as quality signals? The implications for financing constraints on R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25, 197–217.CrossRef

Johnson, J. P. (2014). Defensive publishing by a leading firm. Information Economics and Policy, 28, 15–27.CrossRef

Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.

Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: U.S Technology and Innovation Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Li, Y., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1016–1033.

Lichtman, D., Baker, S., & Kraus, K. (2000). Strategic disclosure in the patent system. Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 2175–2217.

Link, A. N. (2013). Public support of innovation in entrepreneurial firms. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publisher.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & Morrison, L. T. R. (2019). Innovative activity in minority-owned and women-owned business. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). Employment growth from public support of innovation in small firms. Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & Strong, D. R. (2016). Gender and entrepreneurship: an annotated bibliography. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12, 287–441.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2020). The use of intellectual property protection mechanisms by publicly supported firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1843993.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34, 1058–1075.CrossRef

Parchomovsky, G. (2000). Publish or perish. Michigan Law Review, 98, 926–951.CrossRef

Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 782–799.CrossRef

Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: a longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1314–1345.CrossRef

Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.CrossRef

Scotchmer, S. (1991). Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 29–41.CrossRef

Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 587–604.CrossRef

Teece, D. (2000). Managing intellectual capital. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2012). Partnering with universities: a good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Business Economics, 38, 197–215.CrossRef

Titel: From discovery to commercialization: accretive intellectual property strategies among small, knowledge-based firms
verfasst von: Christopher S. Hayter
Albert N. Link
Publikationsdatum: 20.01.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00446-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2022

Innovation drivers of external competitiveness in the great recession

Institutions, financial development, and small business survival: evidence from European emerging markets

Do Nonfamily Managers Enhance Family Firm Performance?

Motivational drivers to choose worker cooperatives as an entrepreneurial alternative: evidence from Spain

The mediating role of values in the relationship between religion and entrepreneurship

The effects of social spending on entrepreneurship in developed nations