nach oben

Erschienen in:

2009 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Institutional Contexts, the Management of Patent Portfolios, and the Role of Public Policies Supporting New Entrepreneurial Ventures

verfasst von : Giovanni Battista Dagnino, Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri, Daniela Baglieri

Erschienen in: Public Policies for Fostering Entrepreneurship

Verlag: Springer US

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter aims to increase our understanding of the relationships between firm strategies, the design of institutional contexts on behalf of public agents, and the stimulation of diffused entrepreneurship within the economic system. In particular, it analyzes the way in which firm patent portfolio management strategies may systematically hinder the emergence of entrepreneurial endeavors within the economic system and, on this basis, critically discusses how the acknowledgement of these interactions should influence the design of public policies at the economic system level. We argue that in economic contexts where intellectual property rights (IPR) are influential, large firms may intentionally develop and strategically manage wide portfolios of patents in order to purposely pre-empt the rise of direct competition and thwart the efforts of new potential entrepreneurs, rather than merely to protect the fruits of their R&D. This strategy leads to patent proliferation, eventually hindering the emergence of nascent entrepreneurship, thereby preventing the creation of new value in the system. The pre-emptive strategy described may be observed in a variety of contexts in which global firms (such as IBM, Microsoft and other firms in the biotech, nanotech and pharmaceutical industries) tend to aggressively invest in building and protecting wide ranged and overarching patent portfolios directed primarily toward preventing potential competition.

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

Such approaches range from the neoclassical approach in economics to the contingency theory to studies conducted in the original population ecology perspective.

For a detailed treatment of the building blocks and theoretical process underlying the framework proposed, see Mocciaro Li Destri (2005).

Cf. Bower and Hilgard (1981), Brandshaw et al. (1983), Simon (1985), Mauzy and Harriman (2003), and Maccoby (2003).

Cf. Schumpeter (1934, 1942), Kirzner (1973, 1979, 1982), Lachmann (1956), and Casson (1982).

For an application of the model proposed to the institutional contexts which distinguish the software industry, see Mocciaro Li Destri (2006, 2007).

This description refers essentially to patents and may be applied to copyrights as well. It cannot be applied to trade secrets as these do not imply disclosure nor grant the same level of protection.

For an analysis of the metallurgic industry in Birmingham, see Berg (1991); for an analysis of the influence of the patent system on innovation rates in Great Britain, Dutton (1984); for an analysis of the effects of a strong patent system in the USA, Sokoloff (1988) and Khan and Sokoloff (1993). Even North (1981, pp. 164–166) suggests that the increase in the innovation rates, which occurred in Great Britain during the eighteenth century, may be explained as a direct consequence of the progressive development of an institutional context in which intellectual property rights are fully developed.

In a similar vein, see also Moser (2004).

Cumulative and systemic technologies are those technologies that are composed of a significant number of interconnected components, whose creative evolution is brought forth on the basis of past advancements.

Kayat and Greenberg (2006) credit Peter Detkin, formerly at Intel and now at Intellectual Ventures, for coining the term troll.

Agrawal, A. (2006). “Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge”. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 63–69.CrossRef

Allen R.C. (1983) “Collective invention” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, n. 4.

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

Baglieri, D., and Giordani, S. (2008). “Exploiting nanotech opportunities: A strategic entrepreneurship perspective”. In Gandhi, A., Giordani, S., Merhari, L., Tsakalakos, L., and Tsamis, C. (Eds). The Business of Nanotechnology. MRS Proceedings, 1106E. Warrendale, PA.

Berg M. (1991). “Commerce and creativity in eighteenth-century Birmingham”. In Berg, M. (Ed). Markets and Manufacturers in Early Industrial Europe. London: Routledge.

Bessen J. (2003). Patent Thickets. Working paper, Research on Innovation, Boston University School of Law.

Bower, G.H., and Hilgard, E.R. (1981). Theories of Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Branhdshaw, G.F., Langley, P.W., and Simon, H.A. (1983). “Studying scientific discovery by computer simulation”. Science, 222: 971–975.CrossRef

Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt K.M. (1995) “Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions”. Academy of Management Review, 20: 343–378.

Casson, M. (1982). The Entrepreneur. An Economic Theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models. How to Thrive un the New Innovation Landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cohen, W., Nelson, R., and Walsh, J. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or Not)NBER Working Paper no. 7552.

Coleman, J.S. (1993). Properties of rational organizations. In Lindenberg, S., and Schreuder, H. (Eds). Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Organization Studies. Oxford: Pergamon.

