Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation

References

• Aboulnasr K, Narasimhan O, Blair E, Chandy R (2008) Competitive response to radical product innovations. J. Marketing 72(3):94–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aghion P, Bechtold S, Cassar L, Herz H (2018) The causal effects of competition on innovation: Experimental evidence. J. Law Econom. Organ. 34(2):162–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aghion P, Bloom N, Blundell R, Griffith R, Howitt P (2005) Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quart. J. Econom. 120(2):701–728.Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Cockburn I, Rosell C (2010) Not invented here? Innovation in company towns. J. Urban Econom. 67(1):78–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Katila R (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management J. 22(3):197–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amit R, Schoemaker PJH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management J. 14(1):33–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anand BN, Khanna T (2000) The structure of licensing contracts. J. Indust. Econom. 48(1):103–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(4):604–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ang SH (2008) Competitive intensity and collaboration: Impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strategic Management J. 29(10):1057–1075.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Krueger AB (1991) Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings? Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):979–1014.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A (1995) Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 4(1):41–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A (2003) Licensing the market for technology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 52(2):277–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A (1994) Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 24(1):91–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A (2010) Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Indust. Corporate Change 19(3):775–803.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bierly P, Chakrabarti A (1996) Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 17(Special Winter Issue):123–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bierly PE, Damanpour F, Santoro MD (2009) The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. J. Management Stud. 46(3):481–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boehringer Ingelheim (2003) Boehringer Ingelheim and Galapagos Genomics team up in antiviral discovery research program. Press release, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany.Google Scholar
• Cassiman B, Veugelers R (2006) In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Sci. 52(1):68–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Castellaneta F, Conti R, Kacperczyk A (2017) Money secrets: How does trade secret legal protection affect firm market value? Evidence from the uniform trade secret act. Strategic Management J. 38(4):834–853.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen EL, Katila R, McDonald R, Eisenhardt KM (2010) Life in the fast lane: Origins of competitive interaction in new vs. established markets. Strategic Management J. 31(13):1527–1547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Choi JP (2002) A dynamic analysis of licensing: The “boomerang” effect and grant‐back clauses. Internat. Econom. Rev. 43(3):803–829.Crossref, 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
• Cockburn I, Henderson R (1994) Racing to invest? The dynamics of competition in ethical drug discovery. J. Econom. Management Strategy 3(3):481–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Levin RC (1989) Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. Handbook Indust. Organ. 2:1059–1107.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
• Conti R, Gambardella A, Novelli E (2013) Research on Markets for Inventions and Implications for R&D Allocation Strategies. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):715–772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Contractor FJ (1990) Contractual and cooperative forms of international business: Toward a unified theory of modal choice. Management Internat. Rev. 30(1):31–54.Google Scholar
• Derfus PJ, Maggitti PG, Grimm CM, Smith KG (2008) The Red Queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Acad. Management J. 51(1):61–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Assets accumulation and sustainability of competition advantage. Management Sci. 35(12):1504–1514.Link, Google Scholar
• DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H (2003) The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econom. 22(2):151–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doraszelski U (2003) An R&D race with knowledge accumulation. RAND J. Econom. 34(1):20–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res. Policy 11:147–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP (2012) Falling flat: Failed technologies and investment under uncertainty. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):47–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP, Kaul A (2018) Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. Acad. Management J. 61(1):67–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K, Santos F (2002) Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy. Pettigrew A, Thomas H, Whittington R, eds., Handbook of Strategy and Management (Sage, London), 139–164.Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K, Schoonhoven C (1996) Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 7(2):136–150.Link, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management J. 21(Special Issue):1105–1121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A (2006) The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management J. 27(12):1141–1158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galunic DC, Rodan SA (1998) Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management J. 19(12):1193–1201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giarratana MS (2013) General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Res. Policy 42(2):315–325.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
