IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i9p1530-1547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services

Author

Listed:
  • Amara, Nabil
  • Landry, Réjean
  • Traoré, Namatié

Abstract

How do knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) protect their inventions from imitation by rival firms when choosing among various protection mechanisms? Data from the 2003 Statistics Canada Innovation Survey on services are used to investigate this issue by looking into complementarities, substitution and independence among eight protection mechanisms. A Multivariate Probit (MVP) model is estimated to take into account the fact that KIBS simultaneously consider many alternative intellectual property (IP) protection methods when they attempt to protect their innovations. Results show that patents, registration of design patterns, trademarks, secrecy and lead-time advantages over competitors constitute legal and informal methods that are used jointly. These complementarities suggest that IP protection mechanisms that are interdependent and reinforce each other to protect innovations from imitation by rival firms constitute a pattern on which firms rely to protect their innovations from imitation. A second pattern is based on the fact that KIBS rely on patents and complexity of designs as substitutes, and tend to use registration of design patterns and complexity of designs as substitutes in protecting their innovations from imitation. A third emerging pattern concerns protection mechanisms that are independent from each other and exhibit no synergy, and do not reinforce each other to protect innovations from imitation by other firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:9:p:1530-1547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00150-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oude Lansink, Alfons & van den Berg, Mirella & Huirne, Ruud, 2003. "Analysis of strategic planning of Dutch pig farmers using a multivariate probit model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 73-84, October.
    2. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
    3. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions: A note," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 51-55, January.
    4. Arora, Ashish, 1997. "Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 391-403, December.
    5. Katrin Hussinger, 2006. "Is Silence Golden? Patents Versus Secrecy At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(8), pages 735-752.
    6. Keld Laursen & Volker Mahnke, 2001. "Knowledge Strategies, Firm Types, and Complementarity in Human-Resource Practices," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, March.
    7. Belderbos, Rene & Carree, Martin & Diederen, Bert & Lokshin, Boris & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2004. "Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1237-1263, November.
    8. Lionel Nesta & Pier Paolo Saviotti, 2005. "Coherence Of The Knowledge Base And The Firm'S Innovative Performance: Evidence From The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 123-142, March.
    9. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
    10. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    11. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    12. Petr Hanel, 2001. "Current Intellectual Protection practices by Manufacturing firms in Canada," Cahiers de recherche 01-09, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    13. Galia, Fabrice & Legros, Diego, 2004. "Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: evidence from France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1185-1199, October.
    14. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    15. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Mancinelli, Susanna, 2007. "SME Performance, Innovation and Networking Evidence on Complementarities for a Local Economic System," Knowledge, Technology, Human Capital Working Papers 9554, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    19. Schmidt, Tobias, 2007. "Motives for Innovation Co-operation? Evidence from the Canadian Survey of Innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-018, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Athey, Susan. & Stern, Scott, 1969-, 1998. "An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in orgaziational design," Working papers WP 4022-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    21. Ichniowski, Casey & Shaw, Kathryn & Prennushi, Giovanna, 1997. "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 291-313, June.
    22. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    23. Lionel Nesta & Pier Paolo Saviotti, 2005. "Coherence of the Knowledge Base and the Firms’ Innovative Performance. Evidence from the Bio-Pharmaceutical Industry," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03417696, HAL.
    24. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
    25. Aija Leiponen, 2006. "Organization of knowledge exchange: An empirical study of knowledge-intensive business service relationships," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 443-464.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    2. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    3. Gallié, Emilie-Pauline & Legros, Diégo, 2012. "French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 780-794.
    4. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Crass, Dirk & Valero, Francisco Garcia & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2019. "Protecting Innovation Through Patents and Trade Secrets: Evidence for Firms with a Single Innovation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 117-156.
    6. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    7. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    8. Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), 2014. "Intellectual Property for Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15464.
    9. Insu Cho & Heejun Park & Joseph Kim, 2012. "The moderating effect of innovation protection mechanisms on the competitiveness of service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(3), pages 369-386, September.
    10. Matthias Siller & Christoph Hauser & Janette Walde & Gottfried Tappeiner, 2015. "Measuring regional innovation in one dimension: More lost than gained?," Working Papers 2015-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    11. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    12. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    13. Joachim Henkel & Stefanie Pangerl, 2008. "Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study," DRUID Working Papers 08-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    14. Morikawa, Masayuki, 2019. "Innovation in the service sector and the role of patents and trade secrets: Evidence from Japanese firms," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 43-51.
    15. Kyoo-Ho Park, 2014. "The effectiveness of patents and the determinants of patenting activities in Korea," Chapters, in: Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), Intellectual Property for Economic Development, chapter 12, pages 287-306, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Matthias Siller & Christoph Hauser & Janette Walde & Gottfried Tappeiner, 2014. "The Multiple Facets of Regional Innovation," Working Papers 2014-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    17. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_105, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    18. Sofka, Wolfgang & de Faria, Pedro & Shehu, Edlira, 2018. "Protecting knowledge: How legal requirements to reveal information affect the importance of secrecy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 558-572.
    19. 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.
    20. Danguy, Jérôme & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2010. "The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective," EIB Papers 7/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.

    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:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:9:p:1530-1547. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.