Dougherty, D. (1992). “Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms”. Organization Science, 3: 179–202.CrossRef

Dutton, H.I. (1984). The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Foray D. (2004). Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., and Luzzi A. (2007). “The markets for patents in Europe”. Research Policy, 36(8).

Graff, G.D., Cullen, S.E., Bradford, K.J., Zilberman, D., and Bennett, A.B. (2003). “The public–private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology”. Nature Biotechnology, 21(9): 989–995.CrossRef

Granovetter, M. (1992). “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”. In Granovetter, M., and Swedberg, R. (Eds). The Sociology of Economic Life. Boulder, CL: Westview.

Grant, R.M. (1998). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Application. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hall, B.H., and Ziedonis, R.H. (2001). “The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995”. RAND Journal Economy, 32(1): 101–128.CrossRef

Hayek, F.A. (1945), “The use of knowledge in society”. American Economic Review, 35. Reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Heiner, R.A. (Dec. 1983). “The origin of predictable behavior”. American Economic Review, 4: 103–124.

Heiner, R.A. (1986). “Uncertainty, signal-detection experiments, and modeling behavior”. In Langlois, R.N. (Ed). Economics as a Process. Essays in the New Institutional Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.

Heller, M.A., and Eisenberg, R.N., (1998). “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research”. Science, 280: 698–701.CrossRef

Hilaire-Perez, L. (2000). L’Invention Technique au Siecle des Lumieres. Paris: Albin Michel.

Hodgson, G.M. (1998). “The approach of institutional economics ”. Jounal of Economic Literature, 36.

Hunt, R.M., and Bessen, J. (2004). “The software patent experiment ”. Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia: 22–32.

Hunter L.C. (1949). Steamboats on the Western Rivers. An Economic and Technological History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Intellectual Property Rights Commission (2002) Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights London.

Kayat, M., and Greenberg, T. (Feb./Mar. 2006). “IP-based open innovation pre-empts trolls”. Intellectual Asset Management March 43–46.

Khan, Z.B., and Sokoloff, K.L. (1993). “Schemes of practical utility: entrepreneurship and innovation among ‘great inventors’ in the United States States, 1790–1865”. Journal of Economic History, 53.

Kirzner, I.M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kirzner, I.M. (1979). Perception, Opportunity, and Profit. Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kirzner, I.M. (Feb. 1982). “Uncertainty, discovery, and human action: a study of the entrepreneurial profile in the Misesian system”. In Israel, Kirzner, Editor, Method, Process, and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honor of Ludwig non Mires, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA (1982).

Kortum, S., and Lerner, J. (1999). “What is behind the recent surge in patenting?”. Research Policy, 28.

Lachmann, L.M. (1956). The Market as an Economic Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Langlois, R.N. (1984). “Internal organization in a dynamic context: some theoretical considerations”. In Jussawalla, M., and Ebenfield, H. (Eds). Information and Communication Economics: New Perspectives. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 23–49.

Langlois, R.N. (Ed). (1986). Economics as a Process. Essays in the New Institutional Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, North-Holland 23–49.

Langlois, R.N. (1992a). “Transaction-cost economics in real time”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1(1).

Langlois, R.N. (1992b). “External economies and economic progress: the case of the microcomputer industry”. Business History Review, 66(1).

Langlois, R.N. (1995). Transaction Costs, Production Costs, and the Passage of Time. Working papers 1995–03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.

Lemley, M.A. (2005). “Patenting nanotechnology”. Stanford Law Review, 58: 601–630.

R.C.Levin(1988). “Appropriability; R&D spending and technological performance”, in American Economic Review, 78.

Loasby, B.J. (1983). “Knowledge, learning and enterprise”. In Wiseman, J. (Ed). Beyond Positive Economics?. London: MacMillan.

Loasby, B.J. (1986). “Organisation, competition, and the growth of knowledge”. In Langlois, R.N. (Ed). Economics as a Process. Essays in the New Institutional EconomicsInstitutional Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Loasby, B.J. (1994). “Organizational capabilities and interfirm relations”. Metroeconomica, 45(3).

Loasby, B.J. (1998). “The Organization of capabilities”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35.

Maccoby, M. (2003). The Productive Narcisist. The Promise and Peril of Visionary Leadership. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

MacLeod, C. (1988). Inventing the Industrial Revolution. The English Patent System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mauzy, J., and Harriman, R.A. (2003). Creativity, Inc. Building an Inventive Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Merges, R., and Nelson, R.R. (1994). “On limiting or encouraging rivalry technical progress: the effect of patent-scope decisions”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25.

Mises, L. (1966). Human Action. A Treatise on Economics, 3rd edn., New York: Henry Regnery.

