IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v46y2017i3p651-666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?

Author

Listed:
  • Dushnitsky, Gary
  • Klueter, Thomas

Abstract

This study investigates a recent phenomenon in the market for technology: online marketplaces for technological inventions, which support the listing, search, and exchange of technological inventions by sellers and buyers. Focusing on three salient theoretical factors that affect markets for technology—search costs, ambiguity about the underlying knowledge and its applications, and expropriation concerns—our research systematically explores which industries are served by online marketplaces. We exploit the fact that the magnitude of these factors varies across industries and identify key features of online marketplaces that may address these factors. Our proprietary dataset covers 12 online marketplaces for technology and spans over 140 industries. The results indicate that online marketplaces are more likely to serve an industry with (a) a higher cost of searching for technologies in that industry, (b) greater ambiguity about the underlying technology’s potential applications across industries, and (c) greater ability to protect inventions from expropriation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dushnitsky, Gary & Klueter, Thomas, 2017. "Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 651-666.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:3:p:651-666
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317300112
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.011?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
    ---><---

    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. Brynjolfsson, Erik, 2013. "Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology Is Reshaping the Economy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262518611, December.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    3. Tomoya Yanagisawa & Dominique Guellec, 2009. "The Emerging Patent Marketplace," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/9, OECD Publishing.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    6. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    7. Hicks, Diana & Hegde, Deepak, 2005. "Highly innovative small firms in the markets for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 703-716, June.
    8. Bernard L. Simonin, 1999. "Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(7), pages 595-623, July.
    9. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107, Elsevier.
    10. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    11. repec:bla:jfinan:v:59:y:2004:i:2:p:479-506 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    13. Bill McEvily & Akbar Zaheer, 1999. "Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(12), pages 1133-1156, December.
    14. Ajay Agrawal & Christian Catalini & Avi Goldfarb, 2015. "Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 253-274, June.
    15. Maria Isabella Leone & Toke Reichstein, 2012. "Licensing‐in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant‐back clause and technological unfamiliarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 965-985, August.
    16. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Interindustry Technology Flows and Productivity Growth: A Reexamination," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 241-250, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Terleckyj, Nestor E, 1980. "What Do R & D Numbers Tell Us about Technological Change?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 55-61, May.
    18. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    19. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Thomas Rønde, 2013. "Managing Licensing in a Market for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1092-1106, May.
    20. Yan Zhang & Haiyang Li, 2010. "Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 88-109, January.
    21. Bercovitz, Janet E.L. & Feldman, Maryann P., 2007. "Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 930-948, September.
    22. Bharat N. Anand & Tarun Khanna, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    23. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:1:p:103-35 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Contracting for tacit knowledge: the provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 233-256, August.
    25. Cassimon, D. & De Backer, M. & Engelen, P.J. & Van Wouwe, M. & Yordanov, V., 2011. "Incorporating technical risk in compound real option models to value a pharmaceutical R&D licensing opportunity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1200-1216.
    26. repec:bla:jindec:v:49:y:2001:i:4:p:463-85 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Peter J. Brews & Christopher L. Tucci, 2004. "Exploring the structural effects of internetworking," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 429-451, May.
    28. Ajay Agrawal & Iain Cockburn & Laurina Zhang, 2015. "Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 976-986, July.
    29. Andrei Hagiu & David B. Yoffie, 2013. "The New Patent Intermediaries: Platforms, Defensive Aggregators, and Super-Aggregators," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 45-66, Winter.
    30. Davide Castellani & Alfredo Jimenez & Antonello Zanfei, 2013. "How remote are R&D labs? Distance factors and international innovative activities," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 44(7), pages 649-675, September.
    31. Neus Palomeras, 2007. "An Analysis of Pure‐Revenue Technology Licensing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 971-994, December.
    32. Luis Garicano & Steven N. Kaplan, 2001. "The Effects of Business-to-Business E-Commerce on Transaction Costs," NBER Chapters, in: E-commerce, pages 463-485, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    33. Frank T. Rothaermel, 2001. "Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 687-699, June.
    34. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    35. 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.
    36. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1105-1106, October.
    37. Ajay Agrawal & Avi Goldfarb, 2008. "Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1578-1590, September.
    38. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    39. Stigler, George J., 2011. "Economics of Information," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 5, pages 35-49.
    40. Sahaym, Arvin & Steensma, H. Kevin & Barden, Jeffrey Q., 2010. "The influence of R&D investment on the use of corporate venture capital: An industry-level analysis," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 376-388, July.
