IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v59y2017icp44-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness

Author

Listed:
  • Zobel, Ann-Kristin
  • Lokshin, Boris
  • Hagedoorn, John

Abstract

This paper analyses how firms’ degree of openness and innovativeness influence their use of formal and informal appropriation mechanisms. Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and design rights are formal appropriation mechanisms. Secrecy, lead-time, and complexity are examples of informal appropriation mechanisms. Both external search breadth and depth are positively associated with firms’ use of informal appropriation mechanisms, while only external search breadth is positively associated with formal appropriation mechanisms. Firms’ degree of radical (incremental) innovation orientation is negatively (positively) associated with their use of formal appropriation mechanisms. Analysis of the joint impact of openness and innovativeness, suggests that for radical innovators it is external search breadth (rather than depth) that has a positive association with the use of informal appropriation mechanisms. In contrast, for radical innovators external search depth (rather than breadth) is associated with the use of formal appropriation mechanisms. For incremental innovators, external search breadth (rather than depth) is associated with the use of both formal and informal appropriation mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Zobel, Ann-Kristin & Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John, 2017. "Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-54.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:59:y:2017:i:c:p:44-54
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497216303339
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.10.001?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandra Zaby, 2010. "Losing the lead: the patenting decision in the light of the disclosure requirement," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 147-164.
    2. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2003. "Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, March.
    3. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2009. "Patent disclosure and R&D competition in pharmaceuticals," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 467-486.
    4. Lee, Sungjoo & Park, Gwangman & Yoon, Byungun & Park, Jinwoo, 2010. "Open innovation in SMEs--An intermediated network model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 290-300, March.
    5. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    6. Corinne Langinier, 2005. "Using patents to mislead rivals," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 520-545, May.
    7. Kenneth W. Koput, 1997. "A Chaotic Model of Innovative Search: Some Answers, Many Questions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(5), pages 528-542, October.
    8. Kani, Masayo & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2012. "Understanding the technology market for patents: New insights from a licensing survey of Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 226-235.
    9. Ann-Kristin Zobel & Benjamin Balsmeier & Henry Chesbrough, 2016. "Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(2), pages 307-331.
    10. 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.
    11. Liebeskind, Julia Porter, 1997. "Keeping Organizational Secrets: Protective Institutional Mechanisms and Their Costs," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(3), pages 623-663, September.
    12. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    13. Hans T. W. Frankort & John Hagedoorn & Wilko Letterie, 2012. "R&D partnership portfolios and the inflow of technological knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(2), pages 507-537, April.
    14. Mowery, David C. & Oxley, Joanne E. & Silverman, Brian S., 1998. "Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 507-523, September.
    15. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    16. Drechsler, Wenzel & Natter, Martin, 2012. "Understanding a firm's openness decisions in innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 438-445.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Gomes-Casseres, Benjamin & Hagedoorn, John & Jaffe, Adam B., 2006. "Do alliances promote knowledge flows?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 5-33, April.
    20. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    21. Alessandro Muscio, 2007. "THE IMPACT OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY ON SMEs' COLLABORATION," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 653-668.
    22. 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.
    23. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    24. Pisano, Gary, 2006. "Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1122-1130, October.
    25. James H. Stock & Jonathan Wright, 2000. "GMM with Weak Identification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1055-1096, September.
    26. Rajneesh Narula & Antonello Zanfei, 2003. "Globalisation of Innovation The Role of Multinational Enterprises," DRUID Working Papers 03-15, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    27. Julien Pénin & Caroline Hussler & Thierry Burger-Helmchen, 2011. "New shapes and new stakes: a portrait of open innovation as a promising phenomenon," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 11-29.
    28. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
    29. Köhler, Christian & Sofka, Wolfgang & Grimpe, Christoph, 2012. "Selective search, sectoral patterns, and the impact on product innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1344-1356.
    30. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, April.
    31. David R. Hannah, 2005. "Should I Keep a Secret? The Effects of Trade Secret Protection Procedures on Employees' Obligations to Protect Trade Secrets," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 71-84, February.
    32. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    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. 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.
    2. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    3. Telg, Nina & Lokshin, Boris & Letterie, Wilko, 2023. "How formal and informal intellectual property protection matters for firms' decision to engage in coopetition: The role of environmental dynamism and competition intensity," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    5. 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.
    6. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. 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.
    11. Gallié, Emilie-Pauline & Legros, Diégo, 2012. "French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 780-794.
    12. 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.
    13. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    14. Xiaoyang Zhao, 2019. "Patenting Or Secret? The Interaction Between Leading Firms And Following Firms Based On Evolutionary Game Theory And Multi-Agent Simulation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-22, October.
    15. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    16. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.
    17. Tomasz Kijek, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights And Appropriability Of Innovation Capital: Evidence From Polish Manufacturing Firms," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(2), pages 387-399, June.
    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. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    20. Klein, Michael A., 2022. "The reward and contract theories of patents in a model of endogenous growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Appropriation mechanisms; Formal appropriation; Informal appropriation; External search openness; Incremental innovators; Radical innovators;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law

    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:techno:v:59:y:2017:i:c:p:44-54. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.