The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Industry

References

• Acemoglu D, Johnson S (2005) Unbundling institutions. J. Political Econom. 113(5):949–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2005) Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. Philippe A, Durlauf SN, eds. Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1A (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 385–472.Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Ganco M, Ziedonis RH (2009) Reputations for toughness in patent enforcement: Implications for knowledge spillovers via inventor mobility. Strategic Management J. 30(13):1349–1374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G (2000) The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management J. 21(3):317–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Yayavaram S (2011) Perspective—Explaining influence rents: The case for an institutions-based view of strategy. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1631–1652.Link, Google Scholar
• Alcacer J, Oxley J (2014) Learning by supplying. Strategic Management J. 35(2):204–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barkema HG, Bell JHJ, Pennings JM (1996) Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management J. 17(2):151–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Basberg BL (1987) Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Res. Policy 16(2–4):131–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen JE, Meurer MJ (2006) Patent litigation with endogenous disputes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(2):77–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bittlingmayer G (1988) Property rights, progress, and the aircraft patent agreement. J. Law Econom. 31(1):227–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black BS (2001) The legal and institutional preconditions for strong securities markets. University California Los Angeles Law Rev. 48(4):781–855.Google Scholar
• Bright AA (1972) The Electric-Lamp Industry: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947 (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
• Carrier M (2012) A roadmap to the smartphone patent wars and FRAND licensing. Competition Policy Internat. Antitrust Chronicle 4(2):1–7.Google Scholar
• Clarkson G, Toh PK (2010) “Keep out” signs: The role of deterrence in the competition for resources. Strategic Management J. 31(11):1202–1225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Decker S (2012) Apple phone patent war like sewing machine minus violence. Bloomberg Businessweek (October 8), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-08/apple-phone-patent-war-like-sewing-machine-minus-violence.Google Scholar
• Fischer T, Henkel J (2012) Patent trolls on markets for technology—An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Res. Policy 41(9):1519–1533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garvin MJ (2015) International patent litigation: Tricks, traps and trouble spots. Accessed November 9, 2016, http://www.hahnlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/388.pdf.Google Scholar
• Ginarte JC, Park WG (1997) Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study. Res. Policy 26(3):283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldman D (2012) Google seals $13 billion Motorola buy. CNN Money (May 22), http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/technology/google-motorola/.Google Scholar
• Graham S, Vishnubhakat S (2013) Of smart phone wars and software patents. J. Econom. Perspect. 27(1):67–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J. Econom. Literature 28(4):1661–1707.Google Scholar
• Grindley PC, Teece DJ (1997) Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Rev. 39(2):8–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guler I, Guillén MF (2010) Institutions and the internationalization of us venture capital firms. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 41(2):185–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B (2004) Exploring the patent explosion. J. Tech. Transfer 30(1–2): 35–48.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
• Haveman HA (1993) Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(4):593–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, Macher JT (2004) Firm- and country-level trade-offs and contingencies in the evaluation of foreign investment: The semiconductor industry, 1994–2002. Organ. Sci. 15(5):537–554.Link, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, Zelner BA (2001) The institutional environment for telecommunications investment. J. Econom. Management Strategy 10(1):123–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoyng W, Eijsvogels F, eds. (2015) Global Patent Litigation: Strategy and Practice (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands).Google Scholar
• Isaacson W (2011) Steve Jobs (Simon & Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB (2000) The U.S. patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process. Res. Policy 29(4–5):531–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi AM, Nerkar A (2011) When do strategic alliances inhibit innovation by firms? Evidence from patent pools in the global optical disc industry. Strategic Management J. 32(11):1139–1160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kan M (2014) China’s Xiaomi targets ten markets in international expansion. PC World (April 23), http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147240/chinas-xiaomi-targets-ten-markets-in-international-expansion.html.Google Scholar
