Safeguarding Secrets, Shaping Acquisitions: Trade Secret Protection and the Role of Distance Between Acquirer and Target

References

• Aggarwal VA, Hsu DH (2014) Entrepreneurial exits and innovation. Management Sci. 60(4):867–887.Link, 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
• Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84(3):488–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen JW, Phillips GM (2000) Corporate equity ownership, strategic alliances, and product market relationships. J. Finance 55(6):2791–2815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almeling DS (2012) Seven reasons why trade secrets are increasingly important. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 27(2):1091–1117.Google Scholar
• Anderson E, Gatignon H (1986) Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 17(3):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arundel A (2001) The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Res. Policy 30(4):611–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker AC, Larcker DF, Wang CCY (2022) How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates? J. Financial Econom. 144(2):370–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney JB (1986) Strategic factor markets. Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Sci. 32(10):1231–1241.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besen SM, Raskind LJ (1991) An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property. J. Econom. Perspect. 5(1):3–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boeh KK (2011) Contracting costs and information asymmetry reduction in cross-border M&A. J. Management Stud. 48(3):568–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borusyak K, Jaravel X, Spiess J (2024) Revisiting event-study designs: Robust and efficient estimation. Rev. Econom. Stud. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brealey RA, Myers SC (2000) Principles of Corporate Finance, 6th ed. (Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston).Google Scholar
• Cassiman B, Colombo MG, Garrone P, Veugelers R (2005) The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness. Res. Policy 34(2):195–220.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
• Castellaneta F, Conti R, Kacperczyk A (2020) The (un) intended consequences of institutions lowering barriers to entrepreneurship: The impact on female workers. Strategic Management J. 41(7):1274–1304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cengiz D, Dube A, Lindner A, Zipperer B (2019) The effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs. Quart. J. Econom. 134(3):1405–1454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen S-FS (2008) The motives for international acquisitions: Capability procurements, strategic considerations, and the role of ownership structures. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 39(3):454–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen D, Gao H, Ma Y (2021) Human capital-driven acquisition: Evidence from the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine. Management Sci. 67(8):4643–4664.Link, Google Scholar
• Chondrakis G (2016) Unique synergies in technology acquisitions. Res. Policy 45(9):1873–1889.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chondrakis G, Serrano CJ, Ziedonis RH (2021) Information disclosure and the market for acquiring technology companies. Strategic Management J. 42(5):1024–1053.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clougherty JA, Zhang N (2020) Foreign investor reactions to risk and uncertainty in antitrust: U.S. merger policy investigations and the deterrence of foreign acquirer presence. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 52(3):454–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coff RW (1999) How buyers cope with uncertainty when acquiring firms in knowledge-intensive industries: Caveat emptor. Organ. Sci. 10(2):144–161.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Econom. J. (London) 99(397):569–596.Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Contigiani A, Hsu DH, Barankay I (2018) Trade secrets and innovation: Evidence from the “Inevitable Disclosure” Doctrine. Strategic Management J. 39(11):2921–2942.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cunningham J, Goodman-Bacon A (2024) Changes in family structure and welfare participation since the 1960s: The role of legal services. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Dube S, Zhu C (2021) The disciplinary effect of social media: Evidence from firms’ responses to Glassdoor reviews. J. Accounting Res. 59(5):1783–1825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eberhart RN, Eesley CE, Eisenhardt KM (2017) Failure is an option: Institutional change, entrepreneurial risk, and new firm growth. Organ. Sci. 28(1):93–112.Link, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Rawson C, Rogers JL, Zechman SLC (2018) Bridging the gap: Evidence from externally hired CEOs. J. Accounting Res. 56(2):521–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falaster C, Ferreira MP, Li D (2021) The influence of generalized and arbitrary institutional inefficiencies on the ownership decision in cross-border acquisitions. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 52(9):1724–1749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flammer C (2015) Does product market competition foster corporate social responsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strategic Management J. 36(10):1469–1485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flammer C, Kacperczyk AJ (2016) The impact of stakeholder orientation on innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Sci. 62(7):1982–2001.Link, Google Scholar
• Fontana R, Nuvolari A, Shimizu H, Vezzulli A (2013) Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a data set of R&D awards, 1977–2004. Res. Policy 42(10):1780–1792.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garmaise MJ (2011) Ties that truly bind: Noncompetition agreements, executive compensation, and firm investment. J. Law Econom. Organ. 27(2):376–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gehrig T (1993) An information based explanation of the domestic bias in international equity investment. Scandinavian J. Econom. 95(1):97–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giroud X, Mueller HM (2010) Does corporate governance matter in competitive industries? J. Financial. Econom. 95(3):312–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grimpe C, Hussinger K (2014) Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: The role of intellectual property rights. Strategic Management J. 35(12):1762–1780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Helmers C, Rogers M, Sena V (2014) The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. J. Econom. Literature 52(2):1–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management J. 15(8):63–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ (2000) The institutional environment for multinational investment. J. Law Econom. Organ. 16(2):334–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iacus SM, King G, Porro G, Katz JN (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Anal. 20(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jorda KF (2008) Patent and trade secret complementariness: An unsuspected synergy. Washburn Law J. 48:1–32.Google Scholar
• Kaiser U, Kongsted HC, Laursen K, Ejsing A-K (2018) Experience matters: The role of academic scientist mobility for industrial innovation. Strategic Management J. 39(7):1935–1958.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JD (2023) Startup acquisitions as a hiring strategy: Turnover differences between acquired and regular hires. Strategy Sci. 9(2):118–134.Link, Google Scholar
