IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Bei, Xiaoshu

Abstract

In this article, I study the relationship between valuable trademarks and a firm’s technology sourcing strategy. The Profiting from Innovation (PFI) and Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) perspectives have generated competing predictions regarding firms’ historical stock of valuable trademarks and their decision to pursue external technology sourcing. To conduct the empirical analysis, I use a sample of innovator firms in the manufacturing sectors from the Division of Innovative Labor survey, matched to the USPTO trademark data. Consistent with the TCE perspective, I find that firms with valuable trademarks are less likely to commercialize external inventions, and are likely to have lower innovation performance if they do so. I further show a boundary condition for PFI such that when firms are new entrants to an industry but already holding valuable trademarks, they are more likely to commercialize external innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bei, Xiaoshu, 2019. "Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:9:18
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318302749
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teece, David J., 2010. "Technological Innovation and the Theory of the Firm," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 679-730, Elsevier.
    2. Prencipe, Andrea, 2000. "Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 895-911, August.
    3. Ulrich Schmoch, 2003. "Service marks as novel innovation indicator," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 149-156, August.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Stuart J.H. Graham & Galen Hancock & Alan C. Marco & Amanda Fila Myers, 2013. "The USPTO Trademark Case Files Dataset: Descriptions, Lessons, and Insights," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 669-705, December.
    6. Jianxi Luo & Carliss Y. Baldwin & Daniel E. Whitney & Christopher L. Magee, 2012. "The architecture of transaction networks: a comparative analysis of hierarchy in two sectors," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(6), pages 1307-1335, December.
    7. David J. Teece, 2008. "Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 11, pages 265-296, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    9. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    10. Ashish Arora & Robert P. Merges, 2004. "Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(3), pages 451-475, June.
    11. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    12. Nathan Rosenberg, 2009. "Uncertainty and Technological Change," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 8, pages 153-172, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Anne Parmigiani, 2007. "Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 285-311, March.
    14. Mendonca, Sandro & Pereira, Tiago Santos & Godinho, Manuel Mira, 2004. "Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1385-1404, November.
    15. Arora, Ashish & Cohen, Wesley M. & Walsh, John P., 2016. "The acquisition and commercialization of invention in American manufacturing: Incidence and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1113-1128.
    16. Melnyk, Valentyna & Giarratana, Marco & Torres, Anna, 2014. "Marking your trade: Cultural factors in the prolongation of trademarks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 478-485.
    17. Laurence Capron & Will Mitchell, 2009. "Selection Capability: How Capability Gaps and Internal Social Frictions Affect Internal and External Strategic Renewal," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 294-312, April.
    18. Marco Ceccagnoli & Stuart J.H. Graham & Matthew J. Higgins & Jeongsik Lee, 2010. "Productivity and the role of complementary assets in firms' demand for technology innovations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 839-869, June.
    19. Helfat, C.E. & Raubitschek, R.S., 2000. "Product Sequencing: Co-Evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products," Papers 00-1, U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division.
    20. Constance E. Helfat & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2002. "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 725-760, August.
    21. Alessio Cozzolino & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2018. "Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: Coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3053-3085, December.
    22. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Knowledge-Based Approaches to the Theory of the Firm: Some Critical Comments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 470-476, October.
    23. Paola Criscuolo & Keld Laursen & Toke Reichstein & Ammon Salter, 2018. "Winning combinations: search strategies and innovativeness in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 115-143, February.
    24. Higgins, Matthew J. & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2006. "The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 351-383, May.
    25. Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Lorin M. Hitt, 2012. "Information Technology and Trademarks: Implications for Product Variety," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1211-1226, June.
    26. Sandner, Philipp G. & Block, Joern, 2011. "The market value of R&D, patents, and trademarks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 969-985, September.
    27. Frank T. Rothaermel, 2001. "Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 687-699, June.
    28. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    29. Ashish Arora & Anand Nandkumar, 2012. "Insecure Advantage? Markets for Technology and the Value of Resources for Entrepreneurial Ventures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 231-251, March.
    30. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal, 2017. "Incubation of an industry: Heterogeneous knowledge bases and modes of value capture," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 566-587, March.
    31. Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2008. "Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1548-1555, October.
    32. Crass, Dirk, 2014. "Which firms use trademarks - and why? Representative firm-level evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-118, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    33. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    34. Sharon Novak & Scott Stern, 2008. "How Does Outsourcing Affect Performance Dynamics? Evidence from the Automobile Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(12), pages 1963-1979, December.
    35. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
    36. Frank T. Rothaermel & Charles W. L. Hill, 2005. "Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 52-70, February.
    37. Carolin Decker & Annika Baade, 2016. "Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(6), pages 648-665, November.
    38. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    39. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    40. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    41. Andrea Fosfuri & Marco S. Giarratana, 2009. "Masters of War: Rivals' Product Innovation and New Advertising in Mature Product Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 181-191, February.
    42. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    43. Colombo, Massimo G. & Grilli, Luca & Piva, Evila, 2006. "In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1166-1199, October.
    44. Anne Parmigiani & Will Mitchell, 2009. "Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm: the impact of within‐firm and interfirm expertise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(10), pages 1065-1091, October.
    45. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    46. Teece, David J., 2006. "Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1131-1146, October.
    47. Rahul Kapoor, 2013. "Persistence of Integration in the Face of Specialization: How Firms Navigated the Winds of Disintegration and Shaped the Architecture of the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1195-1213, August.
    48. Ulrich Schmoch & Stephan Gauch, 2009. "Service marks as indicators for innovation in knowledge-based services," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 323-335, October.
    49. Constance E. Helfat, 1997. "Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of r&d," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 339-360, May.
    50. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    51. Block, Joern H. & De Vries, Geertjan & Schumann, Jan H. & Sandner, Philipp, 2014. "Trademarks and venture capital valuation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 525-542.
    52. Andrea Fosfuri & Marco S. Giarratana & Alessandra Luzzi, 2008. "The Penguin Has Entered the Building: The Commercialization of Open Source Software Products," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 292-305, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    2. Thakur-Wernz, Pooja & Bruyaka, Olga & Contractor, Farok, 2022. "Sourcing portfolio diversity in new product development: Antecedents and performance implications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 179-193.
    3. Bernadette Power & Gavin C. Reid, 2023. "Lifting the hood of supply and demand for trademarks of start‐ups: Partial observability estimates," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 311-321, January.
    4. Yougen Cao & Shengce Ren & Mei Du, 2022. "Strategic trademark management: a systematic literature review and prospects for future research," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(5), pages 435-453, September.
    5. Matthews, Lane & Heyden, Mariano L.M. & Zhou, Dan, 2022. "Paradoxical transparency? Capital market responses to exploration and exploitation disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    6. Carolina Castaldi & Kyriakos Drivas, 2023. "Relatedness, Cross-relatedness and Regional Innovation Specializations: An Analysis of Technology, Design, and Market Activities in Europe and the US," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 99(3), pages 253-284, May.
    7. Nathan, Max & Rosso, Anna, 2022. "Innovative events: product launches, innovation and firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    8. Hanxu Quan & George Kwame Agbanyo & Francesco Caputo & Tachia Chin, 2021. "The Role of Value Appropriation Capability of Chinese Multinationals in Operating Cross-Border Business Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, September.
    9. Angelidou, Sofia & Mount, Matthew & Pandza, Krsto, 2022. "Exploring the asymmetric complementarity between external knowledge search and management innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Andronikidis, Andreas & Karolidis, Dimitrios & Zafeiriou, Georgia, 2021. "Reflections on grounding firm innovation and viability," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 2-8.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Jaideep Anand & Raffaele Oriani & Roberto S. Vassolo, 2010. "Alliance Activity as a Dynamic Capability in the Face of a Discontinuous Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1213-1232, December.
    3. Mahka Moeen, 2017. "Entry into Nascent Industries: Disentangling a Firm's Capability Portfolio at the Time of Investment Versus Market Entry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(10), pages 1986-2004, October.
    4. Castaldi, Carolina, 2018. "To trademark or not to trademark: The case of the creative and cultural industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 606-616.
    5. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    6. Tianxu Chen & Lihong Qian & Vadake Narayanan, 2017. "Battle on the Wrong Field? Entrant Type, Dominant Designs, and Technology Exit," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(13), pages 2579-2598, December.
    7. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Niron Hashai & Sarit Markovich, 2017. "Market Entry by High Technology Startups: The Effect of Competition Level and Startup Innovativeness," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 141-160, September.
    9. Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & Lampel, Joseph & Rietveld, Joost, 2013. "New horizons or a strategic mirage? Artist-led-distribution versus alliance strategy in the video game industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 954-964.
    10. Nasirov, Shukhrat, 2020. "Trademark value indicators: Evidence from the trademark protection lifecycle in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    11. Peng Huang & Marco Ceccagnoli & Chris Forman & D.J. Wu, 2009. "Participation in a Platform Ecosystem: Appropriability, Competition, and Access to the Installed Base," Working Papers 09-14, NET Institute, revised Sep 2009.
    12. Konstantinos Grigoriou & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2017. "Organizing for knowledge generation: internal knowledge networks and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 395-414, February.
    13. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Holger Ernst & Martin Hoegl, 2010. "Not-Sold-Here: How Attitudes Influence External Knowledge Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1054-1071, October.
    14. Moreira, Solon & Klueter, Thomas Maximilian & Asija, Aman, 2023. "Market for technology 2.0? Reassessing the role of complementary assets on licensing decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    15. Long, Vicky, 2019. "IPRs and Appropriability in the Digital Era: Evidence from the Swedish Video (Computer) Games Industry," Ratio Working Papers 329, The Ratio Institute.
    16. Yougen Cao & Shengce Ren & Mei Du, 2022. "Strategic trademark management: a systematic literature review and prospects for future research," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(5), pages 435-453, September.
    17. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 641-678, Elsevier.
    18. Choi, Donghyuk & Kim, Yeonbae, 2018. "Market share and firms’ patent exploitation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 72, pages 13-23.
    19. Henkel, Joachim, 2022. "Licensing standard-essential patents in the IoT – A value chain perspective on the markets for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Gianluigi Giustiziero & Aseem Kaul & Brian Wu, 2019. "The Dynamics of Learning and Competition in Schumpeterian Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 668-693, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trademarks; Complementary assets; External technology sourcing; Innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • L17 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Open Source Products and Markets
    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:9:18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.