    41. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    42. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    43. Erik Brynjolfsson & Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Duncan Simester, 2011. "Goodbye Pareto Principle, Hello Long Tail: The Effect of Search Costs on the Concentration of Product Sales," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1373-1386, August.
    44. Erwin Danneels, 2007. "The process of technological competence leveraging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 511-533, May.
    45. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
    46. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    47. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Avi Goldfarb, 2009. "Competition Between Local and Electronic Markets: How the Benefit of Buying Online Depends on Where You Live," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 47-57, January.
    48. 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.
    49. Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1995. "Start-ups, Spin-offs, and Internal Projects," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 362-378, October.
    50. Yusuf, Shahid, 2008. "Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1167-1174, September.
    51. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2010. "Is there a market for ideas?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 805-837, June.
    52. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    53. J. Steven Landefeld & Barbara M. Fraumeni, 2001. "Measuring the New Economy," BEA Papers 0011, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    54. Gary Dushnitsky & Michael J. Lenox, 2005. "When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(10), pages 947-965, October.
    55. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2005. "Markets For Partially Contractible Knowledge: Bootstrapping Versus Bundling," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 745-754, 04/05.
    56. J. Yannis Bakos, 1997. "Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic Marketplaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(12), pages 1676-1692, December.
    57. Nishimura, Junichi & Okada, Yosuke, 2014. "R&D portfolios and pharmaceutical licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1250-1263.
    58. Violina Rindova & Walter J. Ferrier & Robert Wiltbank, 2010. "Value from gestalt: how sequences of competitive actions create advantage for firms in nascent markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(13), pages 1474-1497, December.
    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. Agarwal, Renu & Mittal, Neeraj & Patterson, Eric & Giorcelli, Michela, 2021. "Evolution of the Indian LPG industry: Exploring conditions for public sector business model innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    2. Raffaele Conti & Alfonso Gambardella & Elena Novelli, 2019. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 126-150, February.
    3. Gambardella, Alfonso & Conti, Raffaele & Novelli, Elena, 2018. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," CEPR Discussion Papers 12782, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Roman Teplov & Ekaterina Albats & Daria Podmetina, 2019. "What Does Open Innovation Mean? Business Versus Academic Perceptions," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(01), pages 1-33, January.
    5. Moreira, Solon & Klueter, Thomas Maximilian & Asija, Aman, 2023. "Market for technology 2.0? Reassessing the role of complementary assets on licensing decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    6. Ahsan, Mujtaba & Musteen, Martina, 2021. "International opportunity development on crowdfunding platforms: A spatial, temporal, and structural framework," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(6).
    7. Islam, Habib A. & Farrell, Matthew & Nair, Anil & Zhang, Jing, 2023. "Understanding transaction platform governance and conflicts: A configuration approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    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. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    2. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2016. "Complementarities in the search for innovation—Managing markets and relationships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2036-2053.
    3. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Keld Laursen & Solon Moreira & Toke Reichstein & Maria Isabella Leone, 2017. "Evading the Boomerang Effect: Using the Grant-Back Clause to Further Generative Appropriability from Technology Licensing Deals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 514-530, June.
    5. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    6. Solon Moreira & Thomas Maximilian Klueter & Stefano Tasselli, 2020. "Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1012-1036, July.
    7. Lee, Jong-Seon & Park, Ji-Hoon & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2017. "The effects of licensing-in on innovative performance in different technological regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 485-496.
    8. 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.
    9. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    10. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Cheng, Lei & Sun, Zhen, 2021. "The white elephant in IP management market frictions, market connections and escalation of commitment," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Dushnitsky, Gary & Lenox, Michael J., 2005. "When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures?: Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 615-639, June.
    13. Catalina Martinez & Pluvia Zuniga, 2017. "Contracting for technology transfer: patent licensing and know-how in Brazil," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 659-689, August.
    14. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    15. Scott Shane, 2002. "Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 122-137, January.
    16. Moreira, Solon & Klueter, Thomas Maximilian & Asija, Aman, 2023. "Market for technology 2.0? Reassessing the role of complementary assets on licensing decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    17. Song, Sangyoung & Lee, Jongkuk, 2023. "Licensing early-versus late-stage technologies: The licensee perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Lee, Honggi, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of patent scope on licensing propensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    20. Wesley M. Cohen & You-Na Lee & John P. Walsh, 2019. "How Innovative Are Innovations? A Multidimensional, Survey-Based Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 139-182, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:46:y:2017:i:3:p:651-666. 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.