IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v68y2021i2p229-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The outsourcing conundrum: Misappropriation of intellectual property in supply chains

Author

Listed:
  • Amiya K. Chakravarty

Abstract

In an outsourcing arrangement, the principal must weigh the potential savings in manufacturing cost against the risk of intellectual property (IP) misappropriation by suppliers. While formal legal measures for protecting IP exist in many countries, they are by no means perfect. We consider a market‐based approach where the supplier can sell the acquired IP to a third party imitator or can become an imitator if the imitation‐cost is not large. We identify economic‐equilibrium scenarios that discourage excessive misappropriation of IP. We find that IP sell/purchase transactions can happen only if the market potential has a moderate value. It can also motivate the supplier to become imitator. A large market, while attractive to the imitator, causes the principal not to outsource. In a small market, on the other hand, the imitator is unable to compete especially with a high‐quality imitation. Interestingly, we also find that the combined sales of the principal and imitator decreases, if the imitator increases IP purchase. We establish that the principal can benefit from partial outsourcing implying that a proportion of the components are outsourced, if the market potential is large.

Suggested Citation

  • Amiya K. Chakravarty, 2021. "The outsourcing conundrum: Misappropriation of intellectual property in supply chains," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 229-240, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:68:y:2021:i:2:p:229-240
    DOI: 10.1002/nav.21942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.21942
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nav.21942?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. 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.
    2. ICHIDA Toshihiro, 2013. "Imitation versus Innovation Costs: Patent policies under common patent length," Discussion papers 13054, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    3. Albert Ha & Xiaoyang Long & Javad Nasiry, 2016. "Quality in Supply Chain Encroachment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 280-298, May.
    4. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Hansen, Ronald W., 2016. "Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 20-33.
    5. 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..
    6. Demski, Joel S, et al, 1999. "Practices for Managing Information Flows within Organizations," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 107-131, April.
    7. Buss, Philipp & Peukert, Christian, 2015. "R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 977-989.
    8. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    9. Harabi, Najib, 1991. "Innovation versus Imitation: Empirical Evidence from Swiss Firms," MPRA Paper 26214, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Hongyan Shi & Yunchuan Liu & Nicholas C. Petruzzi, 2013. "Consumer Heterogeneity, Product Quality, and Distribution Channels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1162-1176, May.
    11. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Yongwook Paik & Feng Zhu, 2016. "The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1397-1416, December.
    14. Anil Arya & Brian Mittendorf & David E. M. Sappington, 2007. "The Bright Side of Supplier Encroachment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 651-659, 09-10.
    15. Kultti, Klaus & Takalo, Tuomas, 2008. "Optimal fragmentation of intellectual property rights," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 137-149, January.
    16. Rajiv D. Banker & Inder Khosla & Kingshuk K. Sinha, 1998. "Quality and Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1179-1192, September.
    17. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    18. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    19. Michele Boldrin & David Levine, 2002. "The Case Against Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 209-212, May.
    20. Krishnan S. Anand & Manu Goyal, 2009. "Strategic Information Management Under Leakage in a Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 438-452, March.
    21. Che, XiaoGang & Yang, Yibai & Zhang, Haoyu, 2010. "Outsourcing and R&D Investment with Costly Patent Protection," MPRA Paper 25516, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Edwin Lai & Raymond Riezman & Ping Wang, 2009. "Outsourcing of innovation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 38(3), pages 485-515, March.
    23. Cui, Qinquan, 2019. "Quality investment, and the contract manufacturer’s encroachment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 407-418.
    24. Daniel B. Klein & John Robinson, 2011. "Property: A Bundle of Rights? Prologue to the Property Symposium," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 8(3), pages 193-204, September.
    25. Jiong Sun & Laurens G. Debo & Sunder Kekre & Jinhong Xie, 2010. "Component-Based Technology Transfer in the Presence of Potential Imitators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 536-552, March.
    26. Mariagiovanna Baccara, 2007. "Outsourcing, information leakage, and consulting firms," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(1), pages 269-289, March.
    27. Thomas A. Roemer & Reza Ahmadi, 2004. "Concurrent Crashing and Overlapping in Product Development," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 606-622, August.
    28. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 2002. "Integration versus Outsourcing in Industry Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 85-120.
    29. 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.
    30. Mariagiovanna Baccara, 2007. "Outsourcing, information leakage, and consulting firms," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(1), pages 260-289, March.
    31. Tobias Meyer, 2008. "Selection Criteria: Assessing Relevant Trends and Indicators," Springer Books, in: Eberhard Abele & Tobias Meyer & Ulrich Näher & Gernot Strube & Richard Sykes (ed.), Global Production, chapter 2, pages 34-101, Springer.
    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. Lin, Jiaxin & Choi, Tsan-Ming & Kuo, Yong-Hong, 2023. "Will providing return-freight-insurances do more good than harm to dual-channel e-commerce retailers?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1225-1239.
    2. Hubert Pun & Pengwen Hou, 2022. "Combating copycatting from emerging market suppliers in global supply chains," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3304-3319, August.

    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. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2008. "Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization," Economics Working Papers 1254, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2014.
    2. Dosi, Giovanni & Palagi, Elisa & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2023. "Do patents really foster innovation in the pharmaceutical sector? Results from an evolutionary, agent-based model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 564-589.
    3. Buss, Philipp & Peukert, Christian, 2015. "R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 977-989.
    4. Che, XiaoGang & Yang, Yibai & Zhang, Haoyu, 2010. "Outsourcing and R&D Investment with Costly Patent Protection," MPRA Paper 25516, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2005. "My Precious. The Role of Appropriability Strategies in Shaping Innovative Performance," DRUID Working Papers 05-02, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    6. Hyo Kang & Wyatt Lee, 2022. "How innovating firms manage knowledge leakage: A natural experiment on the threat of worker departure," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(10), pages 1961-1982, October.
    7. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Brent Goldfarb & Scott Shane & Marie Thursby, 2008. "Appropriability and Commercialization: Evidence from MIT Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 893-906, May.
    8. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Do Patents Matter for Commercialization?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 431-453.
    9. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. James J. Anton & Hillary Greene & Dennis A. Yao, 2006. "Policy Implications of Weak Patent Rights," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 1-26, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Jürgen Mihm & Fabian J. Sting & Tan Wang, 2015. "On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation Races," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2662-2684, November.
    12. Sairah Hussain & Mile Terziovski, 2016. "Intellectual Property Appropriation Strategy And Its Impact On Innovation Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-28, February.
    13. Elien Vandenbroucke & Mirjam Knockaert & Deniz Ucbasaran, 2016. "Outside Board Human Capital and Early Stage High–Tech Firm Performance," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(4), pages 759-779, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    16. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    17. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Olena Ivus & Walter G Park & Kamal Saggi, 2023. "Patent protection and the composition of multinational activity: Evidence from US multinational firms," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 14, pages 317-345, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:wly:navres:v:68:y:2021:i:2:p:229-240. 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://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    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.