An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation

References

• Agarwal R, Helfat CE (2009) Strategic renewal of organizations. Organ. Sci. 20(2):281–293.Link, Google Scholar
• Alcacer J, Gittelman M (2006) Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Rev. Econom. Statist. 88(4):774–779.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amburgey T, Kelly D, Barnett W (1993) Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(1):51–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Liebeskind JP (1998) Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 35:427–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Hunt R (2007) An empirical look at software patents. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(1):157–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhaskarabhatla A, Pennings E (2013) Defensive disclosure of patentable inventions under antitrust enforcement. Working paper, Erasumus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2154558.Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Eifert B, Mahajan A, McKenzie D, Roberts J (2013) Does management matter: Evidence from India. Quart. J. Econom. 128(1):1–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyer C (1990) The power of the patent portfolio. Think 56(5):10–11.Google Scholar
• Buderi R (2000) Engines of Tomorrow: How the World’s Best Companies Are Using Their Research Labs to Win the Future (Simon & Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H (2006) Open-Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston).Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business (Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston).Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, Henderson RM (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Indust. Econom. 46(2):157–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why firms patent or not? NBER Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper AC, Schendel D (1976) Strategic responses to technological threats. Bus. Horizons 19(1):61–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert R, March J (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Davis J, Harrison S (2001) Edison in the Boardroom: How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Assets (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Di Minin A, Bianchi M (2011) Safe nests in global nets: Internalization and appropriability of R&D in wireless telecom. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 42(7):910–934.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dowell G, Hart S, Yeung B (2000) Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Sci. 46(8):1059–1074.Link, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP, Kaplan S (2009) Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organ. Sci. 20(2):461–477.Link, Google Scholar
• Gomory R (1989) Moving IBM’s technology from research to development. Res. Tech. Management (November–December):27–32.Google Scholar
• Greve HR (2008) A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Acad. Management J. 51(3):476–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grindley PC, Teece DJ (1997) Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif. Management Rev. 39(2):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH (2005) Exploring the patent explosion. J. Tech. Transfer 30(1–2):35–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The determinants of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1980–1994. RAND J. Econom. 32:101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 82(5):929–964.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausman JA, Hall BH, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 52(4):909–938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hegde D, Mowery DC, Graham SJH (2009) Pioneering inventors or thicket builders: Which U.S. firms use continuations in patenting? Management Sci. 55(7):1214–1226.Link, Google Scholar
• Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (1998) Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Rev. Econom. Statist. 80(1):119–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):577–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim J, Marschke GR Jr (2004) Accounting for the recent surge in U.S. patenting: Changes in R&D expenditures, patent yields, and the high tech sector. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 13(6):543–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kortum S, Lerner J (1999) What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Res. Policy 28(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampe R (2012) Strategic citations. Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(1):320–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Three faces of organizational learning: Wisdom, inertia, and discovery. Garud R, Nayyar PR, Shapira ZB, eds. Technology Innovation. Oversights and Foresights (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 167–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim K (2010) The many faces of absorptive capacity: Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. Indust. Corporate Change 18(6):1249–1284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynam J (2009) Patent medicine man. Business People-Vermont (March) http://www.vermontguides.com/2009/03-mar/ipcapital.html.Google Scholar
• Majumdar BA (1982) Innovations, Product Developments and Technology Transfers—An Empirical Study of Dynamic Competitive Advantage: The Case of Electronic Calculators (University Press of America, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• McGroddy J (2011) Personal email communication with first author, January.Google Scholar
• Miele AL (2001) Patent Strategy: The Manager’s Guide to Profiting from Patent Portfolios (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1990) The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Bus. Rev. 68(March–April):163–176.Google Scholar
• Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B, Ziedonis A (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. Res. Policy 30(1):99–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murray F, Stern S (2006) 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
• Narin F, Hamilton KS, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res. Policy 26(3):317–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Rivette K, Kline D (2000) Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents (Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston).Google Scholar
• Rumelt RP (1995) Inertia and transformation. Montgomery CA, ed. Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA), 101–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev. Econom. Statist. 88(4):641–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2010) On the existence of the maximum likelihood estimates in Poisson regression. Econom. Lett. 107(2):310–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer FM (1987) Antitrust, efficiency and progress. New York Univ. Law Rev. 62(5):998–1019.Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N (2001) Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. Acad. Management J. 44(4):838–857.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Somaya D, Williamson IO, Zhang X (2007) Combining patent law expertise with R&D for patenting performance. Organ. Sci. 18(6):922–937.Link, Google Scholar
• Sørensen JB, Stuart TE (2000) Aging, obsolescence and organizational innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1):81–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sosnin B (2000) A pat(ent) on the back. HR Magazine 45(3) http://www.shrm.org/Publications/hrmagazine/EditorialContent/Pages/0300sosnin.aspx.Google Scholar
• Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management J. 21(10–11): 1147–1161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA III (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Management Rev. 38(4):8–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Romanelli E (1985) Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Staw BM, Cummings LL, eds. Research in Organization Behavior, Vol. 7 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 171–222.Google Scholar