Relationship of Weak Modularity and Intellectual Property Rights for Software Products

  • Stefan Kambiz BehfarEmail author
  • Qumars Behfar
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 805)


There are very few studies in the literature regarding the impact of modularity on intellectual property rights, which refer to modularity of underlying products to capture value within firms. This paper brings together theory of software modularity from computer science and Intellectual Property (IP) rights from management literature in order to address the question of value appropriation for IP rights within software products. It defines the term of intellectual property associated with software products or platforms as opposed to the term of intellectual property used within particular firms serving as a source of economic rent. It initially discusses the concepts behind usage of modularity as a means to protect IP rights and explain differences of organization and product modularity, while rendering calculation for probability of imitation for weak modular systems. It investigates threat of imitation; where the main contribution of this paper is to provide a systematic analysis of value appropriation in weak modular systems by introducing a relationship between probability of imitation and module interdependency.


Weak modularity Intellectual property right Probability of imitation Module interdependency 


  1. 1.
    Kogut, B., Metiu, A.: Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 17(2), 248–264 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carliss, Y., Baldwin, J.H.: The Impact of Modularity on Intellectual Property and Value Appropriation. Harvard Business School (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simon, H.A.: The architecture of complexity. In: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (1962)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simon, H.A.: Near Decomposibility and Speed of Evolution. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Langlois, R.N.: Modularity in technology and organization. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 49, 19–37 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B.: Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Bus. Rev. 75(5), 84–93 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, A.: An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Glasgow edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1976)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wagner, R.P.: Information wants to be free: intellectual property and the mythologies of control. Columbia Law Rev. 103, 995–1034 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon, W.J.: Authors, publishers, and public goods: trading gold for dross. Loyola Los Angeles Law Rev. 36, 159–200 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon, W.J.: Asymmetric market failure and prisoner’s dilemma in intellectual property. 17 U. Dayton L. Rev. 853, 854 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pil, F., Cohen, S.K.: Modularity: implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31(4), 995–1011 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Potanin, A., Noble, J., Frean, M., Biddle, R.: Scale-free geometry in OO programs. Commun. ACM 48, 99–103 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma, J., Zend, D., Zhao, H.: Modeling the growth of complex software function dependency networks. Inf. Syst. Front. 14(2), 301–315 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Behfar, S.K., Turkina, E., Cohendet, P., Burger-Helmchena, T.: Directed networks’ different link formation mechanisms causing degree distribution distinction. Phys. A 462, 479–491 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ethiraj, S.K., Levinthal, D., Toy, R.R.: The dual role of modularity: innovation and imitation. Manag. Sci. 54(5), 939–955 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital LabCGI ConsultingStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Neurology DepartmentCologne UniversityCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations