Appropriability: a key to opening innovation internationally?

Abstract

This study focuses on the tense appropriability-openness relationship, defined by some as paradox. Based on an international survey of 415 manufacturing firms, we investigate how the use of different kinds of intellectual property protection mechanisms (IPPMs) affects interfirm R&D collaboration while considering partner location in the analysis as well. Our results show that the use of formal, semi-formal or informal IPPMs has different effects on openness in terms of partner variety and depth of collaboration with academic partners, value chain partners and competitors. Moreover, when considering location we uncover previously hidden appropriability-openness liaisons showing that semi-formal or informal IPPMs are mainly valid in relation to national partners, whereas formal appropriability explains international collaborations. One implication of the study is that to better understand the appropriability-openness relationship it is imperative to differentiate between national and international settings. We further suggest that the potential paradox delineating this relationship has a geographical dimension.Keywords: appropriability; intellectual property protection mechanisms; IPPMs; inter-firm collaboration; paradox of openness; R&D collaboration; international collaboration; open innovation; partner location; partner breadth; variety; partner depth; survey.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Stefan, I. and Bengtsson, L. (2016) 'Appropriability: a key to opening innovation internationally? ', Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 71, Nos. 3/4, Biographical notes: Ioana Stefan is a doctoral student at the University of Gävle and KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Her primary research focus is the role of intellectual property protection mechanisms in open innovation collaborations, including the investigation of appropriability-openness tensions. Aside from her doctoral studies, she is engaged in further research projects where she contributes by e.g., performing patent analyses or investigating technology trends.Lars Bengtsson is a Professor in Innovation Management at the University of Gävle, Sweden and a Docent at The KTH Royal Institute of Technology. He has published articles and books on the subjects of innovation management, knowledge integration, manufacturing strategies and outsourcing. He currently leads research focusing on open innovation, supply chain management, human lean and rapid innovators in emerging economies.

Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co‐creation–Value Capture: A Literature Review towards Paradox Resolution

“…; Read et al . ; Stefan and Bengtsson ). The identification of this new set of factors makes a contribution to the Smith and Lewis framework by adding a new type of dynamics (see Figure ).…”

“…Our literature review has identified factors such as trust, patents or R&D intensity that can spur virtuous and vicious cycles, depending on the extent to which these factors occur in the IOR (e.g. Bönte 2008;Gander et al 2007;Li et al 2008;Read et al 2014;Stefan and Bengtsson 2016). The identification of this new set of factors makes a contribution to the Smith and Lewis framework by adding a new type of dynamics (see Figure 2).…”

Implications of Open Innovation for Organizational Boundaries and the Governance of Contractual Relations

“…In general, there seems to be a consensus in the literature that a firm's openness in innovation is curvilinearly related to its appropriation strategy (Huang, Rice, Galvin, & Martin, 2014;Laursen & Salter, 2014;Miozzo, Desyllas, Lee, & Miles, 2016;Stefan & Bengtsson, 2016;Zobel et al, 2017). Thus, interestingly, permeable efficiency boundaries do not equate to a looser appropriation regime.…”

“…Firms can use a variety of both formal (patents, trademarks, copyrights, design rights) and informal (secrecy, lead time, process/product complexity, employee retention) appropriation mechanisms in interactions with their partners (Arora, Athreye, & Huang, 2016;Hagedoorn & Zobel, 2015;Huang et al, 2014;Wadhwa et al, 2017). Formal and informal mechanisms are selectively employed across openness dimensions (breadth vs. depth of collaborations) (Zobel et al, 2017) and across national versus international partners (Stefan & Bengtsson, 2016).…”

European novel food, patents and brokers of knowledge

“…National collaborations are found to be successfully under semi-formal and informal IPR regimes with contracts as the main structuring of partnerships, while formal regimes like patents explain international collaborations (Stefan and Bengtsson, 2016). Semi-formal regimes in this setting may be trade secrets and nondisclosure contracts associated with collaboration with both academic partners and companies.…”