Opening Up Intellectual Property Strategy: Implications for Open Source Software Entry by Start-up Firms

References

• Alexy O, Reitzig MG (2013) Private–collective innovation, competition, and firms’ counterintuitive appropriation strategies. Res. Policy 42(4):895–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD (2004) Valuable patents. Georgetown Law J. 92(3):435–479.Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for Technology: Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asay M (2010) What Apple’s and Microsoft’s patent threats mean for start-ups. CNET (March 10), http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10466670-16.html.Google Scholar
• Auza J (2011) Infamous Microsoft FUD campaigns against Linux. TechSource (July 18), http://www.junauza.com/2011/07/microsoft-fud-campaigns-against-linux.html.Google Scholar
• Bekkers R, Iversen E, Blind K (2012) Emerging ways to address the reemerging conflict between patenting and technological standardization. Indust. Corporate Change 21(4):901–931.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J (2008) The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 37(5):932–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Hunt RM (2007) An empirical look at software patents. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(1):157–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2008) Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Biddle B, White A, Woods S (2010) How many standards in a laptop? (And other empirical questions). Proc. ITU-T Kaleidoscope: Beyond the Internet?-Innovations for Future Networks and Services (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 1–7.Google Scholar
• Bonaccorsi A, Giannangeli S, Rossi C (2006) Entry strategies under competing standards: Hybrid business models in the open source software industry. Management Sci. 52(7):1085–1098.Link, Google Scholar
• Bort J (2010) The Defensive Patent License makes patents less evil for open source. NetworkWorld (May 7), http://www.networkworld.com/article/2230668/opensource-subnet/the-defensive-patent-license-makes-patents-less-evil-for-open-source.html.Google Scholar
• Broersma M (2007) IDC: Open-source market to be worth $5.8B by 2011. CIO (June 4), http://www.cio.com/article/116201/IDC_Open_Source_Market_to_Be_Worth_5.8B_by_2011.Google Scholar
• Caballero RJ, Jaffe AB (1993) How high are the giants’ shoulders: An empirical assessment of knowledge spillovers and creative destruction in a model of economic growth. Blanchard O, Fischer S, eds. National Bureau of Economic Research Macroeconomics Annual, Vol. 8 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 15–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell-Kelly M, Garcia-Swartz DD (2009) Pragmatism, not ideology: Historical perspectives on IBM’s adoption of open-source software. Inform. Econom. Policy. 21(3):229–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Capek PG, Frank SP, Gerdt S, Shields D (2005) A history of IBM’s open-source involvement and strategy. IBM Systems J. 44(2):249–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clarkson G (2005) Patent informatics for patent thicket detection: A network analytic approach for measuring the density of patent space. Working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
• Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J. Law Econom. 3(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie M (2006) Entry, exit and patenting in the software industry. NBER Working Paper 12563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie M (2009) Patents, thickets and the financing of early-stage firms: Evidence from the software industry. J. Econom. Management Strategy 18(3):729–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, MacGarvie M (2011) Entry and patenting in the software industry. Management Sci. 57(5):915–933.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen JE, Lemley MA (2001) Patent scope and innovation in the software industry. California Law Rev. 89(1):1–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK (2007) Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management J. 28(6):563–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A, Giarratana MS, Luzzi A (2008) The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software products. Organ. Sci. 19(2):292–305.Link, Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M (2010) Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND J. Econom. 41(3):472–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JD, Hsu DH, Stern S (2002) When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND J. Econom. 33(4):571–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A, Henderson R (2007) Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham SJH, Mowery D (2005) The use of USPTO “continuation” applications in the patenting of software: Implications for free and open source. Law and Policy 27(1):128–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green JR, Scotchmer S (1995) On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND J. Econom. 26(1):20–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenstein S, Nagle F (2014) Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache. Res. Policy 43(4):623–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J. Econom. Literature 28(4):1661–1707.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Helmers C (2013) Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help? J. Environment. Econom. Management 66(1):33–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Helmers C, von Graevenitz G, Rosazza-Bondibene C (2012) A study of patent thickets: Final report prepared for the UK intellectual property office. Report, National Institute of Social and Economic Research, London.Google Scholar
• Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang P, Ceccagnoli M, Forman C, Wu DJ (2013) Appropriability mechanisms and the platform partnership decision: Evidence from enterprise software. Management Sci. 59(1):102–121.Link, Google Scholar
