Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups

References

• Aghion P., Tirole J. The management of innovation. Quart. J. Econom. (1994) 109(4):1185–1209Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aghion P., Tirole J. Formal and real authority in organizations. J. Political Econom. (1997) 105(1):1–29Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anton J., Yao D. Start-ups, spin-offs, and internal innovations. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1995) 11:362–378Google Scholar
• Arrow K., Nelson R. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (1962) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) 609–626Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow K.Limits of the Organization (1974) (W. W. Norton, New York) Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Optimal sequential investment when capital is not readily reversible. J. Finance (1982) 37:763–782Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bankman J., Gilson R. J. Why start-ups? Stanford Law Rev. (1999) 51(2Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhidé A. The road well travelled: A note on the journeys of HBS entrepreneurs. (1996) . HBS publication, Harvard Business School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Bhidé A.The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses (2000) (Oxford University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buckman R. Tech defectors from Microsoft resettle together. The Wall Street Journal (2000) Oct. 16Google Scholar
• Calvo G. A., Wellisz S. Supervision, loss of control, and the optimum size of the firm. J. Political Econom. (1978) 86(5):943–952Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cassiman B., Ueda M. Optimal project rejection and new firm start-ups. (2004) . IESE working paper R460Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. The organizational impact of technological change: A comparative theory of national institutional factors. Indust. Corporate Change (1999) 8(3):447–485Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. Graceful exits and foregone opportunities: Xerox's management of its technology spin-off organizations. Bus. History Rev. (2002) 76(4):803–838Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen C.The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Franco A., Filson D. Spin-outs: Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility. (2002) . Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 272 modified, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
• Gans J. S., Stern S. Incumbency and R&D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. J. Econom. and Management Strategy (2000) 9(4):485–511Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Stern S. The product market and the market for ideas: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res. Policy (2003) 32:333–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Hsu D. H., Stern S. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND J. Econom. (2002) 33(4):571–586Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garvin D. A. Spin-offs and the new firm formation process. California Management Rev. (1983) XXV(2):3–20Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert R. J., Newbery D. M. G. Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1982) 72(3):514–526Google Scholar
• Gilson R. J. The legal infrastructure of high technology industrial districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and covenants not to compete. New York Univ. Law Rev. (1999) 74(3):575–629Google Scholar
• Gompers P. A., Lerner J., Morck R. K. The determinants of corporate venture capital successes: Organizational structure, incentives, and complementarities. Concentrated Corporate Ownership (2000) (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA) 17–50Google Scholar
• Gompers P. A., Lerner J., Scharfstein D. Entrepreneurial spawning: Public corporations and the genesis of new ventures, 1986–1999. J. Finance (2005) . ForthcomingCrossref, Google Scholar
• Gromb D., Scharfstein D. Entrepreneurship in equilibrium. (2003) . Mimeo. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Hannan M. T., Freeman J. Structural inertia and organizational change. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (1994) 49:149–164Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hellmann T. A theory of strategic venture investing. J. Financial Econom. (2002) 64(2):285–314Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hellmann T. When do employees become entrepreneurs? (2004) . Mimeo. Working paper, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Henderson R. Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND J. Econom. (1993) 24(2):248–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R., Clark K. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35:9–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B. Agency costs and innovation. J. Econom. Behavior Organ. (1989) 12(3):305–327Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hyde A. The wealth of shared information: Silicon Valley’s high-velocity labor market, endogenous economic growth, and the law of trade secrets. (1998) 1–14Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJGoogle Scholar
• Kao J.Entrepreneurship, Creativity, and Organization: Text, Cases, and Readings (1989) (Prentice-Hall International, Englewood, NJ) Google Scholar
• Klepper S. Employee startups on high-tech industries. Indust. Corporate Change (2001) 10(3):639–674Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S. The evolution of the U.S. automobile industry and Detroit as its capital. (2003) . Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
• Klepper S., Sleeper S. Entry by spin-offs. (2002) . Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
• Lerner J. B. Hunt. Xerox technology ventures: March 1985. (1998) . HBS Case 9-295-127, Harvard Business School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Lewis T. R., Yao D. Innovation, knowledge flow, and worker mobility. (2003) . University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
• Lindholm-Dahlstrand A., Moncada-Paterno-Castello P. Entrepreneurial origin and spin-off performance: A comparison between corporate and university spin-offs. Corporate and Research-Based Spin-offs: Drivers for Knowledge-Based Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2001) 43–66European Commission, IPTS Technical Report Series, EUR 19903 ENGoogle Scholar
• Merges R. P. The law and economics of employee inventions. Harvard J. Law Tech. (1999) 13:1–63Google Scholar
• Motta M., Roende T. Trade secret laws, labour mobility and innovations. (2003) . CEPR discussion paper 2003-17, London, UKGoogle Scholar
• Nelson R., Winter S.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Pakes A., Nitzan S. Optimum contracts for research personnel, research employment, and the establishment of “rival” enterprises. J. Labor Econom. (1983) 1(4):345–365Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penrose E.The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (1959) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Pindyck R. S. Irreversible investment, capacity choice, and the value of the firm. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1988) 78(5):969–985Google Scholar
• Qian Y. Incentives and loss of control in an optimal hierarchy. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1994) 61:527–544Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinganum J. Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1983) 73:741–748Google Scholar
• Scherer F. M., Ross D.Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (1990) 3rd ed.(Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Shane S. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Sci. (2001) 47(9):1173–1190Link, Google Scholar
• Sheff D. Don Valentine interview, Part II. Upside (1990) 52Google Scholar
• Silverman B. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Sci. (1999) 45:1109–1124Link, Google Scholar
• Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15:285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman M., Anderson P. Technological discontinuities and organization environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1986) 31:439–465Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wall Street Journal, The GE goes back to future—R&D grows in importance as innovation becomes key to industrial titan’s growth. (2002) May 7):B.1Google Scholar