Does Patent Strategy Shape the Long-Run Supply of Public Knowledge?

How do firms’ patent strategies, and the landscape of private property rights they collectively produce, influence the long-run production of public knowledge? Management scholars have paid close attention to the ways in which firms benefit from public knowledge—ideas disclosed through open commons institutions—by using it to generate private knowledge, which is protected by private property institutions such as patents (Cockburn and Henderson 1998; Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Fleming and Sorenson 2004; Powell et al. 1996). However, they have paid scant attention to the converse relationship: the impact of private knowledge on public knowledge production. Instead, legal and policy analyses dominate the study of this relationship (Heller 2008; Heller and Eisenberg 1998; Lessig 2004). This situation speaks to the importance of a management perspective linking policy and legal studies with organizational theory and strategy that can initiate a rich agenda examining the interaction between firm strategy and the institutional foundations of knowledge work.

[1]  William Shockley,et al.  The theory of p-n junctions in semiconductors and p-n junction transistors , 1949, Bell Syst. Tech. J..

[2]  R. Nelson The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[4]  W. Hagstrom The scientific community , 1966 .

[5]  Martin L. Weitzman,et al.  Free Access vs. Private Ownership as Alternative Systems for Managing Common Property , 1974 .

[6]  N. Rosenberg Science, Invention and Economic Growth , 1974 .

[7]  George J. Stigler,et al.  The Citation Practices of Doctorates in Economics , 1975, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  J. Hausman Specification tests in econometrics , 1978 .

[9]  James Austin Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts: by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1979. , 1982 .

[10]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship , 1984 .

[11]  A. Cameron,et al.  Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests , 1986 .

[12]  M. Ferber,et al.  CITATIONS AND NETWORKING , 1988 .

[13]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[14]  U.S. seeks patent on genetic codes, setting off furor. , 1991, The New York times on the Web.

[15]  S. Scotchmer,et al.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law , 1991 .

[16]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[17]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[18]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Measuring competence?: exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research , 1994 .

[19]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[20]  J. Lerner The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis , 1994 .

[21]  Paul M. Romer,et al.  The Origins of Endogenous Growth , 1994 .

[22]  R. Kohler, Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. , 1995 .

[23]  D. Yao,et al.  Some Reflections on the Antitrust Treatment of Intellectual Property , 1995 .

[24]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  On the Sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities , 1995 .

[25]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[26]  Rebecca S. Eisenberg,et al.  Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research , 1996 .

[27]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention , 1997 .

[28]  Kimberly S. Hamilton,et al.  The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science , 1997 .

[29]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[30]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data , 1998 .

[31]  D. Resnik Conflicts of Interest in Science , 1998, Perspectives on Science.

[32]  D. Resnik Industry‐Sponsored Research: Secrecy versus Corporate Responsibility , 1998 .

[33]  J. Gans,et al.  Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction , 1999 .

[34]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data , 1998 .

[35]  R. Nelson,et al.  Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents , 1998 .

[36]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[37]  J. Merz,et al.  Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. , 1999, Clinical chemistry.

[38]  B. Kogut,et al.  Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks , 1999 .

[39]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[40]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting , 2000, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[41]  M. Meyer Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature , 2000 .

[42]  Richard A. Posner,et al.  An Economic Analysis of the Use of Citations in the Law , 2000 .

[43]  Philippe Ducor,et al.  Coauthorship and Coinventorship , 2000, Science.

[44]  M A Holman,et al.  Intellectual property rights in genes and gene fragments: a registration solution for expressed sequence tags. , 2000, Iowa law review.

[45]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .

[46]  E. Duflo,et al.  How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? , 2001 .

[47]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Determinants of Opposition against EPO Patent Grants – The Case of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals ∗ , 2002 .

[48]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. , 2002, JAMA.

[49]  Jon F. Merz,et al.  DNA Patenting and Licensing , 2002, Science.

[50]  Jerry G. Thursby,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[51]  R. Tijssen Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors , 2002 .

[52]  J. Gans,et al.  The Product Market and the Market for 'Ideas': Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs , 2002 .

[53]  Fiona E. Murray Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering , 2002 .

[54]  Mildred K Cho,et al.  Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. , 2003, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[55]  W. Powell,et al.  The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity , 2003 .

[56]  Deepak Somaya Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation , 2003 .

[57]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery , 2003 .

[58]  Michelle Gittelman,et al.  Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[59]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: increasing opportunity and decreasing ability? , 2003 .

[60]  T. Hubbard,et al.  A census of human cancer genes , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[61]  Lawrence Lessig,et al.  Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity , 2004 .

[62]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis Don't Fence Me in: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[63]  Marc Rysman,et al.  Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard Setting Organizations , 2005 .

[64]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  View from the Bench: Patents and Material Transfers , 2005, Science.

[65]  Michael A. Hitt,et al.  Management Theory and Research: Potential Contribution to Public Policy and Public Organizations , 2005 .

[66]  Fiona Murray,et al.  Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome , 2005, Science.

[67]  Benjamin Coriat,et al.  Are “strong patents” beneficial to innovative activities? Lessons from the genetic testing for breast cancer controversies , 2005 .

[68]  G. Hoetker,et al.  DEATH HURTS, BUT IT ISN'T FATAL: THE POSTEXIT DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE CREATED BY INNOVATIVE COMPANIES. , 2005 .

[69]  E. Hippel,et al.  Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives , 2006 .

[70]  M. Angrist,et al.  Who owns the genome? , 2006, New Atlantis.

[71]  E. Garfield Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. , 1955, International journal of epidemiology.

[72]  Debra L. Greenfield Greenberg v. Miami Children 's Hospital: unjust enrichment and the patenting of human genetic material. , 2006, Annals of health law.

[73]  Fiona E. Murray The stem-cell market - patents and the pursuit of scientific progress. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[74]  Fiona Murray,et al.  Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[75]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Norms-Based Intellectual Property Systems: The Case of French Chefs , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[76]  Michael A. Heller,et al.  The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives , 2008 .

[77]  Scott Stern,et al.  Climbing Atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research , 2006, American Economic Review.

[78]  Fiona E. Murray,et al.  Entrepreneurial Experiments in Science Policy: Analyzing the Human Genome Project , 2009 .

[79]  K. Huang,et al.  Mobility, retention and productivity of genomics scientists in the United States , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[80]  K. Huang Uncertain Intellectual Property Conditions and Knowledge Appropriation Strategies: Evidence from the Genomics Industry , 2017 .