• Kim D, Linton K, Semanik M (2016) U.S. International Trade Commission’s trade secrets roundtable: Discussion summary. J. Internat. Commerce Econom. 1–13.Google Scholar
• Klasa S, Ortiz-Molina H, Serfling M, Srinivasan S (2018) Protection of trade secrets and capital structure decisions. J. Financial Econom. 128(2):266–286.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
• Kogut B (1991) Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management Sci. 37(1):19–33.Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 33(3):383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Lahiri S, Elango B, Kundu SK (2014) Cross-border acquisition in services: Comparing ownership choice of developed and emerging economy MNEs in India. J. World Bus. 49(3):409–420.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
• Lepak DP, Smith KG, Taylor MS (2007) Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 32(1):180–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin RC, Klevorick AK, Nilson RR, Winter SG (1987) Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity 3:783–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Y, Lin Y, Zhang L (2018) Trade secrets law and corporate disclosure: Causal evidence on the proprietary cost hypothesis. J. Accounting Res. 56(1):265–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liebeskind JP (1997) Keeping organizational secrets: Protective institutional mechanisms and their costs. Indust. Corporate Change 6(3):623–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liesch PW, Welch LS, Buckley PJ (2011) Risk and uncertainty in internationalisation and international entrepreneurship studies. Management Internat. Rev. 51(6):851–873.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makino S, Delios A (1996) Local knowledge transfer and performance: Implications for alliance formation in Asia. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 27(5):905–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malecki EJ (1980) Dimensions of R&D location in the United States. Res. Policy 9(1):2–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra S, Gaur AS (2013) Spatial geography and control in foreign acquisitions. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 45(2):191–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malsberger B (2004) Covenants Not to Compete: A State-by-State Survey (BNA Books, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Marcus M, Sant’Anna PHC (2021) The role of parallel trends in event study settings: An application to environmental economics. J. Assoc. Environ. Resources Econom. 8(2):235–275.Google Scholar
• Markman GD, Espina MI, Phan PH (2004) Patents as surrogates for inimitable and non-substitutable resources. J. Management 30(4):529–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marx M, Strumsky D, Fleming L (2009) Mobility, skills, and the Michigan non-compete experiment. Management Sci. 55(6):875–889.Link, Google Scholar
• Meyer KE, Estrin S, Bhaumik SK, Peng MW (2009) Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management J. 30(1):61–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mezias JM (2002) Identifying liabilities of foreignness and strategies to minimize their effects: The case of labor lawsuit judgement in the United States. Strategic Management J. 23(3):229–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nain A, Wang Y (2018) The product market impact of minority stake acquisitions. Management Sci. 64(2):825–844.Link, Google Scholar
• Ng W, Stuart TE (2022) Acquired employees vs. hired employees: Retained or turned over? Strategic Management J. 43(5):1025–1045.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ouimet PP (2013) What motivates minority acquisitions? The trade-offs between a partial equity stake and complete integration. Rev. Financial Stud. 26(4):1021–1047.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paruchuri S, Nerkar A, Hambrick DC (2006) Acquisition integration and productivity losses in the technical core: Disruption of inventors in acquired companies. Organ. Sci. 17(5):545–562.Link, Google Scholar
• Png IPL (2017a) Law and innovation: Evidence from state trade secrets laws. Rev. Econom. Statist. 99(1):167–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Png IPL (2017b) Secrecy and patents: Theory and evidence from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Strategy Sci. 2(3):176–193.Link, Google Scholar
• Png IPL, Samila S (2015) Trade secrets law and mobility: Evidence from ‘inevitable disclosure’. Preprint, submitted February 14, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1986775.Google Scholar
• Pollard J (2014) Choice of law has huge consequences, especially in NC non-compete case. The Non-Compete Blog (August 29), https://thenoncompeteblog.com/2014/08/29/choice-of-law-has-huge-consequences-especially-in-nc-non-compete-case/.Google Scholar
• Pooley J (1997) Trade Secrets (Law Journal Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Reuer JJ, Ragozzino R (2008) Adverse selection and M&A design: The roles of alliances and IPOs. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 66(2):195–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Risch M (2007) Why do we have trade secrets? Marquette Intellectual Property Law Rev. 11(1):1–76.Google Scholar
• Roth J (2022) Pretest with caution: Event-study estimates after testing for parallel trends. Amer. Econom. Rev. Insights 4(3):305–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandeen SK (2010) The evolution of trade secret law and why courts commit error when they do not follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Hamline Law Rev. 33:493–543.Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2012) Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Management 38(4):1084–1114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steinmeyer PA, Freeman S (2016) In today’s environment, what is ‘adequate consideration’ for a restrictive covenant signed by an existing employee? Epstein Becker Green Blogs (May 10), https://www.tradesecretsandemployeemobility.com/in-todays-environ ment-what-is-adequate-consideration-for-a-restrictive-covenant-signed-by-an-existing-employee.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
• Tong TW, Reuer JJ, Peng MW (2008) International joint ventures and the value of growth options. Acad. Management J. 51(5):1014–1029.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wadhwa A, Bodas Freitas IM, Sarkar MB (2017) The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organ. Sci. 28(5):873–893.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang R (2020) Judicial reward allocation for asymmetric secrets. Pace Law Rev. 40(2):226–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Y (2023) Trade secrets laws and technology spillovers. Res. Policy 52(7):104794.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winter SG (1987) Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. Teece DJ, ed. The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA), 159–184.Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2007) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Younge KA, Tong TW, Fleming L (2015) How anticipated employee mobility affects acquisition likelihood: Evidence from a natural experiment. Strategic Management J. 36(5):686–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer S, Schomaker M, Genc M (2003) Identity vs. culture in mergers of equals. Eur. Management J. 21(2):185–191.Crossref, Google Scholar