In contrast to the vast literature on verifying the importance of formal R&D activities measured as patent registrations, this paper explores the possibility of not patent but trademark-driven path of latecomer firms’ technological development. The study is motivated by the evidence from the Korean data showing the existence of two groups of sectors where firms in the one group tended to file more trademarks than patents. We find that in the first group of sectors, like food, apparel, and pharmaceuticals, trademarks have been the most applied form of the IPRs with a much large number of their registrations than patents from the initial stage of development until recently, whereas in the second group of sectors, like electronics and automobiles, the main IPR form has been patents. Regressions on the determinants about this bifurcation find that the trademark groups are those sectors involving more tacit knowledge and/or domestic market orientation associated with slow progress in technological capabilities. The results are important because it implies the existence of alternative path of economic development by the latecomer firms in different sectors, beside the patent-driven path which is already verified in Kim et al. ( 2012 ). Appropriate intellectual property protection and economic growth in countries at different levels of development. Research Policy, 41(2), 358–375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.003 .

University-industry linkages (UILs) are not widely spread in Asian countries, but their extent is increasing, and firms tend to be satisfied with their interaction with them. As for the mode of UILs, in Asia, formal channels such as joint or contract-based research in Korea, China, and Malaysia and small-scale consulting in Thailand are more common, which is different from the case of the United States. This implies that different modes of UILs correspond to different stages of economic development of nations and/or the different capabilities of firms in each country. We also find that those that have certain R&D capabilities and thus conduct some R&D are the most frequent users of services from universities or public research institutes (PRIs). This implies that the relationship between R&D by firms and that by universities is more complementing than substituting. The fact that the firms that already conduct R&D activities tend to collaborate more with universities or PRIs might indicate the limitation of UILs as a new vehicle for catch-up. However, beyond the dichotomized question of supplementing or substitution, what matters more is apparently the absorption capacity of firms as well as the various (teaching, research, and entrepreneurial) capabilities of universities and laboratories. If such capabilities are there, there is no doubt that UILs will be more intense. Given the low or diverse degrees of capabilities of firms and universities in latecomer economies, increasing the level of their capabilities is foremost, followed by the utilization of diverse modes of UILs, depending on specific conditions and contexts.

No abstract