IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property

In this paper we explain how firms seeking to take advantage of distributed innovation and outsourcing can bridge the tension between value creation and value capture by modifying the modular structure of their technical systems. Specifically, we introduce the concept of “IP modularity”, a special form of modularity that seeks to protect and capture value from intellectual property (IP). We define what it means for a system to be “IP-modular,” and illustrate the application of this concept in a number of practical situations. From the examples, we derive a comprehensive framework that can be used to design and evaluate value capture strategies for modular systems.

[1]  Paulo J. Gomes,et al.  Linking modularity with problem solving and coordination efforts , 2008 .

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

[3]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  PATENT SHARKS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF VALUE DESTRUCTION STRATEGIES. , 2008 .

[4]  A. Tiwana.  Does interfirm modularity complement ignorance? A field study of software outsourcing alliances , 2008 .

[5]  A. Tiwana.  Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing , 2008 .

[6]  R. Langlois.  The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism , 2001 .

[7]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Profiting from Voluntary Information Spillovers: How Users Benefit by Freely Revealing Their Innovations , 2003 .

[8]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Keeping Organizational Secrets: Protective Institutional Mechanisms and their Costs , 1997 .

[9]  S. Sanderson,et al.  Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman , 1995 .

[10]  Stan N. Finkelstein,et al.  Product designs which encourage -- or discourage -- related innovation by users: an analysis of innovation in automated clinical chemistry analyzers , 1979 .

[11]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed” , 2007 .

[12]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking , 2006 .

[13]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[14]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 247–257 PERSPECTIVE: User toolkits for innovation , 2022 .

[15]  Lars Bo Jeppesen,et al.  Profiting from innovative user communities: How firms organize the production of user modifications in the computer games industry , 2004 .

[16]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  The Impact of Modularity on Intellectual Property and Value Appropriation , 2011 .

[17]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Organization Design for Business Ecosystems , 2012 .

[18]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs Via Innovation Toolkits: The Case of Apache Security Software , 2002 .

[19]  Harry McVea,et al.  Financial Conglomerates and the Chinese Wall: Regulating Conflicts of Interest , 1993 .

[20]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[21]  P. Williamson,et al.  Ecosystem Advantage: How to Successfully Harness the Power of Partners , 2012 .

[22]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  IP Modularity in Software Ecosystems: How SugarCRM's IP and Business Model Shape Its Product Architecture , 2012, ICSOB.

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

[24]  D. Teece,et al.  How to Capture Value from Innovation: Shaping Intellectual Property and Industry Architecture , 2007 .

[25]  Ove Granstrand,et al.  Managing the Intellectual Property Disassembly Problem , 2013 .

[26]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View , 2008 .

[27]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model? , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[28]  Deanne MacLeod,et al.  Financial Conglomerates and the Chinese Wall: Regulating Conflicts of Interest , 1994 .

[29]  Charles H. Fine.  Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control In The Age Of Temporary Advantage , 1998 .

[30]  R. Langlois,et al.  Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries , 1992 .

[31]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Intellectual Property, Architecture, and the Management of Technological Transitions: Evidence from Microsoft Corporation , 2009 .

[32]  S. Mazzocchi.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology , 2004 .

[33]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms , 2007 .

[34]  James F. Moore.  The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems , 1996 .

[35]  M. Jacobides.  Industry Change Through Vertical Dis-Integration: How and Why Markets Emerged in Mortgage Banking , 2004 .

[36]  Simone Käs.  Rethinking industry practice: the emergence of openness in the embedded component industry , 2008 .

[37]  Paolo Leon.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1986, The Antitrust Bulletin.

[38]  G. Hoetker.  Do Modular Products Lead to Modular Organizations , 2006 .

[39]  Ammon Salter,et al.  Cui Bono? The Selective Revealing of Knowledge and Its Implications for Innovative Activity , 2012 .

[40]  John M. Golden.  'Patent Trolls' and Patent Remedies , 2007 .

[41]  Charles H. Ferguson,et al.  Computer Wars: How the West Can Win in a Post-IBM World , 1993 .

[42]  O. Williamson.  Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations , 1979, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[43]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  Interfirm Modularity and Its Implications for Product Development , 2005 .

[44]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation , 2002 .

[45]  Yuanfang Cai,et al.  Analyzing the Evolution of Large-Scale Software Systems Using Design Structure Matrices and Design Rule Theory: Two Exploratory Cases , 2008, Seventh Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2008).

[46]  R. Sanchez.  Strategic flexibility in product competition , 1995 .

[47]  Timothy M. Rivinus.  The Deadly Embrace , 1990 .