• Ghemawat P (1991) Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Gilead Sciences (2018) Transgenic human monoclonal antibody discovery platform. Press release, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA.Google Scholar
• Giniatullina A, Boorsma M, Mulder G-J, Van Deventer S (2013) Building for big pharma. Nature Biotechnology 31(4):284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Girotra K, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2007) Valuing R&D projects in a portfolio: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Sci. 53(9):1452–1466.Link, Google Scholar
• Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. 17:109–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grindley P, Teece D (1997) Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif. Management Rev. 39(2):8–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruber M, Harhoff D, Hoisl K (2013) Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: Scientists vs. engineers. Management Sci. 59(4):837–851.Link, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Singh H (1998) The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43(4):781–814.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn J (1993) Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management J. 14(5):371–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE (1994) Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Sci. 40(12):1720–1747.Link, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE (1997) Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management J. 18(5):339–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management J. 15:63–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hess A, Rothaermel F (2011) When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 32(8):895–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen R, Thursby M (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(1):240–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson DK (2002) Learning-by-licensing”: R&D and technology licensing in Brazilian invention. Econom. Innov. New Tech. 11(3):163–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamien MI, Schwartz NL (1982) Market Structure and Innovation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Murray F, Henderson R (2003) Discontinuities and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Indust. Corporate Change 12(2):203–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R, Klueter T (2015) Decoding the adaptability–rigidity puzzle: Evidence from pharmaceutical incumbents’ pursuit of gene therapy and monoclonal antibodies. Acad. Management J. 58(4):1180–1207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Management J. 45(6):1183–1194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaul A (2012) Technology and corporate scope: Firm and rival innovation as antecedents of corporate transactions. Strategic Management J. 33(4):347–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klueter T, Monteiro LF, Dunlap DR (2017) Standard vs. partnership-embedded licensing: Attention and the relationship between licensing and product innovations. Res. Policy 46(9):1629–1643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(3):383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Kotabe M, Sahay A, Aulakh PS (1996) Emerging role of technology licensing in the development of global product strategy: Conceptual framework and research propositions. J. Marketing 60(1): 73–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koza M, Lewin A (1998) The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organ. Sci. 9(3):255–264.Link, Google Scholar
• Lane PJ, Lubatkin M (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management J. 19:461–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laursen K, Salter A (2006) Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management J. 27(2):131–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laursen K, Leone MI, Torrisi S (2010) Technological exploration through licensing: New insights from the licensee’s point of view. Indust. Corporate Change 19(3):871–897.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laursen K, Moreira S, Reichstein T, Leone MI (2017) Evading the boomerang effect: Using the grant-back clause to further generative appropriability from technology licensing deals. Organ. Sci. 28(3):514–530.Link, Google Scholar
• Leone MI, Reichstein T (2012) Licensing-in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant-back clause and technological unfamiliarity. Strategic Management J. 33(8):965–985.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(Winter Special Issue):95–112.Google Scholar
• Luo Y (2003) Industrial dynamics and managerial networking in an emerging market: The case of China. Strategic Management J. 24(13):1315–1327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB (2005) Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Res. Policy 34(7):1058–1075.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marks LV (2015) The Lock and Key of Medicine: Monoclonal Antibodies and the Transformation of Healthcare (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin X, Mitchell W (1998) The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Res. Policy 26(7-8):753–771.Crossref, 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
• Moreira S, Cabaleiro G, Reichstein T (2019) Licensing decision: A rent dissipation lens applied to product market competition, openness to external knowledge and exogenous sunk costs. Indust. Corporate Change 28(4):773–792.Google Scholar
