IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/unumer/2012025.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Hagedoorn, John

    (UNU-MERIT/MGSoG, and Department of Organization & Strategy, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University)

  • Ridder, Ann-Kristin

    (Department of Organization & Strategy, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University)

Abstract

Our exploratory empirical study, based on a series of in-depth interviews and a survey of firms, searches for answers on a number of questions that deal with the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights in the context of open innovation. We find that firms active in open innovation have a strong preference for the governance of their open innovation relationships through formal contracts. These contracts are relevant from both a control and a process monitoring perspective. Also, despite the open nature of open innovation, firms still see intellectual property rights as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. In a first attempt to explain this preference for intellectual property rights by open innovation firms, we find the degree of openness of firms, their legalistic attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to this preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Hagedoorn, John & Ridder, Ann-Kristin, 2012. "Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study," MERIT Working Papers 2012-025, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    • Handle: RePEc:unm:unumer:2012025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unu-merit.nl/publications/wppdf/2012/wp2012-025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    3. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    4. de Laat, Paul B., 2005. "Copyright or copyleft?: An analysis of property regimes for software development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1511-1532, December.
    5. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Holger Ernst & Martin Hoegl, 2010. "Not-Sold-Here: How Attitudes Influence External Knowledge Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1054-1071, October.
    6. Christensen, Jens Froslev & Olesen, Michael Holm & Kjaer, Jonas Sorth, 2005. "The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation--Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1533-1549, December.
    7. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2008. "Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 445-464, July.
    8. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2009. "Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology sectors in European countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 495-506, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    11. David Brownstone & Robert Valletta, 2001. "The Bootstrap and Multiple Imputations: Harnessing Increased Computing Power for Improved Statistical Tests," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 129-141, Fall.
    12. Jansen, J.J.P. & van den Bosch, F.A.J. & Volberda, H.W., 2005. "Managing Potential and Realized Absorptive Capacity: How do Organizational Antecedents matter?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-025-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Muge Ozman, 2008. "The Two Faces of Open Innovation: NetworkExternalities and Learning," Working Papers of BETA 2008-24, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    14. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Eckhard Lichtenthaler, 2009. "A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1315-1338, December.
    15. John Hagedoorn & Geerte Hesen, 2007. "Contract Law and the Governance of Inter‐Firm Technology Partnerships – An Analysis of Different Modes of Partnering and Their Contractual Implications," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 342-366, May.
    16. Julien Pénin, 2011. "Open source innovation: Towards a generalization of the open source model beyond software," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 65-88.
    17. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    18. Thomas Mellewigt & Anoop Madhok & Antoinette Weibel, 2007. "Trust and formal contracts in interorganizational relationships - substitutes and complements," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 833-847.
    19. Jerry Hausman & Gregory K. Leonard, 2006. "Real Options And Patent Damages: The Legal Treatment Of Non‐Infringing Alternatives, And Incentives To Innovate," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 493-512, September.
    20. Oster, Sharon M., 1999. "Modern Competitive Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780195119411.
    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. B. Senakumari Arunnima & Dharmaseelan Bijulal & R. Sudhir Kumar, 2023. "Open Innovation Intellectual Property Risk Maturity Model: An Approach to Measure Intellectual Property Risks of Software Firms Engaged in Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Waseem Ul Hameed & Muhammad Farhan Basheer & Jawad Iqbal & Ayesha Anwar & Hafiz Khalil Ahmad, 2018. "Determinants of Firm’s open innovation performance and the role of R & D department: an empirical evidence from Malaysian SME’s," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Fábio Gama, 2019. "Managing collaborative ideation: the role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 97-118, March.
    7. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    8. Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
    9. So Young Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2018. "How Intellectual Property Management Capability and Network Strategy Affect Open Technological Innovation in the Korean New Information Communications Technology Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, July.
    10. 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.

    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. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    2. Elisa Salvador & Francesca Montagna & Federica Marcolin, 2013. "Clustering recent trends in the Open Innovation literature for SME strategy improvements," Post-Print hal-02535438, HAL.
    3. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    4. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    5. Lingyan Meng & Md Qamruzzaman & Anass Hamad Elneel Adow, 2021. "Technological Adaption and Open Innovation in SMEs: An Strategic Assessment for Women-Owned SMEs Sustainability in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    7. Chigu Kim & Chul Lee & Jina Kang, 2018. "Determinants Of Firm’S Innovation-Related External Knowledge Search Strategy: The Role Of Potential Absorptive Capacity And Appropriability Regime," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-33, August.
    8. Nestle, Volker & Täube, Florian A. & Heidenreich, Sven & Bogers, Marcel, 2019. "Establishing open innovation culture in cluster initiatives: The role of trust and information asymmetry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 563-572.
    9. Belén Payán-Sánchez & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Diego Vazquez-Brust & Natalia Yakovleva & Miguel Pérez-Valls, 2021. "Open Innovation for Sustainability or Not: Literature Reviews of Global Research Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, January.
    10. Lopes, Ana Paula Vilas Boas Viveiros & de Carvalho, Marly Monteiro, 2018. "Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 284-298.
    11. Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, Domingo & Madrid-Guijarro, Antonia & Martin, Dominique Philippe, 2017. "Influence of university–firm governance on SMEs innovation and performance levels," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 250-261.
    12. Ana Clara Cândido, 2012. "Open Innovation and Social Network Analysis," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 8(8), pages 41-55, November.
    13. Shukuan Zhao & Yu Sun & Xiaobo Xu, 2016. "Research on open innovation performance: a review," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 279-287, September.
    14. Eungdo Kim & InGyu Lee & Hongbum Kim & Kwangsoo Shin, 2021. "Factors Affecting Outbound Open Innovation Performance in Bio-Pharmaceutical Industry-Focus on Out-Licensing Deals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Toth, Jozsef & Dries, Liesbeth & Pascucci, Stefano, 2013. "Open or Not Open? (Open Innovation in the Hungarian Wine Industry)," 87th Annual Conference, April 8-10, 2013, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 158850, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Gabriele Santoro & Alberto Ferraris & Elisa Giacosa & Guido Giovando, 2018. "How SMEs Engage in Open Innovation: a Survey," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 561-574, June.
    17. Colombo, Massimo G. & Piva, Evila & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina, 2014. "Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 891-902.
    18. 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.
    19. Gamarra, Yanis Luca & Friedl, Gunther, 2023. "Declared essential patents and average total R&D expenditures per patent family," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7).
    20. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    open innovation; contracts; intellectual property rights;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:unm:unumer:2012025. 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: Ad Notten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meritnl.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.