Sequential innovation, patent policy, and the dynamics of the replacement effect

Parra, Álvaro

doi:10.1111/1756-2171.12287

Cited by 37 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The notion of benefiting from innovation is still a key issue for innovators. Many potential innovators find incentives to innovate in expected (private) returns and are thus concerned with the protection and control of the innovation and the related knowledge (Colombelli et al 2019;Parra, 2019;Schmeiss et al, 2019). Nevertheless, changes have occurred in the innovation environment and in the premises of appropriability (Belderbos et al, 2014;Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006;Holgersson et al, 2018;Kale et al, 2000;Srivastava and Gnyawali, 2011).…”

Section: Innovation Appropriability: Conceptual Background and The Need For An Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our data, 139 articles address licensing, and 34 address the buying and selling of intellectual property. In addition to research that discusses transactions, there are also studies that consider signaling (e. g., Hannah et al, 2014;2019;Somaya, 2012) and collaboration (116 articles). Although leverage-oriented processes refer to the active use of isolating appropriability mechanisms and/or complementary assets, they do not emphasize preclusion or individual use.…”

Section: Appropriation Processes: Taking Action To Realize the Appropriability Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

Yang

2022

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study systematically reviews 200 articles published over the past three decades to reveal how appropriability and appropriation have been explained and how those perspectives resonate with developments in the innovation environment. Our results show that despite the extensive stream of literature, little effort has been made to systematically advance theory on appropriability and appropriation. Based on and extending prior literature, we propose a conceptual framing that distinguishes appropriability and appropriation, and that explains how innovating organizations build their readiness to benefit from innovation and how they realize that potential. We outline appropriability as the potential to benefit from an innovation, which accrues through instruments of appropriability: isolating appropriability mechanisms and complementary assets; and appropriation as the realization of that potential, which manifests in private and social benefits when the instruments are employed in processes for exclusion, leverage, or disclosure. We highlight the strategic importance of aligning these elements and appropriability conditions in realizing appropriation outcomes. The paper closes with a discussion on the framework's applications and relevant future research avenues.

show abstract

Section: Innovation Appropriability: Conceptual Background and The Need For An Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appropriation Processes: Taking Action To Realize the Appropriability Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

Yang

2022

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some studies show that patent policies have no significant impact on patent output [15,30,31]. Additionally, patent policies may have negative effects, as excessive protection policies decrease the pace of innovation [32]. Despite the above controversy, it is generally believed that public patenting-promoting policies will promote the output of academic patents [20,27].…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of a difference-in-differences estimator is a new move in patent policy evaluation research. However, such an estimator neglects the possibility that academic patent activities follow a spatial autoregressive process with respect to the dependent variable. The objective of this study was to propose a spatial difference-in-differences estimator accounting for possible spatial spillover effects. In this study, an empirical analysis of a sample of 31 Chinese provinces from 2010 to 2019 indicates that an incentive patent policy has a positive impact on the output and commercialization of academic patents, with positive effects also spilling over into neighboring provinces. This study further found that incentive patent policies play a placebo role in academic patent activities. Provincial patent policies are merely a proxy for other variables that characterize the systemic differences between provinces that implement patent policies and those that do not. Therefore, the promotion of academic patent activities cannot be attributed to policy incentives.

show abstract

“…To create new economic sectors, rare resources and highlyefficient technologies, intensifying the economy's growth in the new direction, are indispensable [26]. Longer protection of patents keeps the enterprises' investments distant in time and space [27]. Studies have confirmed that the role of patents in the development of the market position of branded products has increased, with the use of valuable innovations in a given country's economy [28].…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dependence of Patents From R&D Outlays and R&D Employees in European Union Countries

Zwolak

2021

Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research described herein seeks to determine the regressive dependence of the number of patents on the outlays on research-and-development and the number of those employed in the R&D sector, and to calculate on this basis the marginal and average cost/resource-intensity and labour-intensity of patents in the European Union countries in the years 2016 and 2019. Studies have shown that the total of the flexibility of the number of patents versus R&D outlays and R&D employment was identical for both years (i.e., 0.97). Hence, a method to determine whether undulation exists with the same total flexibility has been demonstrated. A 5.4 per cent decrease in the intensity of flexibility in the number of patents was identified for 2019. The research has shown that the growth in the number of patents proves to be in line with the growth of mean labour-intensity of patents for the years concerned. This proves that the knowledge resource plays a specific part in creating the number of patents for the counties and years under examination

show abstract

Sequential innovation, patent policy, and the dynamics of the replacement effect

Cited by 37 publications

References 57 publications

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing

Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

The Dependence of Patents From R&D Outlays and R&D Employees in European Union Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About