• International Business Machines Corporation (2005) IBM pledges 500 U.S. patents to open source in support of innovation and open standards. News release, January 11, https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/7473.wss.Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Lerner J (2004) Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do about It (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Fogarty MS, Banks BA (1998) Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. J. Indust. Econom. 46(2):183–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krazit T (2003) Update: IBM files countersuit against SCO. Computerworld (August 7), http://www.computerworld.com/article/2571907/linux/update–ibm-files-countersuit-against-sco.html.Google Scholar
• Lampe R, Moser P (2010) Do patent pools encourage innovation? Evidence from the nineteenth-century sewing machine industry. J. Econom. History 70(4):898–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampe R, Moser P (2014) Patent pools and innovation in substitutes—evidence from the 19th century sewing machine industry. RAND J. Econom. 44(4):757–778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114(495):441–465.Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2007) Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Rev. 85:1991–2049.Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Schankerman M (2010) The Comingled Code: Open Source and Economic Development (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J (2005) The economics of technology sharing: Open source and beyond. J. Econom. Perspectives 19(2):99–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtman D (2006) Patent holdouts in the standard-setting process. Olin Working Paper 292, University of Chicago, Chicago.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mailath G, Postlewaite A (1990) Asymmetric information bargaining problems with many agents. Rev. Econom. Stud. 57(3):351–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marson I (2004) Linus Torvalds speaks out against EU patent law. ZDNet (November 23), http://www.zdnet.com/linus-torvalds-speaks-out-against-eu-patent-law-3039174746/.Google Scholar
• Maurer SM, Scotchmer S (2006) Open source software: The new intellectual property paradigm. Hendershott T, ed. Handbook of Economics and Information Systems (Elsevier, Amsterdam),285–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller CC, Gelles D (2014) After big bet, Google is to sell Motorola unit. New York Times (January 29), http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/google-seen-selling-it-mobility-unit-to-lenovo-for-about-3-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=_0.Google Scholar
• Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63(4):648–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Musk E (2014) All our patent are belong to you. Telsa Motors (blog) (June 12), http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you.Google Scholar
• Noel M, Schankerman M (2013) Strategic patenting and software innovation. J. Indust. Econom. 61(3):481–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Novell (2004) Novell supports enterprise Linux customers with new Linux indemnification program. Novell (January 13), http://www.novell.com/news/press/2004/1/novell-supports-enterprise-linux-customers-with-new-linux-indemnification-program.html.Google Scholar
• Page L (2011) Supercharging Android: Google to acquire Motorola mobility. Google (blog) (August 15), http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html.Google Scholar
• Red Hat (2006) Open Source Assurance Agreement. Accessed February 13, 2014, http://www.redhat.com/legal/open_source_assurance_agreement.html.Google Scholar
• Rooney P (2004) OSDL, IBM, Intel launch legal defense fund for customers targeted by SCO. Accessed February 13, 2014, http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/18831289/osdl-ibm-intel-launch-legal-defense-fund-for-customers-targeted-by-sco.htm.Google Scholar
• Rysman M, Simcoe T (2008) Patents and the performance of voluntary standard setting organizations. Management Sci. 54(11):1920–1934.Link, Google Scholar
• Samuelson P (2006) IBM’s pragmatic embrace of open source. Comm. ACM 49(10):21–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scannell E (2004) IBM says it won’t assert patents against Linux kernel. InfoWorld Daily News (August 4), http://www.infoworld.com/article/2664868/operating-systems/ibm-says-it-won-t-assert-patents-against-linux-kernel.html.Google Scholar
• Schultz J, Urban JM (2012) Protecting open innovation: The defensive patent license as a new approach to patent threats, transaction costs, and tactical disarmament. Harvard J. Law Tech. 26(1):1–67.Google Scholar
• Scotchmer (2004) Innovation and Incentives (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Jaffe A, Lerner J, Stern S, eds. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 119–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shankland S, Kanellos M (2003) Red Hat files suit against SCO. CNET, (August 5), http://news.cnet.com/Red-Hat-files-suit-against-SCO/2100-7252_3-5059547.html.Google Scholar
• Silverman BS (1999) Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Sci. 45(8):1109–1124.Link, Google Scholar
• Simcoe TS, Graham SJH, Feldman MP (2009) Competing on standards? Entrepreneurship, intellectual property, and platform technologies. J. Econom. Management Strategy 18(3):775–816.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stallman R (2011) Beware: Europe’s “unitary patent” could mean unlimited software patents. The Guardian (August 22), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/22/european-unitary-patent-software-warning.Google Scholar
• Thompson P, Fox-Kean M (2005) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(1):450–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2011) How to measure patent thickets: A novel approach. Econom. Lett. 111(1):6–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. 14(2):209–223.Link, Google Scholar
• Wen W, Forman C, Graham S (2013) Research note: The impact of intellectual property rights enforcement on open source project success. Inform. Systems Res. 24(4):1131–1146.Link, Google Scholar
• Williams HL (2013) Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. J. Political Econom. 121(1):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ziedonis RH (2004) Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Sci. 50(6):804–820.Link, Google Scholar