IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/edn/sirdps/372.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Firm size and trade secret intensity: evidence from the Economic Espionage Act

Author

Listed:
  • Searle, Nicola
  • Reid, Gavin C

Abstract

This paper considers trade secrecy as an appropriation mechanism in the context ofb the US Economic Espionage Act (EEA) 1996. We examine the relation between trade secret intensity and firm size, using a cross section of 95 court cases. The paper builds on extant work in three respects. First, we create a unique body of evidence, using EEA prosecutions from 1996 to 2008. Second, we use an econometric approach to measurement, estimation and hypothesis testing. This allows us comprehensively to test the robustness of findings. Third, we focus on objectively measured valuations, instead of the subjective, self-reported values used elsewhere. We find a stable, robust value for the elasticity of trade secret intensity with respect to firm size, which indicates that a 10% reduction in firm size leads to a 7% increase in trade secret intensity. We find that this result is not sensitive to industrial sector, sample trimming, or functional form.

Suggested Citation

  • Searle, Nicola & Reid, Gavin C, 2012. "Firm size and trade secret intensity: evidence from the Economic Espionage Act," SIRE Discussion Papers 2012-60, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    • Handle: RePEc:edn:sirdps:372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10943/372
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cohen, Wesley M & Levin, Richard C & Mowery, David C, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 543-565, June.
    2. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    3. Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
    4. Derek Bosworth & Mark Rogers, 2001. "Market Value, R&D and Intellectual Property: An Empirical Analysis of Large Australian Firms," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 77(239), pages 323-337, December.
    5. Sabourin, David & Baldwin, John R. & Hanel, Peter, 2000. "Determinants of Innovative Activity in Canadian Manufacturing Firms: The Role of Intellectual Property Rights," Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series 2000122e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    6. Bosworth, Derek & Rogers, Mark, 2001. "Market Value, R&D and Intellectual Property: An Empirical Analysis of Large Australian Firms," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 77(239), pages 323-337, December.
    7. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
    8. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    9. Lunn, John E, 1986. "An Empirical Analysis of Process and Product Patenting: A Simultaneous Equation Framework," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 319-330, March.
    10. Christopher J. S. Gentle, 1996. "Europe in 2010," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: After Liberalisation, chapter 7, pages 121-132, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Nicola C Searle & Gavin C Reid, "undated". "Firm size and trade secret intensity: evidence from the Economic Espionage Act," CRIEFF Discussion Papers 1203, Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    5. Christine Greenhalgh & Padraig Dixon, 2002. "The Economics of Intellectual Property: A Review to Identify Themes for Future Research," Economics Series Working Papers 135, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    7. Yu-Shan Chen & Chun-Yu Shih, 2011. "Re-examine the relationship between patents and Tobin’s q," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 781-794, December.
    8. Stephen Petrie & Mitchell Adams & Ben Mitra‐Kahn & Matthew Johnson & Russell Thomson & Paul Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2020. "TM‐Link: An Internationally Linked Trademark Database," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 53(2), pages 254-269, June.
    9. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "Examining Biases in Measures of Firm Innovation," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    10. Carine Peeters & Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007. "Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Franco Malerba (ed.), Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Structural Transformation, pages 345-371, Springer.
    11. Gao, Wenlian & Chou, Julia, 2015. "Innovation efficiency, global diversification, and firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 278-298.
    12. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The Impact of the Distribution of R&D Expenses on Firms’ Motivations to Patent," Insper Working Papers wpe_140, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    13. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    14. Barros, Henrique M., 2011. "The Effects of Innovation Partnership, Foreign Ownership and Enhanced Management Practices on the Use of Patents in Brazilian Manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_255, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    15. Bessen, James, 2009. "Estimates of patent rents from firm market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1604-1616, December.
    16. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.
    17. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2018. "Propensity to Patent and Firm Size for Small R&D-Intensive Firms," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(4), pages 561-587, June.
    18. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    19. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    20. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.

    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:edn:sirdps:372. 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: Research Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sireeuk.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.