Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation

Noel, Michael D.; Schankerman, Mark

doi:10.1111/joie.12024

Cited by 167 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, other studies found more intricate relationships: e.g., Hashmi and Biesebroeck (2006) find an inverted-U relationship between innovation and market share, and Noel and Schankerman (2013) find a dynamic intertemporal relationship between sales and innovation. Hu (2010) finds that patents increased not due to the expansion of firms' own sales, but by increase in competing imports.…”

Section: Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…An additional point we note is that in our panel, the correlation between firms' market share and HHI is 0.02 -so there is no obvious collinearity issue. 16 E.g., Acs and Audretsch (1988), Blundell et al (1995Blundell et al ( , 1999, Aghion et al (2005), Hashmi and Biesebroeck (2006), Hu (2010), Hashmi (2013), and Noel and Schankerman (2013).…”

Section: Own Market Share Hhi and Patentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competition and Innovation in Automobile Markets

2015

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. Terms of use: Documents in Competition and Innovation in Automobile MarketsAbstract Using data from the U.S. automobile market, we empirically examine the link between competition and innovation. Consistent with a large literature, we use patent counts as a measure of innovation. The combination of the U.S. market's economic importance, market dynamics, and the significant intertemporal fluctuations in firms' market shares and patents make this an interesting market to examine the link between competition and innovation. We use firm-level time-series data over a long horizon for nine well established firms selling in the U.S. market (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler). Some of our key findings are: (1) increase in firms' market shares result in higher patenting, and the relationship is reasonably non-linear; (2) higher market-wide competition results in an increase in patenting, and the relationship is weakly non-linear; (3) the (absolute) quantitative impact on patents is larger for firms' market share effect as compared to market-wide competition; (4) there is relatively strong path-dependence in firms' patenting behavior; and (5) we find interesting results linking patents to GM's bankruptcy, the Daimler-Chrysler merger, environmental regulations, voluntary export restraints, and firms' patenting over business cycles.JEL-Code: L130, L620, O310, D210, M210.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Own Market Share Hhi and Patentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition and Innovation in Automobile Markets

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patents have also become tradable assets that play a crucial role for firm value in many technological fields. Additionally, advancements in the market for technology allow patent holders active in complex technologies to generate licensing revenues (Gulati, 1998;Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996;Arundel and Patel, 2003;Noel and Schankerman, 2006).…”

Section: Collaboration and Strategic Motives To Patentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantity or Quality? Collaboration Strategies in Research and Development and Incentives to Patent

Hottenrott¹,

Lopes-Bento²

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Non-technical summaryCollaborative research and development (R&D) may be seen as a response to shifting knowledge environments enabling firms to cope with technological challenges. As stressed by Jones (2008), innovation increases the stock of knowledge and hence the "educational burden" of future cohorts of innovators. One way to compensate this development may be specialization in expertise. However, narrowing expertise requires firms to seek complementary know-how elsewhere, for instance by collaborating in knowledge-intensive business areas like R&D.While numerous previous studies found R&D alliances to be instruments used by firms to acquire new skills and to source specialized know-how (e.g. Hamel, 1991;Hagedoorn, 1993;Hagedoorn and Schakenraad, 1994;Powell et al., 1996), none of these studies paid attention to differences in the objective of the R&D collaboration and how these differences affect R&D productivity. Collaboration aiming at the joint generation of new knowledge, that is firms willing to undertake an R&D project jointly, may differ substantially from alliances aiming at the explicit exchange of already existing knowledge. This difference may translate into differences with respect to the alliances' effects on R&D productivity and eventually innovation output. Furthermore, while previous empirical studies found evidence for a positive effect of collaborations on innovation output, often measured in the number of patents, the effects on the technological value of these patents has not been studied to the same extent.Using count data models controlling for unobserved heterogeneity for R&D-active manufacturing firms in Flanders in the period 2000 to 2009, this study aims to fill these gaps. We study the effects of R&D collaboration on patent activity in terms of quantity as well as quality differentiating between collaborative agreements by their declared objectives. The results suggest that being engaged in knowledge exchange alliances leads to more patent applications filed by the firms involved. However, once patent quality -as measured by the number forwards citations received in a five-year-window of the application date -is considered, we find knowledge creation alliances to lead to more valuable patents. In line with recent literature on strategic patenting, these results may indicate that patenting of collaborating firms is not only used to protect intellectual property, but also as a strategic tool. In other words, joint R&D may provide i...

show abstract

“…Competitive market conditions also induce patenting for strategic reasons (Cohen, Nelson and Walsh 2000;Hall and Ziedonis, 2001). Thus in highly competitive industries such as semiconductor, software and electronics, many firms have built large patent portfolios in order to reduce their vulnerability to infringement litigation by their rivals (Ziedonis, 2004;Noel and Schankerman, 2006;Cockburn and MacGarvie, 2009). In these industries, which are characterized by complex technologies with hundreds of patentable elements embodied in one product, no single firm is likely to hold all the rights necessary for a product's commercialization.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the size of the market signifies the potential for exploiting a firm's knowledge resources, the need for protecting those resources derives from the extent to which local manufacturers are able to imitate a firm's technologies (Chan, 2010;Hu, 2010), and the degree of competition in the local market (Hall and Ziedonis, 2001;Ziedonis, 2004;Noel and Schankerman, 2006;Cockburn and MacGarvie, 2009;Hu 2010). To capture the imitative capability of local manufacturers, we introduce a novel measure, defined as the number of triadic patents of which one or more inventors are located in the host country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of quadic patenting: Market access, imitative threat, competition and strength of intellectual property rights

Huang

Jacob

2014

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses firms' decisions to seek intellectual property rights in global markets, particularly in China. We advance the notion of quadic patent family, defined as a patent family that consists of patent applications at the European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the national patent office of a fourth country. We examine the determinants of quadic patenting at the industry level for China, and at the country level for a sample of 38 countries. Our results indicate that quadic patent applications are driven by the need for accessing markets, and for meeting the challenges of imitative threat and product market competition.

show abstract

Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation

Cited by 167 publications

References 52 publications

Competition and Innovation in Automobile Markets

Competition and Innovation in Automobile Markets

Quantity or Quality? Collaboration Strategies in Research and Development and Incentives to Patent

Determinants of quadic patenting: Market access, imitative threat, competition and strength of intellectual property rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About