Secrecy and Patents: Theory and Evidence from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act

References

• Agrawal A, Rosell C, Simcoe TS (2014) How do tax credits affect R&D expenditures by small firms? Evidence from Canada. NBER Working Paper 20615, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almeling DS, Snyder DW, Sapoznikow M, McCollum WE, Weader J (2009) A statistical analysis of trade secret litigation in federal courts. Gonzaga Law Rev. 45(2):291–334.Google Scholar
• Almeling DS, Snyder DW, Sapoznikow M, McCollum WE, Weader J (2010) A statistical analysis of trade secret litigation in state courts. Gonzaga Law Rev. 46(1):57–101.Google Scholar
• Anton JJ, Yao DA (2004) Little patents and big secrets: Managing intellectual property. RAND J. Econom. 35(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A (1997) Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry. Res. Policy 26(4–5):391–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Ceccagnoli M (2006) Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Sci. 52(2):293–308.Link, 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
• Arundel A (2001) The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Res. Policy 30(4):611–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belleflamme P, Bloch F (2013) Dynamic protection of innovations through patents and trade secrets. SSRN Working Paper 2537248, Université catholique de Louvain, CORE and Louvain School of Management, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Hunt RM (2007) An empirical look at software patents. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(1):157–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya S, Guriev S (2006) Patents vs. trade secrets: Knowledge licensing and spillover. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 4(6):1112–1147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Schankerman M, Van Reenen J (2013) Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Econometrica 81(4):1347–1393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Branstetter LG, Drev M, Kwon N (2015) Get with the program: Software-driven innovation in traditional manufacturing. NBER Working Paper 21752, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown JR, Fazzari SM, Petersen BC (2009) Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. J. Finance 64(1):151–185.Crossref, 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
• Ceccagnoli M, Rothaermel FT (2016) Appropriability strategies to capture value from innovation. Thursby MC, ed. Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 3–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coburn CM, Berglund DR (1995) Partnerships: A Compendium of State and Federal Cooperative Technology Programs (Battelle Press, Columbus, OH).Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2016) Patents and the global diffusion of new drugs. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(1): 136–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Contigiani A, Barankay I, Hsu D (2016) Trade Secrets and Innovation: Evidence from the “Inevitable Disclosure” Doctrine (Wharton School, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Cotropia CA, Lemley MA (2008) Copying in patent law. North Carolina Law Rev. 87(5):1421–1466.Google Scholar
• Crass D, Garcia Valero F, Pitton F, Rammer C (2016) Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation. SSRN Working Paper 2844731, Center for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim, Germany.Google Scholar
• Dass N, Nanda VK, Xiao SC (2014) Intellectual property protection and financial markets: Patenting vs. secrecy. SSRN Working Paper 2648770, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
• Fischer T, Henkel J (2013) Complements and substitutes in profiting from innovation: A choice experimental approach. Res. Policy 42(2):326–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M (2015) Patents and cumulative innovation: Causal evidence from the courts. Quart. J. Econom. 130(1): 317–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ge C, Huang K-W, Png IPL (2016) Engineer/Scientist careers: Patents, online profiles, and misclassification bias. Strategic Management J. 37(1):232–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilson RJ (1999) The legal infrastructure of high-technology industrial districts: Silicon valley, route 128, and covenants not to compete. New York Univ. Law Rev. 74(3):575–629.Google Scholar
• Glaeser S, Michels J, Verrecchia RE (2017) Discretionary disclosure and manager horizon. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2939852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B, Helmers C, Rogers M, Sena V (2014) The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. J. Econom. Literature 52(2):375–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, MacGarvie M (2010) The private value of software patents. Res. Policy 39(7):994–1009.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannah DR (2005) Should I keep a secret? The effects of trade secret protection procedures on employees’ obligations to protect trade secrets. Organ. Sci. 16(1):71–84.Link, Google Scholar
• Hecker D (1999) High-technology employment: A broader view. Monthly Labor Rev. 122(6):18.Google Scholar
• Henry MD, Turner JL (2006) The court of appeals for the federal circuit’s impact on patent litigation. J. Legal Stud. 35(1):85–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu P-H (2009) Technological innovations and aggregate risk premiums. J. Financial Econom. 94(2):264–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang KG, Murray FE (2009) Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Acad. Management J. 52(6):1193–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang K-w, Png IPL (2017) Mobility and appropriability: Evidence from “inevitable disclosure.” Working paper, National University of Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
• Jensen PH, Webster E (2009) Knowledge management: Does capture impede creation? Indust. Corporate Change 18(4):701–727.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2017) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koh P-S, Reeb DM (2015) Missing R&D. J. Accounting Econom. 60(1):73–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA (2008) The surprising virtues of treating trade secrets as IP rights. Stanford Law Rev. 61(2):311–353.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (1995) Patenting in the shadow of competitors. J. Law Econom. 38(2):463–495.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J (2001) The choice of intellectual property protection: Evidence from civil litigation. Working paper, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Seru A (2015) The use and misuse of patent data: Issues for corporate finance and beyond. NBER Working paper, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Liebeskind JP (1997) Keeping organizational secrets: Protective institutional mechanisms and their costs. Indust. Corporate Change 6(3):623–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Z (2016) Intellectual property allocation and firm investments in innovation. Working paper, McCombs School of Business University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
• Moser P (2012) Innovation without patents: Evidence from world’s fairs. J. Law Econom. 55(1):43–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (2008) Business R&D and innovation survey. National Center Sci. Engrg. Statist.Google Scholar
• Ottoz E, Cugno F (2008) Patent-secret mix in complex product firms. Amer. Law Econom. Rev. 10(1):142–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Png IPL (2017) Law and innovation: Evidence from state trade secrets laws. Rev. Econom. Statist. 99(1):167–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pooley J (1997) Trade Secrets (Law Journal Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Ribstein LE, Kobayashi BH (1996) An economic analysis of uniform state laws. J. Legal Stud. 25(1):131–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Risch M (2017) Empirical methods in trade secret research. Menell PS, Schwartz DL, eds. Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law: Vol. II—Analytical Methods (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA). Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2012) Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Management 38(4):1084–1114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starr EP (2017) Consider this: Training, wages, and the enforceability of covenants not to compete. SSRN Working Paper 2556669.Google Scholar
• State Science and Technology Institute (1996) State Funding for Cooperative Technology Programs (State Science and Technology Institute, Columbus, OH).Google Scholar
• State Science and Technology Institute (1997) Science and Technology Strategic Planning (State Science and Technology Institute, Columbus, OH).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
• Wilson DJ (2009) Beggar thy neighbor? The in-state, out-of-state, and aggregate effects of R&D tax credits. Rev. Econom. Statist. 91(2):431–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).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