• Khanna T, Palepu KG (2005) Spotting institutional voids in emerging markets. Case Study, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Kotha S, Rindova VP, Rothaermel FT (2001) Assets and actions: Firm-specific factors in the internationalization of U.S. Internet firms. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 32(4):769–791.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kyle MK, McGahan AM (2012) Investments in pharmaceuticals before and after TRIPS. Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(4):1157–1172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny R (2000) Investor protection and corporate governance. J. Financial Econom. 58(1): 3–27.Crossref, 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
• Landes WM, Posner RA (2003) The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Lerner J (2000) The enforcement of intellectual property rights: A survey of the empirical literature. Encaoua D, Hall BH, Laisney F, Mairesse J, eds. The Economics and Econometrics of Innovation (Springer, New York), 201–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Lerner J (2001) Tilting the table? The use of preliminary injunctions. J. Law Econom. 44(2):573–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2001) Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. 32(1): 129–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2003) Enforcement of Patent Rights in the United States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? J. Law Econom. 47(1): 45–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee J-Y, Mansfield E (1996) Intellectual property protection and U.S. Foreign direct investment. Rev. Econom. Statist. 78(2):181–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2005) Probabilistic patents. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(2):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2006) Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Rev. 85(7):1991–2049.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (1995) Patenting in the shadow of competitors. J. Law Econom. 38(2):463–495.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin F, Ye W (2009) Operating system battle in the ecosystem of smartphone industry. Muhin VE, Ye Z, eds. Internat. Sympos. Inform. Engrg. Electronic Commerce, 2009. IEEC ’09, Los Alamitos, CA (IEEE, Ternopil, Ukraine), 617–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Pitelis CN (2009) Perspective—The interdependence of private and public interests. Organ. Sci. 20(6):1034–1052.Link, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM, Silverman BS (2006) Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value. Res. Policy 35(8):1222–1242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM, Victer R (2009) How much does home country matter to corporate profitability? J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 41(1):142–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merges RP (1996) Contracting into liability rules: Intellectual property rights and collective rights organizations. California Law Rev. 84(5):1293–1393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mossoff A (2011) The rise and fall of the first American patent thicket: The sewing machine war of the 1850s. Arizona Law Rev. 53(1):165–211.Google Scholar
• Narin F, Noma E, Perry R (1987) Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Res. Policy 16(2–4):143–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• North DC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oleaga M (2014) iOS vs. Android market share in Latin America: Google smartphone OS dominates region against Apple Inc., BlackBerry. Latin Post (February 21), http://www.latinpost.com/articles/7683/20140221/ios-vs-android-windows-phone-market-share-latin-america-mexico-salvador.htm.Google Scholar
• Oxley JE (1999) Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 38(3):283–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oxley JE, Yeung B (2001) E-commerce readiness: Institutional environment and international competitiveness. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 32(4):705–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oxley JE, Sampson RC, Silverman BS (2009) Arms race or détente? How interfirm alliance announcements change the stock market valuation of rivals. Management Sci. 55(8):1321–1337.Link, Google Scholar
• Papke LE, Wooldridge JM (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. J. Appl. Econometrics 11(6):619–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papke LE, Wooldridge JM (2008) Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates. J. Econometrics 145(1–2):121–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park WG (2008) International patent protection: 1960–2005. Res. Policy 37(4):761–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pedersen T, Shaver JM (2011) Internationalization revisited: The big step hypothesis. Global Strategy J. 1(3–4):263–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peng MW, Sun SL, Pinkham B, Chen H (2009) The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Acad. Management Perspect. 23(3):63–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polidoro F, Toh PK (2011) Letting rivals come close or warding them off? The effects of substitution threat on imitation deterrence. Acad. Management J. 54(2):369–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Priest GL, Klein B (1984) The selection of disputes for litigation. J. Legal Stud. 13(1):1–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reese Jr WA, Weisbach MS (2002) Protection of minority shareholder interests, cross-listings in the United States, and subsequent equity offerings. J. Financial Econom. 66(1):65–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reitzig M, Henkel J, Schneider F (2010) Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: How patent sharks operate in markets for technology. Indust. Corporate Change 19(3):947–967.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT, Kotha S, Steensma HK (2006) International market entry by U.S. Internet firms: An empirical analysis of country risk, national culture, and market size. J. Management 32(1): 56–82.Google Scholar
