Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science

References

• Aghion P., Howitt P.Endogenous Growth Theory (1998) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Allen T. J.Managing Flows of Technology (1977) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Almeida P., Kogut B. Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Sci. (1999) 45(7):905–917Link, Google Scholar
• Anton J. J., Yao D. A. The sale of ideas: Strategic disclosure, property rights, and contracting. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2002) 69(3):513–531Crossref, Google 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) 609–625Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagley C. Winning legally: The value of legal astuteness. Acad. Management Rev. (2008) 33(2Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B.Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (2000) Vol. 1(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B. The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1116–1127Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., O'Mahony S., Quinn J. IBM and Linux (A). (2003) . Harvard Business School Case 903-083, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Bar-Gill O., Parchomovsky G. The value of giving away secrets. Virginia Law Rev. (2003) 89:1857–1895Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barley S. R. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1986) 31:78–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky B. A. Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. Amer. J. Sociol. (2003a) 109(3):720–752Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky B. A. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organ. Sci. (2003b) 14:312–330Link, Google Scholar
• Berressem J. Education in chemistry: Kings College London—A DNA landmark. (2005) . http://www.rsc.org/lap/educatio/eic/2003/column2_jul03.htmGoogle Scholar
• Brown J. S., Duguid P. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organ. Sci. (1991) 2(1):40–57Link, Google Scholar
• Brown J. S., Duguid P.The Social Life of Information (2000) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Brown J. S., Duguid P. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(2):198–213Link, Google Scholar
• Burt R. Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. (2004) 110:349–399Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlile P. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. (2004) 15(5):555–569Link, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H.Open Innovation (2003) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Christensen C.The Innovator's Dilemma (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Collins H. M. The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Sci. Stud. (1974) 4:165–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Couzin J., Unger K. Scientific misconduct: Cleaning up the paper trail. Science (2006) 312(5770):38–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crane D. Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the invisible college hypothesis. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (1969) 34(3):335–352Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P., David P. Towards a new economics of science. Res. Policy (1994) 23:487–521Crossref, Google Scholar
• David P. Can “open science” be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? (2003) . Stanford Economics Working paper, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
• Davis G. R., Marquis C. Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16:332–343Link, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P., Powell W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationalty in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (1983) 48:147–160Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dotinga R. Open access launches journal wars. Wired News (2007) . http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/1,72704-0.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Edwards M., Murray F., Yu R. Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology, and pharma. Nature Biotechnology (2003) 21(6):618–624Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenmann T. E., Parker G. G., Van Alstyne M. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2006) October):92–101Google Scholar
• Felten E. W. The digital millennium copyright act and its legacy: A view from the trenches. Illinois J. Law, Tech. Policy (2002) FallGoogle Scholar
• Fielding R. T. Shared leadership in the Apache project. Comm. ACM (1999) 42(4):42–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):117–132Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L., Sorenson O. Navigating the technology landscape of innovation. Sloan Management Rev. (2003) 44:15–23Google Scholar
• Furman J., Stern S. Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: The impact of institutions on cumulative research. (2006) . NBER Working paperCrossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R., Karnoe P. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Res. Policy (2003) 32:277Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R., Kumaraswamy A. Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems' open systems strategy. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14:351–369Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R., Jain S., Kumaraswamy A. Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Acad. Management J. (2002) 45:196–214Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A., Cusumano M. A.Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (2002) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google 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
• Graham S. J. H., Harhoff D. Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of US and European patents. (2006) . Discussion Papers 38, SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of BonnGoogle Scholar
• Grindley P. C., Teece D. J. Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Rev. (1997) 39(2):8–41Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Ziedonis R. H. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(1):101–128Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. (2001) . NBER Working Paper W8498. http://ssrn.com/abstract=285618Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. (2005) 36(1):16–38Google Scholar