Mocciaro Li Destri, A. (2005). Contesti istituzionali e sviluppo d’impresa. Un’applicazione alla produzione di software dai modelli open source ai modelli ibridi. Torino, Giappichelli.

Mocciaro Li Destri, A. (2006). The Strategic Management of Institutions for Value Creation: A Study of Hybrid Models for Software Development. Paper presented at SPRU’s 40th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, 11–13 September. Also presented at the “Second Annual Conference on Institutional Foundations for Industry Self-Regulation, Harvard Business School, Boston.

Mocciaro Li Destri, A. (2007). Designing Institutions for Open Innovation: A Comparative Study of Software Development Models. Paper presented at the “2007 International User Innovation Workshop. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, 26–28 June.

Mocciaro Li Destri, A., and Dagnino, G.B. (2005). “The Development of the resource-based firm between value appropriation and value creation”. Advances in Strategic Management, 22: 153–188.

Mokyr, J. (1999). “The New Economic History and the Industrial Revolution”. In Mokyr, J. (Ed). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective, 2nd edn. Boulder, CL: Western Press.

Moser, P. (2004). “What do Inventors Patent”. In Proceedings of the fourth EPIP conference “What Motivates Inventors to Invent?”. Pisa, 2–3 April.

Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B., and Ziedonis, A.A. (1998). The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on US University Research and Technology Transfer: An Analysis of Data from Columbia University, the University of California, and Stanford University. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Nonaka I. (Spring 1988). “Speeding organizational information creation: toward middle-up-down management”. Sloan Management Review.

North, D.C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton BooksNorton.

North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

North, D.C. (1991). “Institutions”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1).

North, D.C. (1994). “Economic performance through time. Sweden: The Nobel Foundation, December 9, 1993; published in American Economic Review 84(3): 359–368.

North, D.C. (1998). “Where have we been and where are we going?”. In Ben-Ner, A., and Putterman, L. (Eds). Economics, Values, and Organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

North, D.C., and Thomas, R.P. (1973). The Rise of the Western World. A New Economic History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nuvolari, A. (2004). “The Anatomy of Collective Invention Processes: A Study of Early Nineteenth Century Steam Engineering”. In Proceedings of the fourth EPIP conference “What Motivates Inventors to Invent?”, Pisa, 2–3 April 2004.

Penin, J. (2004). “Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview of the Empirical Evidences and the Economic Motivations”, in Proceedings of the fourth EPIP conference “What Motivates Inventors to Invent?”, 2–3 April, Pisa, 2004.

Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.

Polanyi, K. (1957). “The Economy as Instituted Process”. In Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M., and Pearson, H.W. Trade Market in the Early Empires. New York: The Free Press.

Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Unwin University Books.

Serrato, R., Hermann, K., and Douglas, C. (2005). “The nanotech intellectual property (“IP”) landscape”. Nanotechnology Law and Business Journal, 2(2) No. 3.

Shapiro C. (2001). “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Polls, and Standard Setting”. In Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., and Stern, S.(Eds). Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Siegel D., and Roco, M.C. (1999). Nanostructure Science and Technology: A Worldwide Study. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.

Simon, H.A. (1985). “What We Know about the Creative Process”. In Kuhn, R.L. (Ed). Frontiers in Creative and Innovative Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Sokoloff, K.L. (1988). “Inventive activity in early industrial America: evidence from patent records”. Journal of Economic History, 48.

Teece, D.J. (1986).“Profiting from technological innovation”. Research Policy, 15(6).

Teece, D.J. (2000). Managing Intellectual Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation. Change and Meaning in the Age of Internet. New York: Oxford University Press.

von Hippel E. (1976) “The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process”. Research Policy, 5(3).

von Hippel E. (1977). “Transferring process equipment innovations from user-innovators of equipment manufacturing firms”. R&D Management, 8(1).

von Hippel E. (1986). “Lead users: a source of novel product concepts”. Management Science, 32(7).

von Hippel E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

von Hippelvon Hippel, E. (1994). ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation”. Management Science, 40(4).

von Hippel E. (1998). “Economics of product development by users: the impact of sticky local information”. Management Science, 44(5).

von Hippel E. (2006). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Williams, A. (2005). The Patent Explosion. Report of New Paradigm’s Information Technology and Competitive Advantage Program (IT&CA). Available at http://www.nplc.com

Titel: Institutional Contexts, the Management of Patent Portfolios, and the Role of Public Policies Supporting New Entrepreneurial Ventures
verfasst von: Giovanni Battista Dagnino
Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri
Daniela Baglieri
Verlag: Springer US
Buch: Public Policies for Fostering Entrepreneurship
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0248-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4419-0249-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0249-8_3

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"

Premium Partner