Monetization of Intellectual Property: An Open Innovation Perspective

Conference paper


Monetization of intellectual property (IP) presents a challenge to firms in a market economy because innovation is expensive to produce and inexpensive to copy. Still, individual firms, in search of supernormal profits, continue to invest in innovation and employ a variety of means to monetize IP. This chapter discusses several forms of monetization—including sale of products, licensing and sale of technologies, and securitization—and suggests the importance of complementary marketing assets for monetization. Finally, this chapter discusses monetization of IP in the context of the emerging open innovation paradigm—in contrast to the vertical integration (VI) model of innovation—with reference to open-source and proprietary software and concludes that there is a trend toward coexistence and convergence between the two.


Intellectual Property Open Innovation Proprietary Software Trade Secret Technology License 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author thanks Hayley Stewart for her excellent research assistance.


  1. Arora A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R (ed) The rate and direction of incentive activity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barefoot KB, Mataloni RJ (2011) Operations of U.S. multinational companies in the United States and abroad. Survey of Current Business (November):2948Google Scholar
  4. Baumol WJ (2002) The free-market innovation machine. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2011) Detailed statistics for cross-border trade, royalties and license Fees, 1999 and 2009, Table 4.
  6. Chesbrough H (2003) The Era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 44(3):35–41Google Scholar
  7. Chesbrough H (2011) The case for open services innovation: the commodity trap. Calif Manage Rev 53(3):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen JF (2006) Withering core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? In: Chesbrough H (ed) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 35–61Google Scholar
  9. Corbet J (2007) Who wrote 2.6.20?
  10. Ghauri PN, Rao PM (2009) Intellectual property, pharmaceutical MNEs and the developing. J World Bus 44(2):206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillery JS (2004) Securitization of intellectual property: recent trends (March), Washington/CORE.
  12. Hulten CR (2010) Decoding Microsoft: intangible capital as a source of company growth. NBER working paper 15799. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Isckia T, Lescop D (2009) Open innovation within business ecosystems: a tale from Commun Strateg 74(2nd quarter):37–54Google Scholar
  14. Jones CI, Williams JC (1997) Measuring the social return to R&D. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Kraemer KL, Linden G, Dedrick J (2011) Capturing value in global networks: Apple’s iPad and iPhone. University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  16. Nadiri MJ (1993) Innovations and technological spillovers. Working paper no. 4423. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Nordhaus WD (2004) Schumpeterian profits in the American economy: theory and measurement. NBER working paper 10433. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Pisano GP (2006) Science business. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Rao PM (2005) Sustaining competitive advantage in a high-technology environment: a strategic marketing perspective. Adv Competitive Res 13(1):33–47Google Scholar
  20. Rao PM, Klein JA, Chandra R (2009) Innovation without property rights and property rights without innovation: recent developments in the ICT sector. Ad Competitive Res 19(1&2):83–99Google Scholar
  21. Red Hat, Inc. Statement of Position and Our Promise on Software Patents. Patent Policy. Accessed on 4 July 2008
  22. Richtel M, Wortham J (2011) Motorola’s identity crisis. The New York Times.
  23. Schwartz M, Takhteyev Y (2009) Half century of Public Software Institutions: open source as a solution to hold-up problem. NBER working paper 14946. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Somaya D, Teece D, Wakeman S (2011) Innovation in multi-invention contexts: mapping solutions to technological and intellectual property complexity. Calif Manage Rev 53(4):47–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teece D (2000) Managing intellectual capital. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. USPTO (2004) Annual list of top 10 organizations receiving most US Patents.
  27. Vinod HD, Rao PM (2000) R&D and promotion in pharmaceuticals: a conceptual framework and empirical exploration. J Mark Theory Pract 8(4):10–20Google Scholar
  28. von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. West J, Gallagher S (2006) Patterns of Open Innovation in Open Source Software, in Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West, eds., Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 82–106.Google Scholar
  30. West J, Vanhaverbeke W, Chesbrough H (2006) Open innovation: a research agenda. In: Chesbrough H (ed) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 285–307Google Scholar
  31. Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Long Island University-Post CampusBrookvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations