IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ibrjnl/v10y2017i5p107-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual Property in Mexican Small Business: An Empirical Research

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzman
  • Sandra Yesenia Pinzón-Castro
  • José Trinidad Marín-Aguilar

Abstract

Intellectual property is an important topic that has been usually analyzed in big enterprises from developed countries but it has been overlooked a lot in its analysis and discussion within the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from both developed and economically emergent countries even when they represent more than 98% of all enterprises, provide jobs to more than 50% of the labor force and produce more than 50% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. Thus, the main goal of this empirical research is the measurement of intellectual property in small and medium-sized enterprises through three factors: patents, brand registration and image investment by considering a sample of 125 enterprises established in Aguascalientes State (Mexico). The results obtained show that patents, brand registration and image investment seem to be good measurements of intellectual property in small and medium-sized enterprises.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzman & Sandra Yesenia Pinzón-Castro & José Trinidad Marín-Aguilar, 2017. "Intellectual Property in Mexican Small Business: An Empirical Research," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 107-115, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:5:p:107-115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/67088/36717
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/67088
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Macdonald, Stuart, 2004. "When means become ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, March.
    2. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    5. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Firm Size and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 44-55, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    2. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    3. Burhan, Muqbil & Singh, Anil K. & Jain, Sudhir K., 2017. "Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 181-190.
    4. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2005. "My Precious. The Role of Appropriability Strategies in Shaping Innovative Performance," DRUID Working Papers 05-02, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    5. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    6. Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), 2014. "Intellectual Property for Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15464.
    7. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    8. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.
    9. Danguy, Jérôme & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2010. "The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective," EIB Papers 7/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    10. Tomasz Kijek, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights And Appropriability Of Innovation Capital: Evidence From Polish Manufacturing Firms," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(2), pages 387-399, June.
    11. Birgitte Andersen & Federica Rossi, 2011. "Intellectual property governance and knowledge creation in UK universities," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 701-725, September.
    12. Masatoshi Kato & Koichiro Onishi & Yuji Honjo, 2022. "Does patenting always help new firm survival? Understanding heterogeneity among exit routes," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 449-475, August.
    13. Leiponen, Aija & Byma, Justin, 2009. "If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1478-1488, November.
    14. Rammer, Christian & Bethmann, Nicola, 2009. "Schwerpunktbericht zur Innovationserhebung 2008: Innovationspartnerschaften - Schutz und Verletzung von intellektuellem Eigentum," ZEW Dokumentationen 09-01, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Ientile, Damien & Mairesse, Jacques, 2009. "A policy to boost R&D: Does the R&D tax credit work?," EIB Papers 6/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    16. Matthias Siller & Christoph Hauser & Janette Walde & Gottfried Tappeiner, 2015. "Measuring regional innovation in one dimension: More lost than gained?," Working Papers 2015-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    17. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Channels of R&D Spillovers: An Empirical Investigation," MPRA Paper 26270, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    20. Faria, Pedro & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2008. "Formal and Strategic Appropriability Strategies of Multinational Firms: A Cross Country Comparison," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-030, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intellectual property; patents; brand registration; small business;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:ibrjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:5:p:107-115. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.