IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rii/rridoc/28.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vers une ouverture des stratégies de protection de l’innovation ?

Author

Listed:
  • Delphine GALLAUD

    (CESAER-INRA)

  • Maximilien NAYARADOU

    (IFD-Université Paris-Dauphine)

Abstract

Le développement du modèle d’open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) incite les entreprises à mobiliser de plus en plus de sources externes pour améliorer les performances de leur processus de développement d’innovation. Or dans un modèle où de plus en plus de développeurs appartiennent à des organisations différentes ou sont des utilisateurs finaux comment organiser l’appropriation privée de la valeur ? Le modèle laisse cette question pendante en particulier dans le cas de l’innovation développée en coopération. Or dans les risques liés à la coopération ont été identifiés depuis longtemps (Teece, 1986). Mais, parallèlement, de plus en plus de travaux soulignent également les effets positifs de la diffusion des informations (von Hipppel & von Krogh, 2003). Dans les accords de coopération, il existe alors une tension entre le choix d’une stratégie visant à renforcer les moyens de protection et l’incitation à limiter les stratégies très protectrices restreignant la diffusion des informations. C’est pourquoi l’objectif du papier sera d’analyser les moyens de protection des entreprises dans le cadre des coopérations afin de voir si les entreprises utilisent une stratégie plus ouverte dans le cadre coopératif. Nous utiliserons pour ce faire les données de l’enquête communautaire sur l’innovation CIS3 sur les entreprises de l’industrie manufacturière française de plus de 20 salariés. Nous traiterons les données à l’aide d’un modèle logistique. Nous obtenons comme résultat une tendance au renforcement de la stratégie de protection dans le cadre des coopérations via l’utilisation du secret pour protéger les innovations avec 3 types de partenaires de coopération différents. De plus, les firmes mobilisent une stratégie de complémentarité dans l’utilisation des moyens de protection ce qui conduit également au renforcement de la stratégie de protection dans aun cadre coopératif.

Suggested Citation

  • Delphine GALLAUD & Maximilien NAYARADOU, 2012. "Vers une ouverture des stratégies de protection de l’innovation ?," Working Papers 28, Réseau de Recherche sur l’Innovation. / Research Network on Innovation.
    • Handle: RePEc:rii:rridoc:28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rrifr.univ-littoral.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/doc-28-rri.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    2. 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..
    3. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    4. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Thierry Isckia & Denis Lescop, 2011. "Une analyse critique des fondements de l'innovation ouverte," Revue française de gestion, Lavoisier, vol. 0(1), pages 87-98.
    7. Tether, Bruce S., 2002. "Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 947-967, August.
    8. Cécile Ayerbe & Valérie Chanal, 2011. "Quel management des DPI dans les business models ouverts ?," Revue française de gestion, Lavoisier, vol. 0(1), pages 99-115.
    9. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    10. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1981. "Qualitative Response Models: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1483-1536, December.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    8. Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), 2014. "Intellectual Property for Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15464.
    9. 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.
    10. Leiponen, Aija & Byma, Justin, 2009. "If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1478-1488, November.
    11. Bronwyn H. Hall & Vania Sena, 2017. "Appropriability mechanisms, innovation, and productivity: evidence from the UK," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 42-62, February.
    12. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    15. Jérôme Danguy & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2014. "On the origins of the worldwide surge in patenting: an industry perspective on the R&D–patent relationship," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(2), pages 535-572.
    16. Jorge Luis Juliao Rossi & Fernando Barrios Aguirre & Jana Schmutzler & Iván Darío Sánchez Manchola, 2013. "Relación entre la estrategia de innovación de la firma y su decisión de patentar: evidencia de empresas pertenecientes al sector manufacturero colombiano," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, September.
    17. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    18. 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.
    19. Suma S. Athreye & Claudio Fassio & Stephen Roper, 2021. "Small firms and patenting revisited," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 513-530, June.
    20. Kyoo-Ho Park, 2014. "The effectiveness of patents and the determinants of patenting activities in Korea," Chapters, in: Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), Intellectual Property for Economic Development, chapter 12, pages 287-306, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    open innovation; coopération pour innover; moyens de protection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • L60 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - General

    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:rii:rridoc:28. 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: Alexandre UZUNIDIS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rilitfr.html .

    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.