IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000129/011416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relación entre la estrategia de innovación de la firma y su decisión de patentar: evidencia de empresas pertenecientes al sector manufacturero colombiano

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Luis Juliao Rossi
  • Fernando Barrios Aguirre
  • Jana Schmutzler
  • Iván Darío Sánchez Manchola

Abstract

El objetivo del presente artículo es determinar los efectos que ejerce la apuesta estratégica de innovación de las empresas manufactureras colombianas sobre la decisión de proteger sus innovaciones con registro de propiedad intelectual (patentes). Para lo anterior, se utilizó un Zero Inflated Poisson Model sobre datos pro- venientes de la 2.a y 3.a Encuesta de Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica efectuada por DANE-DNP- COLCIENCIAS. Los resultados de esta investigación evidencian una relación negativa entre la proporción de inversión en inversión y desarrollo y la decisión de patentar. Adicionalmente, el bajo nivel de patentes se debe en parte a la carencia de relaciones de calidad de las firmas con proveedores y competencia.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Luis Juliao Rossi & Fernando Barrios Aguirre & Jana Schmutzler & Iván Darío Sánchez Manchola, 2013. "Relación entre la estrategia de innovación de la firma y su decisión de patentar: evidencia de empresas pertenecientes al sector manufacturero colombiano," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000129:011416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.icesi.edu.co/revistas/index.php/estudios_gerenciales/article/view/1716
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gautam Ray & Jay B. Barney & Waleed A. Muhanna, 2004. "Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 23-37, January.
    2. Richard Whitley, 2002. "Developing innovative competences: the role of institutional frameworks," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 497-528, June.
    3. Deardorff, Alan V, 1992. "Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 35-51, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Blind, Knut & Cremers, Katrin & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 428-436, March.
    6. Tommy Clausen & Mikko Pohjola & Koson Sapprasert & Bart Verspagen, 2012. "Innovation strategies as a source of persistent innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(3), pages 553-585, June.
    7. Kirsimarja Blomqvist & Juha Levy, 2006. "Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks," International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 31-48.
    8. 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..
    9. Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Maarten Cornet, 2002. "'A Far Friend is Worth More than a Good Neighbour': Proximity and Innovation in a Small Country," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, May.
    10. Sara Gorgoni & Carlo Pietrobelli, 2010. "Networks, knowledge flows and innovation in the Chilean meat sector," International Journal of Business Environment, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(2), pages 159-178.
    11. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    12. Hans Ophem & Erik Brouwer & Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen, 2002. "The Mutual Relation between Patents and R&D," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (ed.), Innovation and Firm Performance, chapter 3, pages 56-70, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. 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.
    14. Ana Pérez-Luño & Ramón Valle-Cabrera, 2010. "How does knowledge matter patenting inventions?," Working Papers 10.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Administration.
    15. 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.
    16. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    17. Romijn, Henny & Albaladejo, Manuel, 2002. "Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1053-1067, September.
    18. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. Chung, Seungwha (Andy) & Kim, Gyeong Mook, 2003. "Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: the supplier's standpoint," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 587-603, April.
    20. Kaufmann, Alexander & Todtling, Franz, 2001. "Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 791-804, May.
    21. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    22. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    23. Tödtling, Franz & Lehner, Patrick & Kaufmann, Alexander, 2008. "Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions?," SRE-Discussion Papers 2008/01, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    24. Tether, Bruce S., 2002. "Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 947-967, August.
    25. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    26. Carine Peeters & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2006. "Complex innovation strategies and patenting behaviour," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9051, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    27. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    28. Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (ed.), 2002. "Innovation and Firm Performance," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59588-0.
    29. 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.
    30. Ritter, Thomas & Gemunden, Hans Georg, 2003. "Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 745-755, September.
    31. Wolfgang Gick, 2008. "Little Firms and Big Patents: A Model of Small‐Firm Patent Signaling," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(4), pages 913-935, December.
    32. Tsai, Kuen-Hung, 2009. "Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 765-778, June.
    33. 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.
    34. Chudnovsky, Daniel & Lopez, Andres & Pupato, German, 2006. "Innovation and productivity in developing countries: A study of Argentine manufacturing firms' behavior (1992-2001)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 266-288, March.
    35. Marín, Alejandra & Laureiro, Daniela & Forero, Clemente, 2007. "Innovation patterns and intellectual property in SMEs of a developing country," Galeras. Working Papers Series 017, Universidad de Los Andes. Facultad de Administración. School of Management.
    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. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    3. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    4. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    5. Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), 2014. "Intellectual Property for Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15464.
    6. Bradley, Wendy A. & Kolev, Julian, 2023. "How does digital piracy affect innovation? Evidence from software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    7. Kyoo-Ho Park, 2014. "The effectiveness of patents and the determinants of patenting activities in Korea," Chapters, in: Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), Intellectual Property for Economic Development, chapter 12, pages 287-306, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_105, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    9. 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.
    10. Francesco Chirico & Giuseppe Criaco & Massimo Baù & Lucia Naldi & Luis R. Gomez-Mejia & Josip Kotlar, 2020. "To patent or not to patent: That is the question. Intellectual property protection in family firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(2), pages 339-367, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Gamarra, Yanis Luca & Friedl, Gunther, 2023. "Declared essential patents and average total R&D expenditures per patent family," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7).
    13. Junghee Han & Almas Heshmati, 2021. "Innovation and SMEs patent propensity in Korea," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 42(1/2), pages 51-68.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Marcus M. Keupp & Angela Beckenbauer & Oliver Gassmann, 2010. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Weak Appropriability Regimes," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 109-130, February.
    18. 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.
    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. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ColombiaEstrategia de Innovación PatentePropiedad intelectual Fuentes de información;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • 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:col:000129:011416. 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: Coordinador ICESI (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fciceco.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.