APPROPRIABILITY OF INNOVATION RESULTS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN SPANISH MANUFACTURING FIRMS

Abstract This study is intended to analyse several mechanisms available to companies in order to appropriate the results of their innovative activities. These mechanisms include patents, industrial secret, cost and time of imitation and continuous innovation. Specifically, this paper focuses on studying the factors that determine the choice of one appropriation method over another. To this end, we propose a specific model of analysis, which includes various hypotheses to be tested in a sample of 258 Spanish manufacturing companies. The results confirm that companies that mostly use explicit knowledge chose the patenting system as a defence mechanism, while those companies in which tacit type knowledge predominates tend to opt for industrial secret. We could also prove that larger companies tend to choose the patenting system as a protection mechanism. Finally, the hypothesis that companies that use high-commitment human resources practices use continuous innovation or technological leadership as a protection mechanism could also be tested.

[1]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[2]  Vesa Kanniainen,et al.  Do patents slow down technological progress?: Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction , 2000 .

[3]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[4]  A. Arundel.  The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation , 2001 .

[5]  R. Hall.  The strategic analysis of intangible resources , 1992 .

[6]  D. Teece.  Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets , 2004 .

[7]  J. Barney.  Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy , 1986 .

[8]  A. Arora.  PATENTS, LICENSING, AND MARKET STRUCTURE IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY , 1996 .

[9]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[10]  R. Whitley,et al.  Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK , 2004 .

[11]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States , 2002 .

[12]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[13]  William Kingston,et al.  Innovation needs patents reform , 2001 .

[14]  Janusz A. Ordover,et al.  A Patent System for Both Diffusion and Exclusion , 1991 .

[15]  Nikolaus Thumm,et al.  Strategic Patenting in Biotechnology , 2004, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[16]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The knowledge-creating company , 2008 .

[17]  Hiroyuki Itami.  Mobilizing invisible assets , 1987 .

[18]  A. King,et al.  Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox , 2001 .

[19]  Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld,et al.  The Impact on Economic Performance of a Transformation in Workplace Relations , 1991 .

[20]  Brian Shaw,et al.  Appropriation and transfer of innovation benefit in the U.K. medical equipment industry , 1986 .

[21]  Mark A. Huselid.  The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance , 1995 .

[22]  J. Lawler,et al.  Organizational and HRM Strategies in Korea: Impact on Firm Performance in an Emerging Economy , 2000 .

[23]  J. Barney,et al.  IS THE RESOURCE-BASED " VIEW " A USEFUL PERSPECTIVE FOR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH ? , 2001 .

[24]  Theresa M. Welbourne,et al.  Predicting the Performance of Initial Public Offerings: Should Human Resource Management be in the Equation? , 1996 .

[25]  G. Schilling.  How to Turn a Big Scope Into a Virtual Behemoth , 1998, Science.

[26]  J. Barney,et al.  Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? , 1986 .

[27]  E. L. Cox,et al.  Guest editors\' introduction to the special issue: why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity , 2003 .

[28]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[29]  M. Nieto,et al.  The influence of knowledge attributes on innovation protection mechanisms , 2004 .

[30]  E. Mansfield,et al.  Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study , 1981 .

[31]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[32]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of Us Patent Re-Examinations and European Patent Oppositions , 2002 .

[33]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[34]  Jesus Galende,et al.  The appropriation of the results of innovative activity , 2006, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[35]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow , 2002 .

[36]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test , 1995 .

[37]  Nikolaus Thumm,et al.  Patents for genetic inventions: a tool to promote technological advance or a limitation for upstream inventions? , 2005 .

[38]  John E. Delery,et al.  Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions , 1996 .

[39]  R. Reed,et al.  Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 1990 .

[40]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[41]  J. Barney.  Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes , 2001 .

[42]  R. Levin.  Appropriability, R&D Spending, and Technological Performance , 1988 .

[43]  W. Bean.  Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy , 1961 .

[44]  Margaret A. Peteraf.  The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view , 1993 .

[45]  J. Arthur.  The Link between Business Strategy and Industrial Relations Systems in American Steel Minimills , 1992 .