• Hansen M. T. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1999) 44:82–111Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen M. T. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13:232–248Link, Google Scholar
• Hansen M. T., Mors M. L., Løvås B. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48(5):776–793Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A.How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate (2003) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Hargadon A. B., Bechky B. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17:484–500Link, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Douglas Y. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2001) 46:476–501Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Sutton R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42:716–749Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heller M., Eisenberg R. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science (1998) 280:698–701Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R., Cockburn I. Measuring competence: Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management J. (1994) 15:63–84Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R., Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1998) 80(1):119–127Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoetker G., Agrawal R. Death hurts but isn't fatal: The post-exit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(2):446–467Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huston L., Sakkab N. Connect and develop: Inside P&G's new model for innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2006) 84(3):58–66Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. B., Lerner J.Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (2004) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Jensen K., Murray F. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science (2005) 310:239–240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeppersen L. B., Frederiksen L. Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17:45–63Link, Google Scholar
• Katila R., Ahuja G. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Management J. (2002) 45:1183Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz M., Shapiro C. On the licensing of innovations. RAND J. Econom. (1985) 16(4):504–520Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klemperer P. How broad should the scope of patent protection be? RAND J. Econom. (1990) 21(1):113–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina K.Epistemic Cultures: How Sciences Make Knowledge (1999) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Lach S., Schankerman M. The impact of royalty sharing incentives on technology licensing in universities. (2006) . CEP Discussion Paper 0729, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Political ScienceGoogle Scholar
• Lakhani K., Wolf R., Feller J., Fifzgerald B., Hissam S. A., Lakhani K. R. Why do hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (2005) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 3–21Google Scholar
• Lakhani K. R., von Hippel E. How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Res. Policy (2003) 32:923–943Crossref, Google Scholar
• Latour B.Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (1987) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Latour B., Woolgar S.Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1979) (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA) Google Scholar
• Leonard D., Swap W.When Sparks Fly (1999) (Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Lerner J., Tirole J. The scope of open source licensing. J. Law, J. Law, Econom. Organ. (2005) 21:20–56Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lessig L.Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) (Penguin Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Levin R. C., Cohen W. M., Mowery D. C. R&D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: New evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1985) 75(2):20–24Google Scholar
• Levy S.Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution (1984) (Penguin Books, New York) Google Scholar
• Lewis T. R., Yao D. A. Some reflections on the antitrust treatment of intellectual property. Antitrust Law J. (1995) 63(2):603–619Google Scholar
• Linder J., Jarvenpaa S., Davenport T. H. Towards an innovation sourcing strategy. Sloan Management Rev. (2003) 44(4):43–49Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M., Ventresca M. J.Social Structure and Organization Revisited (2002) (JAI Press, Oxford, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A., Rusnak J., Baldwin C. Y. Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1015–1030Link, Google Scholar
• MacKie-Mason J. K. What to do about unilateral refusals to license? (2002) . Testimony to FTC-DOJ Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/detailsandparticipants.htm#May%201:Google Scholar
• Marshall E. NIH cuts deal on use of OncoMouse. Science (2000) 287(5453):567Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marx J., Strumsky D., Fleming L. Noncompetes and inventor mobility: Specialists, stars, and the Michigan experiment. (2007) . Harvard Business School Working Paper 07-042, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Merges R. P., Dreyfuss R., Zimmerman D. L., First H. Institutions for intellectual property transactions: The case of patent pools. Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (2001) (Oxford University Press, New York) 123–165Google Scholar
• Merton R.The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1973) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Mockus A., Fielding R. T., Herbsleb J. D. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla ACM. Trans. Software Engrg. Methodology (2002) 11(3):309–346Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mokyr J.The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (2004) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Murray F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Res. Policy (2002) 31(8–9):1389–1403Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murray F. The Oncomouse that roared: Resistance and accommodation of patenting in academic science. (2006) . Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
• Murray F., Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2007) 63(4):648–687Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Political Econom. (1959) 67(3):297–306Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson R. Institutions supporting technical advance in industry. Amer. Econom. Rev., Amer. Econom. Assoc. (1986) 76(2):186–189Google Scholar
• Nelson R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Res. Policy (2004) 33(3):455–471Crossref, Google Scholar
• O'Mahony S. Guarding the commons: How community managed software projects protect their work. Res. Policy (2003) 32:1179–1198Crossref, Google Scholar
• O'Mahony S., Feller J., Fitzgerald B., Hissam S., Lakhani K. Non-profit foundations and their role in community-firm software collaboration. Perspectives on Open Source and Free Software (2005) (MIT Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• O'Mahony S., Bechky B. The role of a boundary institution in reconciling competing logics. Annual Meeting Amer. Sociol. Assoc. (2007) August 13Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
• Owen-Smith J. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Res. Policy (2003) 32:1081–1104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owen-Smith J., Powell W. The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res. Policy (2003) 32(9):1695–1711Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell W., Snellman K. The knowledge economy. Annual Rev. Sociol. (2004) 30:199–220Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell W., Koput K., Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41:116–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rader K.Making Mice (2004) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R., Zuckerman E. Networks, diversity, and performance: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(4):502–517Link, Google Scholar
• Reichman J. H., Dreyfuss R., Zimmerman D., First H. Of Green Tulips and legal Kudzu: Repackaging rights in subpatentable innovation. Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (2001) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Rohter L. Gilberto Gil hears the future, some rights reserved. New York Times (2007) March 11Google Scholar
• Romer P. M. Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. (1990) 98(5):S71–S102Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer P. M. The origins of endogenous growth. J. Econom. Perspectives, Amer. Econom. Assoc. (1994) 8(1):3–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosen L.Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (2005) (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N.Inside the Black Box—Technology and Economics (1982) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L., Metiu A., George V. From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2001) 46:748–772Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuelson P. Anticircumvention rules: Threat to science. Science (2001) 293(5537):2028–2031Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuelson P., Scotchmer S. The law and economics of reverse engineering. Yale Law J. (2002) 111(7):1575–1663Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saxenian A.-L.Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (1996) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer F. M., Dreyfuss R., Zimmerman D. L., First H. The innovation lottery. Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (2001) (Oxford University Press, New York) 3–21Google Scholar
• Scherer F. M., Harhoff D. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Res. Policy (2000) 29:559–566Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S. Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. J. Econom. Perspectives (1991) 5:29–41Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S. Protecting early innovators: Should second-generation products be patentable? RAND J. Econom. (1996) 27(Summer):322–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S.Innovation and Incentives (2004) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Shah S., DiBona C., Cooper D., Stone M. Open beyond software. Open Sources 2 (2005) (O'Reilly, Sebastapol, CA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simcoe R., Nelson R. Public and private participation in the development of and governance of the internet. The Limits and Complexities of Market Organization (2006) (Russell Sage). ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Stallman R., DiBona C., Ockman S., Stone M. The GNU operating system and the free software movement. Open Sources (1999) (O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA) Google Scholar
• Stern S.Biological Resource Centers: Knowledge Hubs for the Life Sciences (2004) (Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Tapscott D., Williams A. D. The new science of sharing: Companies such as Novartis and Intel are at the forefront of Science 2.0 by encouraging open systems of collaboration. Businessweek.com (2007) March 2, 2007). http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/mar2007/id20070302_219704.htmGoogle Scholar
• Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15:285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman M., Rosenkopf L. Organizational determinants of technological change: Toward a sociology of technological evolution. Res. Organ. Behav. (1992) 14:311–347Google Scholar
• Uzzi B., Spiro J. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Amer. J. Sociol. (2005) 111(Sept.):447–504Crossref, Google Scholar
• van de Ven A. H. A community perspective on the emergence of innovations. J. Engrg. Tech. Management (1993) 10:23–51Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Maanen J. V., Barley S. R. Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. (1984) 6:287–365Google Scholar
• von Hippel E.The Sources of Innovation (1988) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• von Hippel E.Democratizing Innovation (2005) (MIT Press, Boston, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E., von Krogh G. Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14:209–223Link, Google Scholar
• von Krogh G., Spaeth S., Lakhani K. R. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Res. Policy (2003) 32:1217–1241Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick K. E.The Social Psychology of Organizing (1979) 2nd ed.(Addison, Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar