IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v38y2017i12p2508-2531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multimarket Contact and Rivalry over Knowledge‐based Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Matt Theeke
  • Hun Lee

Abstract

Research summary: Research shows that multimarket contact (MMC) reduces rivalry involving downstream activities. Yet, studies showing that MMC can increase the threat of imitation suggest a need to better understand how MMC affects upstream rivalry over knowledge‐based resources. In this study, we argue that MMC increases rivalry over knowledge‐based resources since the deterrent threat of retaliation that typically leads to mutual forbearance in downstream activities will not be sufficient to restrain firms from protecting their knowledge from imitation in upstream activities. In support of these arguments we find that MMC increases the likelihood that a firm initiates patent litigation against a rival. This study suggests the relationship between MMC and rivalry may depend on the competitive domain and the type of resources over which firms are competing. Managerial Summary: How does market overlap or MMC affect rivalry between two competitors? Prior studies have largely found that an increase in market overlap decreases rivalry in less knowledge‐intensive context because of the deterrent threat of retaliation. However, in this paper, we argue that an increase in market overlap may not reduce rivalry in more knowledge‐intensive context because of heterogeneity in capabilities to protect knowledge. We find that a firm is more likely to initiate patent litigation against a rival as market overlap increases. Our findings suggest that the incentive to protect value across multiple product markets may surpass the motivation to cooperate with rivals and that managers should have a more nuanced view of how market overlap with competitors affects rivalry in more knowledge‐intensive contexts. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt Theeke & Hun Lee, 2017. "Multimarket Contact and Rivalry over Knowledge‐based Resources," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(12), pages 2508-2531, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:38:y:2017:i:12:p:2508-2531
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.2676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2676
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.2676?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. 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..
    3. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    4. Edward F. Sherry & David J. Teece, 2008. "Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of 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 8, pages 151-163, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    6. Dam, Kenneth W, 1994. "The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 247-271, January.
    7. Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring.
    8. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira R. Fabrizio, 2014. "Using users: When does external knowledge enhance corporate product innovation?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(10), pages 1427-1445, October.
    9. Feinberg, Robert M, 1985. ""Sales-at-Risk": A Test of the Mutual Forebearance Theory of Conglomerate Behavior," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 225-241, April.
    10. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    11. Henrich R. Greve, 2008. "Multimarket contact and sales growth: evidence from insurance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 229-249, March.
    12. Mark Bergen & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2002. "Competitor identification and competitor analysis: a broad-based managerial approach," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 157-169.
    13. Richard Makadok, 2010. "The Interaction Effect of Rivalry Restraint and Competitive Advantage on Profit: Why the Whole Is Less Than the Sum of the Parts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 356-372, February.
    14. Heggestad, Arnold A & Rhoades, Stephen A, 1978. "Multi-Market Interdependence and Local Market Competition in Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(4), pages 523-532, November.
    15. Warren Boeker & Jerry Goodstein & John Stephan & Johann Peter Murmann, 1997. "Competition in a Multimarket Environment: The Case of Market Exit," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 126-142, April.
    16. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    17. S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    18. Corwin D. Edwards, 1955. "Conglomerate Bigness as a Source of Power," NBER Chapters, in: Business Concentration and Price Policy, pages 331-359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. 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.
    20. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    21. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    22. Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, December.
    23. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    24. Matt Marx & Deborah Strumsky & Lee Fleming, 2009. "Mobility, Skills, and the Michigan Non-Compete Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 875-889, June.
    25. Martin Ganco & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis & Rajshree Agarwal, 2015. "More stars stay, but the brightest ones still leave: Job hopping in the shadow of patent enforcement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 659-685, May.
    26. Pisano, Gary, 2006. "Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1122-1130, October.
    27. Jay B. Barney, 1986. "Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1231-1241, October.
    28. David B. Montgomery & Marian Chapman Moore & Joel E. Urbany, 2005. "Reasoning About Competitive Reactions: Evidence from Executives," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 138-149, September.
    29. Donna Marie DeCarolis & David L. Deeds, 1999. "The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(10), pages 953-968, October.
    30. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    31. Margaret A. Peteraf & Jay B. Barney, 2003. "Unraveling the resource-based tangle," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 309-323.
    32. Javier Gimeno & Carolyn Y. Woo, 1996. "Hypercompetition in a Multimarket Environment: The Role of Strategic Similarity and Multimarket Contact in Competitive De-Escalation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 322-341, June.
    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. Sean T. Hsu & Susan K. Cohen, 2022. "Overcoming the Incumbent Dilemma: The Dual Roles of Multimarket Contact During Disruption," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 319-348, March.
    2. Varadarajan, Rajan, 2023. "Resource advantage theory, resource based theory, and theory of multimarket competition: Does multimarket rivalry restrain firms from leveraging resource Advantages?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    3. Raja Roy & Soumodip Sarkar, 2022. "Boundary conditions of the mutual forbearance hypothesis: Impact of technology evolution on multimarket competition," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 2545-2556, September.
    4. Jose N. Uribe, 2020. "Multipoint contact without forbearance? How coverage synergies shape equity analysts' forecasting performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1901-1932, October.

    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. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    2. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    3. Lee, Jong-Seon & Kim, Nami & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2019. "The effects of patent litigation involving NPEs on firms’ patent strategies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2013. "Complements and substitutes in profiting from innovation—A choice experimental approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 326-339.
    6. Diestre, Luis & Lumineau, Fabrice & Durand, Rodolphe, 2023. "Litigate or let it go? Multi-market contact and IP infringement-litigation dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    7. Haus, Axel & Juranek, Steffen, 2018. "Non-practicing entities: Enforcement specialists?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 38-49.
    8. Cappelli, Riccardo & Corsino, Marco & Laursen, Keld & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2023. "Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Faouzi Bensebaa, 2003. "La dynamique concurrentielle:défis analytiques et méthodologiques," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 6(1), pages 5-37, March.
    11. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    12. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Nicolaï Foss & Nils Stieglitz, 2012. "Modern Resource-based Theory(ies)," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    16. Jin, Tuofu & Eapen, Alex, 2022. "‘Delayed Forbearance’: Multipoint contact and mutual forbearance in inaugural and subsequent competitive actions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 938-953.
    17. Kafouros, Mario & Aliyev, Murod & Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2021. "Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    18. Rahul RK Kapoor & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2016. "The laws of action and reaction: on determinants of patent disputes in European chemical and drug industries," Working Papers TIMES² WP 2016-019, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Sheen S. Levine & Mark Bernard & Rosemarie Nagel, 2018. "Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behaviour," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 527-527, February.
    20. Huang, Kenneth Guang-Lih & Huang, Can & Shen, Huijun & Mao, Hao, 2021. "Assessing the value of China's patented inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    More about this item

    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:38:y:2017:i:12:p:2508-2531. 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: 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.