Shared inventions and the evolution of capabilities: Examining the biotechnology industry
Do capabilities evolve differently as a function of the firm's unique ties or through the cumulative exposure to specific types of knowledge? We view capability evolution with respect to a firm's accumulation of knowledge-derived assets--patents. This study proposes that capabilities evolve by way of a firm's solo and joint invention experiences, and contends that these capabilities are uniquely shaped by the firm's history of patenting with two specific types of ties, upstream and downstream partners. Using a sample of 11,593 patents produced by 256 biotechnology firms from 1985 to 2006, we find that prior joint invention experience diversifies the capabilities of the firm and broadens its strategic options. In uncovering an inverted 'U' relationship, we also find that capabilities evolve differently according to the firm's unique joint invention experiences. Moreover, firms that continue to engage in more joint invention experiences develop broader capabilities than firms that retreat from this strategy and pursue solo inventions, whereby more specialized capabilities develop. Focusing on how R&D strategies impact capability development, our findings extend research on capabilities by accounting for how the path dependent role of shared property rights influences the technological trajectory of the firm.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mary Benner & Joel Waldfogel, 2007.
"Close to You? Bias and Precision in Patent-Based Measures of Technological Proximity,"
NBER Working Papers
13322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Benner, Mary & Waldfogel, Joel, 2008. "Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1556-1567, October.
- Mansfield, Edwin, 1998. "Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 773-776, April.
- Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, September.
- McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
- Jun Xu & J. Scott Long, 2005. "Confidence intervals for predicted outcomes in regression models for categorical outcomes," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 537-559, December.
- Terza, Joseph V., 1998. "Estimating count data models with endogenous switching: Sample selection and endogenous treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 129-154, May.
- Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
- Freeman, C., 1991. "Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 499-514, October.
- Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984.
"Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship,"
Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
- Jerry A. Hausman & Bronwyn H. Hall & Zvi Griliches, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," NBER Technical Working Papers 0017, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Murphy, Kevin M & Topel, Robert H, 1985.
"Estimation and Inference in Two-Step Econometric Models,"
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
American Statistical Association, vol. 3(4), pages 370-379, October.
- Murphy, Kevin M & Topel, Robert H, 2002. "Estimation and Inference in Two-Step Econometric Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 88-97, January.
- Lori Rosenkopf & Paul Almeida, 2003. "Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 751-766, June.
- Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
- Kenney, Martin, 1986. "Schumpeterian innovation and entrepreneurs in capitalism: A case study of the U.S. biotechnology industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 21-31, February.
- Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1999. "The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," NBER Working Papers 7345, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Quintana-Garcia, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
- Heckman, James J, 1979.
"Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-161, January.
- Tong, Xuesong & Frame, J. Davidson, 1994. "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 133-141, March.
- 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.
- Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1990. "Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 361-379, June.
- 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), pages 783-832.
- Rothaermel, Frank T. & Deeds, David L., 2006. "Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 429-460, July.
- Brian S. Silverman, 1999. "Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1109-1124, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:7:p:943-956. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.