IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v36y2015i7p976-986.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Ajay Agrawal
  • Iain Cockburn
  • Laurina Zhang

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="smj2261-abs-0001"> Using novel survey data on technology licensing, we report the first empirical evidence linking the three main sources of failure emphasized in the market design literature (lack of market thickness, congestion, lack of market safety) to deal outcomes. We disaggregate the licensing process into three stages and find that, although lack of market thickness and deal failure are correlated in the first stage, they are not in the latter stages, underscoring the bilateral monopoly conditions under which negotiations over intellectual property often occur. In contrast, market safety is only salient in the final stage. Several commonly referenced bargaining frictions (congestion) are salient, particularly in the second stage. Also, universities and firms differ in the stage during which they are most likely to experience deal failure . Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Ajay Agrawal & Iain Cockburn & Laurina Zhang, 2015. "Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 976-986, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:36:y:2015:i:7:p:976-986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/smj.2261
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Market Design?," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 79-112.
    2. Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1994. "Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 190-209, March.
    3. 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..
    4. Lerner, Josh & Merges, Robert P, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    5. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    6. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Contracting for tacit knowledge: the provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 233-256, August.
    7. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    8. Wesley David Sine & Scott Shane & Dante Di Gregorio, 2003. "The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 478-496, April.
    9. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    12. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2010. "Is there a market for ideas?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 805-837, June.
    13. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
    14. Pisano, Gary P., 1991. "The governance of innovation: Vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 237-249, June.
    15. Bernard Garrette & Pierre Dussauge & Will Mitchell, 2000. "Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia," Post-Print hal-00458812, HAL.
    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. Bronwyn H Hall, 2019. "Is there a role for patents in the financing of new innovative firms?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 657-680.
    2. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti & NIkolaus Thumm, 2017. "The Role of Patents in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). A survey of the Literature," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0212, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    3. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    4. María García-Vega & Elena Huergo, 2019. "Asymmetric additionalities between R&D outsourcing locations," Discussion Papers 2019-08, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    5. 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.
    6. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang & Schulz, Philipp & Borchhardt, Geoffrey Thilo, 2019. "Markets for technology in Europe: Mapping demand and its drivers," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-043, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Dushnitsky, Gary & Klueter, Thomas, 2017. "Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 651-666.
    8. Ajay K. Agrawal & Iain M. Cockburn & Alberto Galasso & Alexander Oettl, 2012. "Why are Some Regions More Innovative than Others? The Role of Firm Size Diversity," NBER Working Papers 17793, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. E. Mitchell Church & Richelle L. Oakley, 2018. "Etsy and the long-tail: how microenterprises use hyper-differentiation in online handicraft marketplaces," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 883-898, December.
    10. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2016. "Sector dynamics and demographics of top R&D firms in the global economy," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2016-06, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    11. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Keld Laursen & Solon Moreira & Toke Reichstein & Maria Isabella Leone, 2017. "Evading the Boomerang Effect: Using the Grant-Back Clause to Further Generative Appropriability from Technology Licensing Deals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 514-530, June.
    13. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2016. "Complementarities in the search for innovation—Managing markets and relationships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2036-2053.
    14. Gaessler, Fabian & Harhoff, Dietmar & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "Bargaining Failure and Freedom to Operate: Re-evaluating the Effect of Patents on Cumulative Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 13969, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Hamed Tajedin & Hamed Tajedin & Mohammad Keyhani, 2019. "A Theory of Digital Firm-Designed Markets: Defying Knowledge Constraints with Crowds and Marketplaces," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 323-342, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    3. Marco, Antonio De & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa & Caviggioli, Federico, 2017. "Global markets for technology: Evidence from patent transactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1644-1654.
    4. 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.
    5. Morricone, Serena & Munari, Federico & Oriani, Raffaele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan, 2017. "Commercialization Strategy and IPO Underpricing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1133-1141.
    6. Olena Ivus & Walter G Park & Kamal Saggi, 2017. "Patent protection and the composition of multinational activity: Evidence from US multinational firms," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(7), pages 808-836, September.
    7. Deepak Hegde & Hong Luo, 2018. "Patent Publication and the Market for Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 652-672, February.
    8. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2007. "Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 483-510, June.
    9. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    10. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giarratana, Marco S., 2013. "General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 315-325.
    11. Fabrizi, Simona & Lippert, Steffen & Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2007. "Venture Capitalists, Asymmetric Information and Ownership in the Innovation Process," MPRA Paper 6265, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Hong Luo, 2014. "When to Sell Your Idea: Theory and Evidence from the Movie Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3067-3086, December.
    13. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    14. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    15. H. Kevin Steensma & Mukund Chari & Ralph Heidl, 2016. "A Comparative Analysis of Patent Assertion Entities in Markets for Intellectual Property Rights," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 2-17, February.
    16. Scott Shane, 2002. "Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 122-137, January.
    17. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Do Patents Matter for Commercialization?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 431-453.
    18. Dushnitsky, Gary & Klueter, Thomas, 2017. "Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 651-666.
    19. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    20. Leiponen, Aija & Delcamp, Henry, 2019. "The anatomy of a troll? Patent licensing business models in the light of patent reassignment data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 298-311.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • 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:bla:stratm:v:36:y:2015:i:7:p:976-986. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.