IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v82y2006i256p44-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Firm Size and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights

Author

Listed:
  • PAUL H. JENSEN
  • ELIZABETH WEBSTER

Abstract

Innovation markets are often characterised by market failure because inventions typically incur high fixed costs relative to marginal costs and their intellectual capital is non‐excludable. Intellectual property (IP) rights may attenuate this problem by providing legal recourse for firms to stop imitation by rivals. As IP rights are costly to acquire and enforce, it is often argued that SMEs are disadvantaged in their ability to utilise IP rights. This paper examines the intensity of IP usage by firm size and finds that SMEs actually have higher rates of patent, trade mark and design usage once industry effects are controlled for.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Firm Size and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 44-55, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:82:y:2006:i:256:p:44-55
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2006.00292.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2006.00292.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2006.00292.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Macdonald, Stuart, 2004. "When means become ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, March.
    2. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 2008. "Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 1, pages 3-15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    5. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    6. Mark Rogers, 2004. "Networks, Firm Size and Innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 141-153, March.
    7. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    8. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "Examining Biases in Measures of Firm Innovation," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    9. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.
    10. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Crown, Daniel & Faggian, Alessandra & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2020. "Foreign-Born graduates and innovation: Evidence from an Australian skilled visa program✰,✰✰,★,★★," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(9).
    2. Stephen Petrie & Mitchell Adams & Ben Mitra‐Kahn & Matthew Johnson & Russell Thomson & Paul Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2020. "TM‐Link: An Internationally Linked Trademark Database," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 53(2), pages 254-269, June.
    3. Chen, Min-Nan & Wu, Chia-Hung, 2020. "Complementary-in use appropriability in innovative service firms: An empirical study in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    4. Jan-Bart Vervenne & Julie Callaert & Machteld Hoskens & Bart Looy, 2022. "To what extent do SMEs contribute to Europe’s patent stock? A methodological outline for creating a Europe-wide SME technology indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3049-3082, June.
    5. Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzman & Sandra Yesenia Pinzón-Castro & José Trinidad Marín-Aguilar, 2017. "Intellectual Property in Mexican Small Business: An Empirical Research," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 107-115, May.
    6. Hsueh, Chao-Chih & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "A taxonomy of patent strategies in Taiwan's small and medium innovative enterprises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 84-98.
    7. Alfons Palangkaraya, 2010. "Patent Application Databases," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(1), pages 77-87, March.
    8. Adel Ben Khalifa, 2019. "Direct and Complementary Effects of Investment in Knowledge-Based Economy on Innovation Performance in Tunisian Firms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(2), pages 561-589, June.
    9. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2009. "Another Look At The Relationship Between Innovation Proxies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 252-269, September.
    10. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    11. Hai Wu & Anne-Maree Thomas & Sue Wright, 2020. "Using the R&D capitalisation choice to explain the scale benefits of R&D investment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(4), pages 579-606, November.
    12. Masatoshi Kato & Koichiro Onishi & Yuji Honjo, 2022. "Does patenting always help new firm survival? Understanding heterogeneity among exit routes," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 449-475, August.
    13. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the duration of membership in the World Trade Organization on Trademark Applications," EconStor Preprints 253266, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Searle, Nicola & Reid, Gavin C, 2012. "Firm size and trade secret intensity: evidence from the Economic Espionage Act," SIRE Discussion Papers 2012-60, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    16. Nicola C Searle & Gavin C Reid, "undated". "Firm size and trade secret intensity: evidence from the Economic Espionage Act," CRIEFF Discussion Papers 1203, Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm.
    17. Alfons PALANGKARAYA, 2012. "The Link between Innovation and Export: Evidence from Australia 's Small and Medium Enterprises," Working Papers DP-2012-08, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    18. Alfons Palangkaraya, 2013. "On the Relationship between Innovation and Export: The Case of Australian SMEs," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2013n04, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    19. Emin M. Dinlersoz & Nathan Goldschlag & Amanda Myers & Nikolas Zolas, 2018. "An Anatomy of US Firms Seeking Trademark Registration," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 183-228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "SMEs and Their Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Australia," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n17, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2006. "Investment in Intangible Capital: An Enterprise Perspective," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 82-96, March.
    5. Mohnen, Pierre, 2019. "R&D, innovation and productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2019-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    7. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    8. Horst Feldmann, 2013. "Technological unemployment in industrial countries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1099-1126, November.
    9. Nanditha Mathew & George Paily, 2022. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 435-458, April.
    10. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    12. Fındık, Derya & Beyhan, Berna, 2014. "A Perceptual Measure of Innovation Performance: Micro Level Evidence from Turkey," MPRA Paper 60961, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. A. Lasagni, 2011. "European SMEs, external relationships and innovation: some empirical evidence," Economics Department Working Papers 2011-EP04, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    14. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    15. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Christian Rammer & Dirk Czarnitzki & Alfred Spielkamp, 2009. "Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 35-58, June.
    17. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    18. Robin Cowan & Nicolas Jonard & Ruth Samson, 2024. "Strategies of search and patenting under different IPR regimes," Working Papers of BETA 2024-20, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Pénin, Julien & Wack, Jean-Pierre, 2008. "Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1909-1921, December.
    20. Gamarra, Yanis & Friedl, Gunther, 2022. "Firms' Involvement in Standardization and Average Total Costs per Patent Family," 31st European Regional ITS Conference, Gothenburg 2022: Reining in Digital Platforms? Challenging monopolies, promoting competition and developing regulatory regimes 265630, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:82:y:2006:i:256:p:44-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.