Collaborative Promotion of Technology Standards and the Impact on Innovation, Industry Structure, and Organizational Capabilities: Evidence from Modern Patent Pools

References

• Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of innovation in technology. Tech. Rev. 80(7):40–47.Google Scholar
• Adner R, Kapoor R (2010) Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management J. 31(3):306–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Kapoor R (2016) Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management J. 37(4):625–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Zemsky P (2006) A demand-based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management J. 27(3): 215–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Gort M (1996) The evolution of markets and entry, exit and survival of firms. Rev. Econom. Stat. 78(3):489–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres N, Bigelow L (2010) Innovation, modularity, and vertical deintegration: Evidence from the early U.S. auto industry. Organ. Sci. 21(4):842–853.Link, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Zenger TR (2012) Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1643–1657.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A (2010) Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Indust. Corp. Change 19(3):775–803.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Merges RP (2004) Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries. Indust. Corp. Change 13(3):451–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Indust. Corp. Change 10(2):419–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besen SM, Farrell J (1994) Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(2):117–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandenburger AM, Stuart HW (1996) Value-based business strategy. J. Econom. Management Strategy 5(1):5–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlson SC (1999) Patent pools and the antitrust dilemma. Yale J. Regulation 16(2):359–399.Google Scholar
• Chen PL, Williams C, Agarwal R (2012) Growing pains: Pre-entry experience and the challenge of transition to incumbency. Strategic Management J. 33(3):252–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiao B, Lerner J, Tirole J (2007) The rules of standard-setting organizations: An empirical analysis. RAND J. Econom. 38(4):905–930.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David PA, Greenstein S (1990) The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 1(1–2):3–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Simcoe T (2012) Choosing the rules for consensus standardization. RAND J. Econom. 43(2):235–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res. Policy 32(2):333–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Stern S (2010) Is there a market for ideas? Indust. Corp. Change 19(3):5–24.Google Scholar
• Gilbert RJ (2004) Antitrust for patent pools: A century of policy evolution. Stanford Tech. Law Rev. 3. http://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-technology-law-review/online/gilbert-patent-pools.pdf.Google Scholar
• Gort M, Klepper S (1982) Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. Econom. J. 92(367):630–653.Google Scholar
• Grossman G, Shapiro C (1988) Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quart. J. Econom. 103(1):79–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannah D, Eisenhardt KM (2016) How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Working paper, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Campo-Rembado MA (2016) Integrative capabilities, vertical integration, and innovation over successive technology lifecycles. Organ. Sci. 27(2):249–264.Link, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Lieberman MB (2002) The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Indust. Corp. Change 11(4):725–760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management J. 24(10):997–1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS (2000) Product sequencing: Co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management J. 21(10–11):961–979.Crossref, 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 (1994) The evolution of integrative capability: Innovation in cardiovascular drug discovery. Indust. Corp. Change 3(3):607–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill CW (1997) Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries. Acad. Management Executive 11(2):7–25.Google Scholar
• Iansiti M, Clark KB (1994) Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Indust. Corp. Change 3(3):557–605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG (2005) Industry change through vertical disintegration: How and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Acad. Management J. 48(3):465–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG, Winter SG (2005) The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: Explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management J. 26(5):395–413.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
• Kapoor R, Adner R (2012) What firms make vs. what they know: How firms’ production and knowledge boundaries affect competitive advantage in the face of technological change. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1227–1248.Link, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. 94(4):822–841.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1994) Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(2):93–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampe R, Moser P (2010) Do patent pools encourage innovation? Evidence from the nineteenth-century sewing machine industry. J. Econom. Hist. 70(4):898–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampe R, Moser P (2016) Patent pools, competition, and innovation—Evidence from 20 industries in the 1930s. J. Law Econom. Organ. 32(1):1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Layne-Farrar A, Lerner J (2011) To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules. International J. Indust. Organ. 29(2):294–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leiblein MJ, Miller DJ (2003) An empirical examination of transaction- and firm-level influences on the vertical boundaries of the firm. Strategic Management J. 24(9):839–859.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Shapiro C (2007) 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
• Lerner J, Tirole J (2004) Efficient patent pools. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(3):691–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Strojwas M, Tirole J (2007) The design of patent pools: The determinants of licensing rules. RAND J. Econom. 38(3): 610–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieberman MB (1987) The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy. Strategic Management J. 8(5):441–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madhok A (2002) Reassessing the fundamentals and beyond: Ronald Coase, the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm and the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management J. 23(6):535–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayer KJ, Salomon RM (2006) Capabilities, contractual hazards, and governance: Integrating resource-based and transaction cost perspectives. Acad. Management J. 49(5):942–959.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merges RP (1999) Institutions for intellectual property transactions: The case of patent pools. Working paper, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
• Moeen M (2016) Entry into nascent industries: Disentangling a firm’s capability portfolio at the time of investment versus market entry. Working paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
• Moeen M, Agarwal R (2016) Incubation of an industry: Heterogeneous knowledge bases and modes of value capture. Strategic Management J., ePub ahead of print May 4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2511.Crossref, 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
• Nelson R, Winter S (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Belknap, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Nicholas T (2010) The role of independent invention in US technological development, 1880–1930. J. Econom. Hist. 70(1):57–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qian L, Agarwal R, Hoetker G (2012) Configuration of value chain activities: The effect of pre-entry capabilities, transaction hazards, and industry evolution on decisions to internalize. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1330–1349.Link, Google Scholar
• Rysman M, Simcoe TS (2008) Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-setting organizations. Management Sci. 54(11): 1920–1934.Link, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (1999) Winning the standards race: Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods. Eur. Management J. 17(3):265–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2000) Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Management Rev. 25(2):312–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2002) Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad. Management J. 45(2):387–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2015) Technology shocks, technological collaboration, and innovation outcomes. Organ. Sci. 26(3):668–686.Link, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Steensma HK (2001) The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1149–1168.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 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 119–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soh PH (2010) Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design. Strategic Management J. 31(4):438–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steinmueller WE (2003) The role of technical standards in coordinating the division of labour in complex system industries. Prencipe A, Davies A, Hobday M, eds. The Business of Systems Integration (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 133–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suarez FF (2005) Network effects revisited: The role of strong ties in technology selection. Acad. Management J. 48(4):710–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suarez FF, Utterback JM (1995) Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management J. 16(6):415–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tassey G (2000) Standardization in technology-based markets. Res. Policy 29(4):587–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econom. 21(1):172–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Unites States Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (2007) Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition (Hein, Buffalo, NY).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1991) Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):269–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• World Intellectual Property Organization (2011) World Intellectual Property report: The changing face of innovation. WIPO Publication 994E/2011, WIPO Economics and Statistics Series, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar