IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector

  • Thomä, Jörg
  • Bizer, Kilian
Registered author(s):

    What appropriation strategies are chosen by innovative small firms? A cluster analysis of data from the German CIS was carried out to indentify four distinct modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector. The results show that for many innovative small firms the key question is not whether to use intellectual property rights (IPRs) or not, but whether to protect their innovations from imitation at all. Furthermore, formal and informal innovation protection mechanisms should not be seen as mutually exclusive, since several are employed jointly. Secrecy and lead time advantages over competitors are often combined with IPRs. Yet, a number of small firms use complexity of design as a substitute to patent protection. The relevance of each appropriation mode depends on such factors as the degree of innovativeness, the type of innovator and the general market environment, which implies that the importance of IPRs is limited to specific business contexts. Furthermore, regarding firm performance as measured by innovation effects, some evidence is found that choosing both IPR- and non-IPR-oriented appropriation strategies can prove to be effective in achieving company goals. Taken all together, the study implies that the use of IPRs by innovative small firms is highly selective. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for policy and research.

    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.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873331200128X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

    Volume (Year): 42 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 35-49

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:1:p:35-49
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2007. "The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 541-567, Winter.
    2. Ramello, Giovanni B. & Silva, Francesco, 2006. "Appropriating signs and meaning: The elusive economics of trademark," POLIS Working Papers 70, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    3. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    4. 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, 03.
    5. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2000. "Sectoral Patterns Of Technological Change In Services," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 183-222.
    6. Christian Rammer & Dirk Czarnitzki & Alfred Spielkamp, 2009. "Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 35-58, June.
    7. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Appropriability of Technical Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," MPRA Paper 26267, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107 Elsevier.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2007. "The economics of the European patent system: IP policy for innovation and competition," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6183, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2006. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," LEM Papers Series 2006/17, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
    14. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    15. Teece, David J., 1986. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 285-305, December.
    16. Macdonald, Stuart, 2004. "When means become ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, March.
    17. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1997. "Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-117.
    18. Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    19. Hollenstein, Heinz, 2003. "Innovation modes in the Swiss service sector: a cluster analysis based on firm-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 845-863, May.
    20. 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 101-28, Spring.
    21. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.
    22. Teece, David J., 2006. "Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1131-1146, October.
    23. Leiponen, Aija & Byma, Justin, 2009. "If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1478-1488, November.
    24. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    25. Petr Hanel, 2008. "The Use Of Intellectual Property Rights And Innovation By Manufacturing Firms In Canada," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 285-309.
    26. 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.
    27. Jensen, Morten Berg & Johnson, Bjorn & Lorenz, Edward & Lundvall, Bengt Ake, 2007. "Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 680-693, June.
    28. Baldwin, John R. & Johnson, Joanne, 1996. "Business strategies in more- and less-innovative firms in Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 785-804, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:1:p:35-49. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.