• Sarkar M, Cavusgil ST (1996) Trends in international business thought and literature: A review of international market entry mode research: Integration and synthesis. Internat. Executive 38(6):825–847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sarkar M, Cavusgil ST, Aulakh PS (1999) International expansion of telecommunication carriers: The influence of market structure, network characteristics, and entry imperfections. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 30(2):361–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S, Somaya D (2007) The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 63(4):739–755.Crossref, 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
• Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999) The art of standards wars. California Management Rev. 41(2):8–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaver L (2012) Illuminating innovation: From patent racing to patent war. Washington Lee Law Rev. 69(3):1–60.Google Scholar
• Shaver JM, Flyer F (2000) Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management J. 21(12):1175–1193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) A survey of corporate governance. J. Finance 52(2):737–783.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siegel J (2005) Can foreign firms bond themselves effectively by renting U.S. securities laws? J. Financial Econom. 75(2): 319–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siegler M (2011) Who won the 6,000+ Nortel patents? Apple, RIM, Microsoft—Everyone but Google. TechCrunch (July 1), http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/01/apple-microsoft-rim-google-nortel-patents/.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
• Somaya D (2000) Obtaining and protecting patents in the United States, Europe and Japan. Axelrad L, Kagan RA, eds. Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism (University of California Press, Berkeley), 275–310.Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2003) Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management J. 24(1):17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2012) Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Management 38(4):1084–1114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Somaya D, McDaniel CA (2012) Tribunal specialization and institutional targeting in patent enforcement. Organ. Sci. 23(3): 869–887.Link, Google Scholar
• Song J, Shin J (2008) The paradox of technological capabilities: A study of knowledge sourcing from host countries of overseas R&D operations. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 39(2):291–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe AL (1965) Social structure and organizations. March JG, ed. Handbook of Organizations (Rand McNally & Company, Chicago), 142–193.Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Podolny JM (1996) Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management J. 17(S1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan D (2015) Making the news: Heterogeneous media coverage and corporate litigation. Strategic Management J. 37(7):1341–1353.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tanriverdi H, Lee C-H (2008) Within-industry diversification and firm performance in the presence of network externalities: Evidence from the software industry. Acad. Management J. 51(2):381–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(6):285–305.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 Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2013) Incidence and growth of patent thickets: The impact of technological opportunities and complexity. J. Indust. Econom. 61(3):521–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Hippel E (1988) The Sources of Innovation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Wen W, Forman C, Graham S (2013) Research note—The impact of intellectual property rights enforcement on open source software project success. Inform. Systems Res. 24(4):1131–1146.Link, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Wingfield N (2012) As Apple’s battle with HTC ends, smartphone patent fights continue. New York Times (November 11), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/technology/as-apple-and-htc-end-lawsuits-smartphone-patent-battles-continue.html.Google Scholar
• Xia J, Tan J, Tan D (2008) Mimetic entry and bandwagon effect: The rise and decline of international equity joint venture in China. Strategic Management J. 29(2):195–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Li H, Li Y, Zhou L-A (2010) FDI spillovers in an emerging market: The role of foreign firms’ country origin diversity and domestic firms’ absorptive capacity. Strategic Management J. 31(9):969–989.Google Scholar
• Zhao M (2006) Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Sci. 52(8):1185–1199.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhou YM (2015) Supervising across borders: The case of multinational hierarchies. Organ. Sci. 26(1):277–292.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhu F, Iansiti M (2012) Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management J. 33(1):88–106.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