Intellectual Property Abuses: How should Multinationals Respond?

Yang, Deli; Sönmez, Mahmut; Bosworth, Derek

doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2004.07.009

Cited by 59 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their findings also show that when corporate approaches are taken, administrative support and judicial action become less effective, implying the superior strategic importance of corporate actions against counterfeiting. this quantitative research confirms Yang, Sonmez and Bosworth's (2004) case study conclusions that companies should combine different strategies to maximise anti-counterfeiting effectiveness, and underscores the argument that corporate approaches are particularly effective. lybecker (2007) used theoretical modelling to examine pharmaceutical patents in developing countries and the effectiveness of preventive strategies against counterfeiting.…”

Section: Anti-counterfeiting Strategies and Their Effectivenesssupporting

confidence: 76%

“…shultz and saporito (1996) reinforced the need for proactive, unilateral action, and advised the use of hi-tech labelling and considering the possibility of acquiring counterfeiters' operations. Yang, sonmez and Bosworth (2004) recommended ten corporate strategies against counterfeiting, based on case studies of British and american multinationals in china, including proactive corporate actions (e.g. technical solutions, pricing, monitoring and contractual surveillance), networking means (e.g.…”

Section: Anti-counterfeiting Strategies and Their Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…advanced technology creates barriers to hinder or delay counterfeiting because it takes time for counterfeiters to acquire the relevant knowledge, experience and technical skills to produce credible counterfeits. Moreover, adopting new technology forces counterfeiters to increase the frequency of their copies to attract consumers, thus raising their resource requirements (lybecker 2007, Yang/sonmez/Bosworth 2004. these assertions are based on two assumptions.…”

Section: Brand Positioning and Anti-counterfeiting Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…counterfeiting-the unauthorised imitative production of products and/or services that are protected by owners' intellectual property rights (IPR) in the pursuit of profit (Cordell et al 1996, shultz/saporito 1996, Yang/sonmez/Bosworth 2004-has grown into a global business. estimates claim that counterfeits represent seven percent of global merchandise trade (Balfour 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Brand Positioning and Anti-counterfeiting Effectiveness

Yang

Fryxell

2009

Manag Int Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

0We pursue the previously-noted association between brands and counterfeiting one step further to examine the relationship between brand positioning and anti-counterfeiting, based on a study of 130 well-known foreign brands in china. 0 We test hypotheses about managerial perceptions as to the effects of different brand positioning strategies on the effectiveness of their actions to counter counterfeiting, in other words, whether branding positioning can help to stop counterfeiting, limit damage to firms and maintain brand reputation. 0 Our findings confirm that brand positioning affects anti-counterfeiting effectiveness. Specifically, product reliability and customer services are compatible with efforts to stop counterfeit production, but innovative technologies and product features and functions appear to exacerbate the problem.

show abstract

Section: Anti-counterfeiting Strategies and Their Effectivenesssupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Anti-counterfeiting Strategies and Their Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Brand Positioning and Anti-counterfeiting Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Brand Positioning and Anti-counterfeiting Effectiveness

Yang

Fryxell

2009

Manag Int Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turning to the related literature, piracy studies broadly consist of three main strands: (i) investigating the effects of piracy (Banerjee 2006;Koboldt 1995), (ii) studying the determinants of piracy, and (iii) strategies against software piracy (Banerjee et al 2005;Yang et al 2004;Asongu, 2012ab). Our study falls in the second strand.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fighting Software Piracy: Which Governance Tools Matter in Africa?

Asongu

Andrés

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. (1) while all governance tools under consideration significantly decrease the incidence of piracy, corruption-control is the most effective weapon; (2) but for voice and accountability, political stability and democracy, IPR laws (treaties) are instrumental in tackling piracy through government quality dynamics of rule of law, regulation quality, government effectiveness, corruption-control, and press freedom. Hence, the need for a policy approach most conducive to expanding development is to implement an integrated system of both IPRs and corollary good governance policies. Moreover, our findings support the relevance of good governance measures in developing countries wishing to complement their emerging IPR regimes. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

Anticounterfeiting Strategies and Their Influence on Attitudes of Different Counterfeit Consumer Types

Herstein

Drori

Berger

et al. 2015

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the findings of two studies that were designed to determine the effectiveness of several anticounterfeiting strategies on the counterfeit purchasing behavior of the participants, through a mixed methods research approach. In Study 1, in‐depth interviews were conducted with 50 consumers of counterfeit brands in order to investigate their attitudes. Drawing on the results, which revealed four different consumer types (struggle, spurious, indifferent, and liberated), Study 2 was undertaken with a further 128 consumers (32 from each type) to further define each group's type and identify the best anticounterfeit strategies suited to each. The findings suggest that counterfeit purchasing may be reduced if a specific strategy is adapted to suit each typology. Overall, positive rather than negative strategies were found to be more effective for the struggle and spurious consumers compared with indifferent and liberated consumers. The findings also reveal that the acquisition of affordable genuine merchandise may be the key to preventing counterfeit purchasing.

show abstract

Intellectual Property Abuses: How should Multinationals Respond?

Cited by 59 publications

References 4 publications

Brand Positioning and Anti-counterfeiting Effectiveness

Brand Positioning and Anti-counterfeiting Effectiveness

Fighting Software Piracy: Which Governance Tools Matter in Africa?

Anticounterfeiting Strategies and Their Influence on Attitudes of Different Counterfeit Consumer Types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About