Appropriability Mechanisms and the Platform Partnership Decision: Evidence from Enterprise Software

References

• Ai C, Norton EC. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic. Lett. (2003) 80(1):123–129Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion (2009) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Crossref, Google 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, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bader MA. Intellectual Property Management in R&D Collaborations: The Case of the Service Industry Sector (2006) (Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany) Google Scholar
• Becchetti L, Paganetto L. The determinants of suboptimal technological development in the system company-component producers relationship. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (2001) 19(9):1407–1421Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Hunt RM. An empirical look at software patents. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2007) 16(1):157–189Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau K. Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Sci. (2010) 56(10):1849–1872Link, Google Scholar
• Ceccagnoli M, Rothaermel FT, Libecap GD, Thursby MC. Appropriating the returns from innovation. Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results (2008) (Elsevier, Oxford, UK) 11–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ceccagnoli M, Forman C, Huang P, Wu DJ. Co-creation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quart. (2012) 36(1):263–290Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chamberlain G. Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1980) 47(1):225–238Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ. Patents, thickets and the financing of early-stage firms: Evidence from the software industry. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2009) 18(3):729–773Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ. Entry and patenting in the software industry. Management Sci. (2011) 57(5):915–933Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). (2000) . NBER Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Colombo MG, Grilli L, Piva E. In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups. Res. Policy (2006) 35(8):1166–1199Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dechenaux E, Goldfarb B, Shane S, Thursby M. Appropriability and commercialization: Evidence from MIT inventions. Management Sci. (2008) 54(5):893–906Link, Google Scholar
• Economides N. The economics of trademarks. Trademark Reporter (1988) 78:523–539Google Scholar
• Evans DS, Hagiu A, Schmalensee R. Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries (2006) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Katz ML. Innovation, rent extraction, and integration in systems markets. J. Indust. Econom. (2000) 48(4):413–432Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A, Giarratana MS, Luzzi A. The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software products. Organ. Sci. (2008) 19(2):292–305Link, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giarratana MS. Innovations for products, innovations for licensing: Patents and downstream assets in the software security industry. (2006) . Working paper, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy. http://ssrn.com/abstract=935210Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Stern S. The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res. Policy (2003) 32(2):333–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Hsu DH, Stern S. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND J. Econom. (2002) 33(4):571–586Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A. Platforms, Markets, and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A, Cusumano MA. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (2002) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Gawer A, Henderson R. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2007) 16(1):1–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham S, Mowery D, Cohen WM, Merrill SA. Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (2003) (National Academies Press, Washington, DC) 219–258Google Scholar
• Graham S, Mowery D, Chesbrough H, Vanhervebeke W, West J. Intellectual property rights in the software industry: Implications for open innovation. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (2006) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) 184–204Google Scholar
• Graham SJH, Merges RP, Samuelson P, Sichelman T. High technology entrepreneurs and the patent system: Results of the 2008 Berkeley patent survey. Berkeley Tech. Law J. (2010) 24(4):1255–1328Google Scholar
• Hall BH. Business and financial method patents, innovation, and policy. Scottish J. Political Econom. (2009) 56(4):443–473Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Helmers C. Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help? (2011) . NBER Working Paper 16920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, MacGarvie M. The private value of software patents. Res. Policy (2010) 39(7):994–1009Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. Patents, Citations and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy (2002) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 403–459Google Scholar
• Heeb R. Innovation and vertical integration in complementary markets. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2003) 12(3):387–417Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt LM, Wu DJ, Zhou X. Investment in enterprise resource planning: Business impact and productivity measures. J. Management Inform. Systems (2002) 19(1):71–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time to Event Data (1999) (Wiley-Interscience, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C. Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. (1986) 94(4):822–841Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1996) 86(3):562–583Google Scholar
• Lerner J. Where does State Street lead? A first look at finance patents, 1971 to 2000. J. Finance (2002) 57(2):901–930Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Zhu F. What is the impact of software patent shifts? Evidence from Lotus v. Borland. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (2007) 25(3):511–529Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mann RJ, Sager TW. Patents, venture capital, and software start-ups. Res. Policy (2007) 36(2):193–208Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller AR, Tucker C. Privacy protection and technology diffusion: The case of electronic medical records. Management Sci. (2009) 55(7):1077–1093Link, Google Scholar
• Miller DA. Invention under uncertainty and the threat of ex post entry. Eur. Econom. Rev. (2008) 52(3):387–412Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mundlak Y. On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica (1978) 46(1):69–85Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nahm J. Open architecture and R&D incentives. J. Indust. Econom. (2004) 52(4):547–568Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pang A. SAP Ecosystem becomes a booming economy. (2007) . Research report, International Data Corporation (IDC), Framingham, MAGoogle Scholar
• Parker G, Van Alstyne MW. Innovation, openness, and platform control. (2012) . Working paper, Tulane University, New Orleans. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1079712Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petersen MA, Rajan RG. The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data. J. Finance (1994) 49(1):3–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prentice PL, Gloeckler LA. Regression analysis of grouped survival data with applications to breast cancer data. Biometrics (1978) 34(1):57–67Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Singh H, Zollo M. Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49(2):263–280Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rysman M, Simcoe T. Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-setting organizations. Management Sci. (2008) 54(11):1920–1934Link, Google Scholar
• SAP Powered by SAP Netweaver Partner Program FAQ. (2005a) . Accessed September 8, 2012, http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/index?rid=/library/uuid/e663625c-0c01-0010-6e8d-9ec8c49d1ffcGoogle Scholar
• SAP SAP annual report 2005. (2005b) . Accessed September 8, 2012, http://www.sap.com/corporate-en/investors/reports/annualreport/2005/pdf/2005_SAP_Annual_Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
• SAP SAP facts and figures. (2009) . Accessed April 21, 2009, http://www.sap.com/about/investor/pdf/SAP_FactSheet.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Schmidt P, Witte AD. Predicting criminal recidivism using “split population” survival time models. J. Econometrics (1989) 40(1):141–159Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro NL. (2005) . Memorandum and order, AMC Technology LLC v. SAP AG, November 3. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Accessed September 8, 2012, http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1367P.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Teece DJ. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15(6):285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback JM, Abernathy WJ. A dynamic model of product and process innovation. Omega (1975) 3(6):639–656Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wen W, Ceccagnoli M, Forman C. Patent pools, thickets, and open source entry by start-up firms. (2011) . Working paper, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
• Williamson OE. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1991) 36(2):269–296Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Zeger SL, Liang K-Y, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics (1988) 44(4):1049–1060Crossref, Google Scholar