The complementary effect of intellectual property protection mechanisms on product innovation performance

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of simultaneous implementations of different intellectual property (IP) protection mechanisms on a firm's product innovation performance (PIP). The study categorized seven widely‐used IP protection mechanisms (IPPMs) into two groups: formal and informal. Complementarity was then tested within and between the formal and informal groups of IPPMs. The result showed that there existed complementarity when multiple IPPMs were implemented from the same groups. Throughout an additional analysis on the moderating effect of the industrial complexity in technology, it was found that the ‘between groups' combination effect was also existed but varied from even negative to positive concluding that industrial complexity of technology moderates the effects of combinations of IPPMs on a firm's PIP. These results imply that the use of multiple IPPMs is effective but the effect varies by the technological complexity of industry.

How R&D Financial Subsidies, Regional R&D Input, and Intellectual Property Protection Affect the Sustainable Patent Output of SMEs: Evidence from China

“…Fourth, the intensity of IPP significantly moderate the direct effect of RDFS on the sustainable patent output of SMEs and the mediation effect via RRDI, which means that the mediation effect will be stronger under a high intensity of IPP than a low intensity of IPP. The effects of IPP on the industrial development [28], product innovation [29], and patent output [14] have been tested by many scholars. However, the moderating effect of IPP intensity has not drawn sufficient attention.…”

“…Second, from the perspective of the government, a thorough IPP system can maintain the enthusiasm of technology investment of enterprises, help patent inventors to obtain monopoly profits and form a virtuous circle. Therefore, the government will be more inclined to give financial support to SMEs that form a virtuous circle to achieve better policy effects [29]. Third, because of the existence of information asymmetry, SMEs are only willing to invest in R&D activities within the scope of government support in order to obtain more subsidies, while ignoring other patent research fields that may produce major technological breakthroughs and have stronger technology spillover [7].…”

Appropriability mechanisms for manufacturing and service firms: the contingencies of openness and knowledge intensity

“…Although the use of appropriability mechanisms is positively associated with innovation performance (Lee et al, 2018), this holds only for incremental innovation (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al, 2008). Furthermore, whether both formal and informal mechanisms are important for innovation performance is unclear.…”

“…The exchange of knowledge implies that knowledge-intensive firms may be in more need of appropriation, but at the same time the tacitness of knowledge may help protect knowledge-intensive firms. Knowledge-intensive manufacturing firms with technologically complex products require a different approach to innovation than firms developing products using less complex codified knowledge (Arbussa and Coenders, 2007;Leiponen and Byma, 2009;Lee et al, 2018). McEvily and Chakravarthy (2002) found that the complexity of technological knowledge protects manufacturing firms' innovations, slowing imitation.…”

“…However, the implications are far from clear‐cut. Formal and informal tools are often complements for knowledge‐intensive firms but substitutes for other firms (Lee et al, 2018). Gallié and Legros (2012) found that technology‐driven firms use more informal types of appropriability.…”