[46]  C. F. Phillips.  Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance , 1971 .

[47]  N. Harabi,et al.  Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis , 1995 .

[48]  Jeffrey B. Arthur,et al.  Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover , 1994 .

[49]  P. Geroski.  What do we know about entry , 1995 .

[50]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[51]  P. Saviotti.  On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge , 1998 .

[52]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  The objectives of technology policy , 1987 .

[53]  Henry R. Hertzfeld,et al.  Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships , 2006 .

[54]  Salvatore Torrisi,et al.  Industrial Organisation and Innovation: An International Study of the Software Industry , 1998 .

[55]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[56]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[57]  Ignatius J. Horstmann,et al.  Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent , 1985, Journal of Political Economy.

[58]  Richard L. Priem,et al.  Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? , 2001 .

[59]  K. Blind,et al.  Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany , 2006 .

[60]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Experience, experimentation, and the accumulation of knowledge: the evolution of R&D in the semiconductor industry , 2003 .

[61]  E. von Hippel,et al.  Sources of Innovation , 2016 .

[62]  Richard Makadok.  Can first-mover and early-mover advantages be sustained in an industry with low barriers to entry/imitation? , 1998 .

[63]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Internal Capabilities And External Networks In Innovative Activities. Evidence From The Software Industry , 1992 .

[64]  Klaus Brockhoff,et al.  Exploring Strategic R&D Success Factors , 2003, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[65]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[66]  O. Williamson.  Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives , 1994 .

[67]  M. Tushman,et al.  Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for schumpeterian innovation , 1998 .

[68]  O. Granstrand.  The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property , 1999 .

[69]  J. Guthrie.  High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from New Zealand , 2001 .

[70]  Katherine T. Durack,et al.  Tacit knowledge in patent applications: observations on the value of models to early US Patent Office practice and potential implications for the 21st century , 2004 .

[71]  E. Mansfield.  Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study , 1986 .

[72]  R. T. Beaty,et al.  The competitive challenge , 1993 .

[73]  Casey Ichniowski,et al.  The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity , 1995 .

[74]  R. Garud,et al.  TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY: CONTINUAL STRUCTURING BY INTERTEMPORAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER , 1994 .

[75]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  ORIGINS OF ORDER , 2019, Origins of Order.

[76]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[77]  Robert H. Pitkethly.  Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities , 2001 .

[78]  Brian E. Becker,et al.  THE IMPACT OF HIGH PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS , IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS , AND ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGY ON SHAREHOLDER WEALTH , 1997 .

[79]  John Paul Macduffie.  Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry , 1995 .

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

[81]  J. Spender.  Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm , 1996 .

[82]  A. Arundel,et al.  What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms , 1998 .

[83]  D. H. Besterfield.  Quality control , 1979 .

[84]  H. FlomJ,et al.  The expanding scope of SEC disclosure laws. , 1974 .

[85]  Mark A. Huselid,et al.  The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance , 1996 .

[86]  M. Gordon,et al.  PUBLICATION RECORDS AND TENURE DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1996 .

[87]  A. Burns.  Comparative economic organization , 1955 .

[88]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law , 1990 .

[89]  A. Kleinknecht,et al.  Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: an exploration of CIS micro data , 1999 .

[90]  Steven D. Maurer,et al.  Trade secret management in high technology , 2000 .

[91]  John F. R. Harter.  The Propensity to Patent with Differentiated Products , 1994 .

[92]  R. Walton,et al.  From Control to Commitment in the Workplace: In Factory after Factory, There Is a Revolution Under Way in the Management of Work. Readings on Labor-Management Relations. , 1991 .

[93]  Petr Hanel,et al.  Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of the literature , 2006 .

[94]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Post-Issue Patent , 2002 .

[95]  D. Teece,et al.  Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics , 1997 .

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

[97]  M. Polanyi.  Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy , 1959 .

[98]  Bernard L. Simonin.  Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances , 1999 .

[99]  Kalevi Kyläheiko,et al.  The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis , 2007 .

[100]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .