Skip to main content

Abstract

In the last decades, with the rise of innovation as the engine of growth for firms, sectors and nations, patents have gained a central place in business and policy debates. The primary objective of a patent is to provide a legally enforceable protection against imitation to any invention that can demonstrate a sufficient innovative step and that satisfies the criteria of non-obviousness and industrial application. In that sense, the observation of a patent obviously witnesses the presence of some kind of innovation. But patents do not only serve as a protection mechanism. They are also highly valuable strategic tools for firms seeking to develop strong technological positions and build competitive advantage. Patents as defenders of a firm’s innovation rents, and patents as builders of a firm’s technological and competitive position, both perspectives justify the interest in deepening our understanding of what determines a firm’s patenting behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arora, A., ‘Patents, Licensing, and Market Structure in Chemicals’, Research Policy, 26 (4–5) (1997), 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in R. R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), 609–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., ‘The Relative Effectiveness of Patents and Secrecy for Appropriation’, Research Policy, 30 (4) (2001), 611–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A. and I. Kabla, ‘What Percentage of Innovations is Patented?’, Research Policy, 27 (2) (1998), 127–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R., P. Hanel and D. Sabourin, ‘Determinants of Innovative Activity in Canadian Manufacturing Firms’, in A. Kleinknecht and P. Mohnen (eds), Innovation and Firm Performance: Econometric Explorations of Survey Data (New York: Palgrave, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., The Free Market Innovation Machine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bound, J., C. Cummings, Z. Griliches, B. H. Hall and A. B. Jaffe, ‘Who Does R&D and Who Patents?’, in Z. Griliches (ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, E. and A. Kleinknecht, ‘Innovative Output and a Firm Propensity to Patent. An Exploration of CIS Micro Data’, Research Policy, 28 (6) (1999), 615–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., D. Pérez-Castrillo and R. Veugelers, ‘Endogenizing Know-How Flows through the Nature of R&D Investments’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20 (6) (2001), 775–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and R. C. Levin, ‘Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure’, in R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig (eds), Handbook of Industrial Organization (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson and J. P. Walsh, ‘Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not)’, NBER Working Paper 7552 (2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crépon, B., E. Duguet and I. Kabla, ‘Schumpeterian Conjectures: A Moderate Support from Various Innovation Measures’, in A. Kleinknecht (ed.), Determinants of Innovation — The Message from New Indicators (New York: Palgrave, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crépon, B., E. Duguet and J. Mairesse, ‘Research, Innovation, and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7 (2) (1998), 115–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duguet, E. and I. Kabla, ‘Appropriation Strategy and the Motivations to use the Patent System: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing’, Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49/50 (1998), 289–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, R. and D. Newberry, ‘Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly’, American Economic Review, 72 (3) (1982), 514–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazier, S. C. Patent Strategies for Business (L B I Law & Business Institute, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. and C. Baden-Fuller, ‘A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances’, Journal of Management Studies, 41 (1) (2004), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H., Econometric Analysis (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., ‘Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (4) (1990), 1661–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Z. Griliches and J. A. Hausman, ‘Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag?’, International Economic Review, 27 (2) (1986), 265–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C, A. K. Klerovick, R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3 (1987) 783–831, printed in E. Mansfield and E. Mansfield (eds), The Economics of Technical Change (Vermont: Edward Elgar, 1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lööf, H. and A. Heshmati, ‘Knowledge Capital and Performance Heterogeneity: An Innovation Study at Firm Level’, International Journal of Production Economics, 76 (1) (2002), 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., ‘Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study’, Management Science, 32 (2) (1986), 173–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., ‘The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research’, Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3) (1959), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, A. O., ‘Patenting, R&D and Market Structure: Manufacturing Firms in Denmark’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 66 (1) (2001), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, R. L. and P. H. Sullivan, Technology Licensing (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeters, C. and B. van Pottelsberghe, ‘Measuring Innovation Competencies and Performances — A Survey of Large Firms in Belgium’, IIR Working Paper 03–16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University (2003a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeters, C. and B. van Pottelsberghe, ‘Organizational Competencies and Innovation Performances — The Case of Large Firms in Belgium’, IIR Working Paper 03–19, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University (2003b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitzig, M., ‘Strategic Management of Intellectual Property’, Sloan Management Review, 45 (3) (2004), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T. and H. G. Gemünden, ‘Network Competence: Its Impact on Innovation Success and its Antecedents’, Journal of Business Research, 56 (9) (2003), 745–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivette, K. G. and D. Kline, Rembrandts in the Attic (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M., ‘Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity, and the Output of Patented Inventions’, American Economic Review, 55 (5) (1965), 1097–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M., ‘The Propensity to Patent’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1 (1) (1983), 107–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmookler, J., ‘Inventors Past and Present’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3) (1957), 321–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmookler, J., Invention and Economic Growth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1942).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. and J. Green, ‘Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law’, RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1) (1990), 131–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, E. F. and D. J. Teece, ‘Royalties, Evolving Patent Rights, and the Value of Innovation’, Research Policy, 33 (2) (2004), 179–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., ‘Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangibles Assets’, California Management Review, 40 (3) (1998), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S., ‘Who Co-operates for Innovation, and Why — An Empirical Analysis’, Research Policy, 31 (6) (2002), 947–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ophem, H., E. Brouwer, A. Kleinknecht and P. Mohnen, ‘The Mutual Relation between Patents and R&D’, in A. Kleinknecht and P. Mohnen (eds), Innovation and Firm Performance: Econometric Explorations of Survey Data (New York: Palgrave, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. and B. Cassiman, ‘Make and Buy in Innovation Strategies: Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing Firms’, Research Policy, 28 (1) (1999), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2006 Applied Econometrics Association

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peeters, C., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2006). Complex Innovation Strategies and Patenting Behaviour. In: Peeters, C., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (eds) Economic and Management Perspectives on Intellectual Property Rights. Applied Econometrics Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504745_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics