IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v48y2017icp11-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recycling the unused ideas and technologies of a large corporation into new business by start-ups

Author

Listed:
  • Hossain, Mokter
  • Simula, Henri

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate how the non-core ideas and technologies (IaTs) of a large corporation can be reused by start-ups. Many IaTs are not deemed valuable or useful for a parent corporation, so for various reasons, these IaTs remain unused and eventually perish as they become obsolete. However, there exists a possibility to create new business from these non-core IaTs. We discovered that an intermediary organization, acting as a catalyst, can be instrumental in bringing corporations with unused IaTs together with interested parties and reduce the information asymmetry between them. A funding mechanism is also crucial for appropriating non-core IaTs. Moreover, the underlying market and economic conditions play a natural role in the transfer of non-core IaTs.

Suggested Citation

  • Hossain, Mokter & Simula, Henri, 2017. "Recycling the unused ideas and technologies of a large corporation into new business by start-ups," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 11-18.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:48:y:2017:i:c:p:11-18
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X16301099
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.10.005?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. 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..
    2. Paola Giuri & Myriam Mariani & Stefano Brusoni & Gustavo Crespi & Dominique Francoz & Alfonso Gambardella & Walter Garcia-Fontes & Aldo Geuna & Raul Gonzales & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl & Christia, 2005. "Everything you Always Wanted to Know about Inventors (but Never Asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU Survey," LEM Papers Series 2005/20, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Sanjay K. Arora & Alan L. Porter & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2013. "Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 351-370, April.
    4. Bessy, Christian & Brousseau, Eric, 1998. "Technology licensing contracts features and diversity1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 451-489, December.
    5. Welch, Catherine & Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca & Penttinen, Heli & Tahvanainen, Marja, 2002. "Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(5), pages 611-628, October.
    6. Gideon D. Markman & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2008. "Research and Technology Commercialization," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1401-1423, December.
    7. Appiah-Adu, Kwaku & Okpattah, Bernard K. & Djokoto, Justice G., 2016. "Technology transfer, outsourcing, capability and performance: A comparison of foreign and local firms in Ghana," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 31-39.
    8. Neus Palomeras, 2007. "An Analysis of Pure‐Revenue Technology Licensing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 971-994, December.
    9. Arora, Ashish & Arunachalam, V. S. & Asundi, Jai & Fernandes, Ronald, 2001. "The Indian software services industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1267-1287, October.
    10. Silveira, Rafael & Wright, Randall, 2010. "Search and the market for ideas," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(4), pages 1550-1573, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Gabriel Szulanski & Dimo Ringov & Robert J. Jensen, 2016. "Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 304-322, April.
    13. Kollmer, Holger & Dowling, Michael, 2004. "Licensing as a commercialisation strategy for new technology-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1141-1151, October.
    14. Seongkyoon Jeong & Sungki Lee & Yeonbae Kim, 2013. "Licensing versus selling in transactions for exploiting patented technological knowledge assets in the markets for technology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 251-272, June.
    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. Yin, Hua-Tang & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2022. "Science-technology intermediary and innovation in China: Evidence from State Administration for Market Regulation, 2000–2019," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(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. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    3. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giarratana, Marco S., 2013. "General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 315-325.
    4. Marco, Antonio De & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa & Caviggioli, Federico, 2017. "Global markets for technology: Evidence from patent transactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1644-1654.
    5. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2013. "University spillovers into small technology-based firms: channel, mechanism, and geography," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 415-431, August.
    6. Dushnitsky, Gary & Klueter, Thomas, 2017. "Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 651-666.
    7. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    8. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jong-Chan Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2015. "Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 841-871, September.
    9. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. repec:wip:wpaper:3 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jonathan Chiu & Cesaire Meh & Randall Wright, 2017. "Innovation And Growth With Financial, And Other, Frictions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(1), pages 95-125, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    14. Jonathan Chiu & Cesaire Meh & Randall Wright, 2011. "Innovation and growth with financial, and other, frictions," Working Papers 688, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    15. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2016. "Complementarities in the search for innovation—Managing markets and relationships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2036-2053.
    16. 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).
    17. Ming Li & Xiangdong Chen & Gupeng Zhang, 2017. "How does firm size affect technology licensing? Empirical evidence from China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1249-1269, September.
    18. Hagedoorn, John & Lorenz-Orlean, Stefanie & Kranenburg, Hans, 2007. "Inter-firm technology transfer: Partnership-embedded licensing or standard licensing agreements?," MERIT Working Papers 2007-006, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 220, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Carolin Haeussler, 2011. "The Determinants of Commercialization Strategy: Idiosyncrasies in British and German Biotechnology," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(4), pages 653-681, July.
    21. Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.

    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:teinso:v:48:y:2017:i:c:p:11-18. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.