Real Options in Technology Licensing

References

• Adner R., Levinthal D. A. What is Not a real option: Considering boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Acad. Management Rev. (2004) 29(1):74–85Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amram M., Kalutilaka N.Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World (1999) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Anand B. N., Khanna T. The structure of licensing contracts. J. Indust. Econom. (2000) 48(March):103–135Google Scholar
• Arora A., Ceccagnoli M. Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms' incentives for technology licensing. Management Sci. (2006) 52(2):293–308Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A., Gambardella A. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1994) 24:91–114Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J., Nelson R. R. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources of invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economics and Social Factors (1962) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) 609–625Crossref, Google Scholar
• Association for University Technology Managers (1998) . AUTM licensing survey, fiscal year 1997. Report, Norwalk, CTGoogle Scholar
• Black F., Scholes M. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J. Political Econom. (1973) 81(May–June):637–659Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boersch-Supan A. On the compatibility of nested logit models with utility maximization. J. Econometrics (1990) 43:373–388Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borooah V. K., Lewis-Beck M. S.Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models (2002) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowman E. H., Moskowitz G. T. Real options analysis and strategic decision making. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(6):772–777Link, Google Scholar
• Brant R. Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics (1990) 46:1171–1178Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caves R. E., Crookell H., Killing P. J. The imperfect market for technology licenses. Oxford Bull. Econom. Statist. (1983) 45(3):249–267Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35:128–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dixit A. K., Pindyck R. S.Investment Under Uncertainty (1994) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elfenbein D. Contract structure and performance of technology transfer agreements: Evidence from university licenses. (2004) . Working paper, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
• Folta T. B. Governance and uncertainty: The trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management J. (1998) 19:1007–1028Crossref, Google Scholar
• Folta T. B., Miller K. Real options in equity partnerships. Strategic Management J. (2002) 23:77–88Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations: A first look. (2000) . NBER Working Paper 7741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Hamilton W. F., Day G. S., Schoemaker P. J. H., Gunther R. E. Managing real options. Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies (2000) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) 271–288Google Scholar
• Harhoff D., Scherer F. M., Vopel K. Citations frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1998) 81(3):511–515Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica (1984) 52(5):1219–1240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. B. Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. Res. Policy (1989) 18:87–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M.Patents, Citations, & Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy (2002) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Jensen R., Thursby M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91:240–259Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B. Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management Sci. (1991) 37(1):19–33Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Kim D. Technological platforms and diversification. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(3):283–301Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Kulatilaka N. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management Sci. (1994) 40(1):123–139Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Kulatilaka N. Capabilities as real options. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(6):744–758Link, Google Scholar
• Kulatilaka N., Perotti E. C. Strategic growth options. Management Sci. (1998) 44(8):1021–1031Link, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw J. O., Schankerman M. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(1):129–151Crossref, Google Scholar
• Long J. S.Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables (1997) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Lowe R. A., Ziedonis A. A. Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Sci. (2006) 52(2):173–186Link, Google Scholar
• MacMillan I. C., McGrath R. G. The value, assessment, and enhancement of industry investments in fundamental research. (1998) . Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, PAGoogle Scholar
• Majd S., Pindyck R. S. Time to build, option value, and investment decisions. J. Financial Econom. (1987) 18(1):7–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonald R., Siegel D. The value of waiting to invest. Quart. J. Econom. (1986) 101(4):707–728Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D., McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (1981) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 198–272Google Scholar
• McGrath R. G. A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments. Acad. Management Rev. (1997) 22(4):974–996Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller K. D., Folta T. B. Option value and entry timing. Strategic Management J. (2002) 23(7):655–665Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell G. R., Hamilton W. F. Managing R&D as a strategic option. Res.-Tech. Management (1988) 31(3):15–22Google Scholar
• Montgomery C. A., Wernerfelt B. Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin's q. RAND J. Econom. (1988) 19(4):623–632Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mowery D. C., Oxley J. E., Silverman B. S. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Res. Policy (1998) 27:507–523Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narin F., Noma E., Perry R. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Res. Policy (1987) 16(2–4):143–155Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuer J. J., Tong T. W. Real options in international joint ventures. J. Management (2005) 31(3):403–423Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts K., Weitzman M. L. Funding criteria for research, development, and exploration projects. Econometrica (1981) 49:1261–1288Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N. Why do firms do basic research with their own money? Res. Policy (1990) 19:165–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat B. N., Ziedonis A. A., Schmoch U. Patent citations and the private value of patents. Kluwer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (2004) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA) 277–298Google Scholar
• Shane S. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Sci. (2001) 47(9):1173–1190Link, Google Scholar
• Shane S. Selling university technology. Management Sci. (2002) 48(1):122–137Link, Google Scholar
• Silverman B. S. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Sci. (1999) 45(8):1109–1124Link, Google Scholar
• Standard & Poor's Compustat Database (1998) (McGraw-Hill Company, New York) Google Scholar
• Taylor C. A., Silberston Z. A.The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of the British Experience (1973) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15:285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K.Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand (1986) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., Jaffe A. B. University vs. corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Econom. Innovation New Tech. (1997) 5:19–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trigeorgis L.Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation (1996) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Zahra S. A., George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Management Rev. (2002) 27(2):185–203Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ziedonis A. A. The commercialization of university technology: Implications for firm strategy and public policy. (2001) . Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar