IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijimxx/v18y2014i06ns136391961440012x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mission: Possible But Sensitive — Knowledge Protection Mechanisms Serving Different Purposes

Author

Listed:
  • HEIDI OLANDER

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business, P.O. Box 20, FIN-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland)

  • PIA HURMELINNA-LAUKKANEN

    (Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 4600, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland)

  • MIKA VANHALA

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business, P.O. Box 20, FIN-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland)

Abstract

Innovations have the potential to create value by generating rents (primary appropriability), or they can be used as background knowledge for further innovations and value creation (generative appropriability). Because these possibilities exist, organisations need to make strategic decisions on knowledge sharing with their partners in collaborative innovation. In best cases, primary and generative appropriability are complementarities rather than alternatives: Knowledge sharing with partners for new innovation could be made safer using formal and informal isolating appropriability mechanisms that improve controllability, thereby preserving rent generation possibilities and simultaneously allowing safe knowledge exchange. We use a quantitative sample of 209 Finnish firms to examine how different formal and informal appropriability mechanisms relate to value capture and creation, and whether these relationships are affected by the strategic goal to reduce imitation of competitors or to improve safe knowledge sharing to partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidi Olander & Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Mika Vanhala, 2014. "Mission: Possible But Sensitive — Knowledge Protection Mechanisms Serving Different Purposes," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:18:y:2014:i:06:n:s136391961440012x
    DOI: 10.1142/S136391961440012X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S136391961440012X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S136391961440012X?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. 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.
    2. Bronwyn H. Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2012. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Literature Review," NBER Working Papers 17983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Heidi Olander & Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2015. "Proactive Hrm For Reducing Knowledge Risks — Evaluating Commitment And Trustworthiness," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06), pages 1-20, December.

    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. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2012. "Innovation Beyond Patents: Technological Complexity as a Protection against Imitation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Masayuki Morikawa, 2014. "Innovation in the Service Sector and the Role of Patents and Trade Secrets," CAMA Working Papers 2014-48, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. 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.
    4. Paul Belleflamme & Paul Bloch, 2013. "Dynamic Protection of Innovations through Patents and Trade Secrets," CESifo Working Paper Series 4486, CESifo.
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m0533i43h is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m0533i43h is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m0533i43h is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sweet, Cassandra Mehlig & Eterovic Maggio, Dalibor Sacha, 2015. "Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase Innovation?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 665-677.
    9. Klasa, Sandy & Ortiz-Molina, Hernán & Serfling, Matthew & Srinivasan, Shweta, 2018. "Protection of trade secrets and capital structure decisions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 266-286.
    10. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m0533i43h is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    12. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    13. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    14. 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.
    15. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    16. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    17. Ting, Hsiu-I & Wang, Ming-Chun & Yang, J. Jimmy & Tuan, Kai-Wen, 2021. "Technical expert CEOs and corporate innovation," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    19. repec:cbh:journl:v:14:y:2015:i:3:p:88-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
    21. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    22. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    23. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2022. "Australian innovation: Patent database construction and first evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    24. von Graevenitz, Georg & Wagner, Stefan & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2011. "How to measure patent thickets--A novel approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 6-9, April.
    25. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.

    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:wsi:ijimxx:v:18:y:2014:i:06:n:s136391961440012x. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/ijim.shtml .

    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.