• Moreira S, Markus A, Laursen K (2018) Knowledge diversity and coordination: The effect of intrafirm inventor task networks on absorption speed. Strategic Management J. 39(9):2517–2546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mowery D, Oxley B, Silverman B (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management J. 17:77–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mulotte L, Dussauge P, Mitchell W (2013) Does pre‐entry licensing undermine the performance of subsequent independent activities? Evidence from the global aerospace industry, 1944–2000. Strategic Management J. 34:358–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nealey T, Daignault RM, Cai Y (2015) Trade secrets in life science and pharmaceutical companies. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect. Medicine 5(4):a020982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nerkar A, Roberts PW (2004) Technological and product‐market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 25(8‐9):779–799.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nicholls-Nixon CL, Woo CY (2003) Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management J. 24(7):651–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nishimura J, Okada Y (2014) R&D portfolios and pharmaceutical licensing. Res. Policy 43(6):1250–1263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• OECD (2013) Supporting Investment in Knowledge Capital, Growth and Innovation (OECD Publishing, Paris).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oxley J, Wada T (2009) Alliance structure and the scope of knowledge transfer: Evidence from U.S.-Japan agreements. Management Sci. 55(4):635–649.Link, Google Scholar
• Phelps CC (2010) A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Acad. Management J. 53(4):890–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Png IP (2017) Law and innovation: Evidence from state trade secrets laws. Rev. Econom. Statist. 99(1):167–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polidoro F, Theeke M (2011) Getting competition down to a science: The effects of technological competition on firms’ scientific publications. Organ. Sci. 23(4):1135–1153.Link, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Singh H, Zollo M (2006) Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-integration dilemma in technology acquisitions. Acad. Management J. 49(2):263–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts P (1999) Product innovation, product-market competition and persistent profitability in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 20(7):655–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management J. 22(4):287–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F, Boeker W (2008) Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management J. 29(1):47–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rydzewski RM (2008) Real World Drug Discovery: A Chemist’s Guide to Biotech and Pharmaceutical Research (Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Sakakibara M (2002) Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects. Strategic Management J. 23(11):1033–1050.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sakakibara M (2010) An empirical analysis of pricing in patent licensing contracts. Indust. Corporate Change 19(3):927–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sakhartov AV, Folta TB (2014) Resource relatedness, redeployability, and firm value. Strategic Management J. 35(12):1781–1797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos FM, Eisenhardt KM (2005) Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ. Sci. 16(5):491–508.Link, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2009) Understanding the alliance data. Strategic Management J. 30(3):233–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scriabine A (1999) Discovery and development of major drugs currently in use. Landau R, Achilladelis B, Scriabine A, eds. Pharmaceutical Innovation: Revolutionizing Human Health (Chemical Heritage Press, Philadelphia), 148–270. Google Scholar
• Simon S (1998) The Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 13:305–306.Google Scholar
• Singh J, Agrawal A (2011) Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management Sci. 57(1):129–150.Link, Google Scholar
• Steensma HK, Corley KG (2000) On the performance of technology-sourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes. Acad. Management J. 43(6):1045–1067.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stopke E, Burns J (2015) New Drug and Biologic R&D Success Rates, 2004-2014. (Parexel Intl. Corp., Waltham, MA).Google Scholar
• Sull DN, Tedlow RS, Rosenbloom RS (1997) Managerial commitments and technological change in the US tire industry. Indust. Corporate Change 6(2):461–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece D (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management J. 28(13):1319–1350.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
• Teece DJ (1988) Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration, strategic partnering, and licensing decisions. Interfaces 18(3):46–61.Link, Google Scholar
• Tidwell JL, Liotta LA (2012) Inventions and patents: A practical tutorial. Methods Molecular Biol. 823:391–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toh PK, Kim T (2013) Why put all your eggs in one basket? A competition-based view of how technological uncertainty affects a firm’s technological specialization. Organ. Sci. 24(4):1214–1236.Link, Google Scholar
• Toh PK, Polidoro F (2013) A competition‐based explanation of collaborative invention within the firm. Strategic Management J. 34(10):1186–1208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M (1987) Patents, Citations and Innovations: Tracing the Links (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback JM (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J (2003) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 2nd ed. (Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH).Google Scholar
• Zahra SA, Keil T, Maula M (2005) New ventures’ inward licensing: Examining the effects of industry and strategy characteristics. Eur. Management Rev. 2(3):154–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organ. Sci. 6(1):76–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Ziedonis RH (2004) Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Sci. 50:804–820.Link, Google Scholar