IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v123y2023ics0166497223000251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual property protection need as a driver for open innovation: Empirical evidence from Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Thi Phuong Thao
  • Huang, Fang
  • Tian, Xiaowen

Abstract

In previous research, open innovation (OI) has been considered to be driven by the need for new or advanced technologies unavailable within a firm, and to be a process with the risk of leaking intellectual property to competitors. Drawing on the resource-based view, this paper contends that OI increases causal ambiguity and social complexity of the innovation processes, creates imitation barriers to competitors and provides “informal” protection of intellectual property. This informal approach is particularly attractive to firms in developing economies where the formal institutional protection for intellectual property is weak. Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, the need for intellectual property protection (IPP) pushes firms to undertake OI. We test this argument against firm-level data from Vietnam and find supporting evidence: the need for IPP is a robust driver for OI regardless of whether the firm is located in a more competitive or less competitive context. Furthermore, the need for IPP is a stronger driver for small firms than for larger firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Thi Phuong Thao & Huang, Fang & Tian, Xiaowen, 2023. "Intellectual property protection need as a driver for open innovation: Empirical evidence from Vietnam," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:123:y:2023:i:c:s0166497223000251
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000251
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102714?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Sungjoo & Park, Gwangman & Yoon, Byungun & Park, Jinwoo, 2010. "Open innovation in SMEs--An intermediated network model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 290-300, March.
    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. Xiaolan Fu & Jizhen Li & Hongru Xiong & Henry Chesbrough, 2014. "Open Innovation as a Response to Constraints and Risks: Evidence from China," Asian Economic Papers, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 30-58, Fall.
    4. Emeric Henry & Carlos J. Ponce, 2011. "Waiting to Imitate: On the Dynamic Pricing of Knowledge," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(5), pages 959-981.
    5. Fábio Gama, 2019. "Managing collaborative ideation: the role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 97-118, March.
    6. Angrist, Joshua D, 2001. "Estimations of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(1), pages 2-16, January.
    7. Tuija Luoma & Jaakko Paasi & Katri Valkokari, 2010. "Intellectual Property In Inter-Organisational Relationships — Findings From An Interview Study," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(03), pages 399-414.
    8. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    9. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Galbiati, Roberto & Henry, Emeric, 2017. "Investing to cooperate: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-17.
    10. Anne-Laure Mention & Anna-Leena Asikainen, 2012. "Innovation & Productivity: Investigating Effects Of Openness In Services," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 1-27.
    11. Obradović, Tena & Vlačić, Božidar & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Open innovation in the manufacturing industry: A review and research agenda," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Grimaldi, Michele & Greco, Marco & Cricelli, Livio, 2021. "A framework of intellectual property protection strategies and open innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 156-164.
    13. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2012. "Innovation Beyond Patents: Technological Complexity as a Protection against Imitation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    15. Fu, Xiaolan & Sun, Zhongjuan & Ghauri, Pervez N., 2018. "Reverse knowledge acquisition in emerging market MNEs: The experiences of Huawei and ZTE," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 202-215.
    16. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    17. Melissa Dell & Nathan Lane & Pablo Querubin, 2018. "The Historical State, Local Collective Action, and Economic Development in Vietnam," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 2083-2121, November.
    18. Sande, Jon Bingen & Ghosh, Mrinal, 2018. "Endogeneity in survey research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 185-204.
    19. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    20. Kathleen R. Conner & C. K. Prahalad, 1996. "A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 477-501, October.
    21. Cynthia Benzing & Hung Manh Chu & Gerard Callanan, 2005. "A Regional Comparison Of The Motivation And Problems Of Vietnamese Entrepreneurs," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 3-27.
    22. Ranjay Gulati, 1999. "Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(5), pages 397-420, May.
    23. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    24. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatr32p81 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin & Howard, Michael D. & Boeker, Warren, 2015. "Parent inheritance, founder expertise, and venture strategy: Determinants of new venture knowledge impact," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 322-337.
    26. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    27. Khavul, Susanna & Pérez-Nordtvedt, Liliana & Wood, Eric, 2010. "Organizational entrainment and international new ventures from emerging markets," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 104-119, January.
    28. Scott L. Newbert, 2007. "Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 121-146, February.
    29. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatr32p81 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Andrea Filippetti & Beatrice D’Ippolito, 2017. "Appropriability of design innovation across organisational boundaries: exploring collaborative relationships between manufacturing firms and designers in Italy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 613-632, August.
    31. Jorde, Thomas M & Teece, David J, 1990. "Innovation and Cooperation: Implications for Competition and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 75-96, Summer.
    32. Fernhaber, Stephanie A. & Li, Dan, 2013. "International exposure through network relationships: Implications for new venture internationalization," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 316-334.
    33. John Hagedoorn, 2003. "Sharing intellectual property rights--an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(5), pages 1035-1050, October.
    34. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    35. Angrist, Joshua D, 2001. "Estimations of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(1), pages 27-28, January.
    36. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    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. Mendi, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, José J., 2020. "Cooperation for innovation and technology licensing: Empirical evidence from Spain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Grilli, Luca & Murtinu, Samuele, 2018. "Selective subsidies, entrepreneurial founders' human capital, and access to R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1945-1963.
    3. Stefan, Ioana & Bengtsson, Lars, 2017. "Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 252-260.
    4. Haeussler, Carolin & Patzelt, Holger & Zahra, Shaker A., 2012. "Strategic alliances and product development in high technology new firms: The moderating effect of technological capabilities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 217-233.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    8. Barrett, Gillian & Tsekouras, George, 2022. "A tango with a gorilla: An exploration of the microfoundations of open innovation partnerships between young innovative companies and multi-national enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Grilli, Luca & Marzano, Riccardo, 2023. "Bridges over troubled water: Incubators and start-ups’ alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Johansson, Magnus & Kärreman, Matts & Foukaki, Amalia, 2019. "Research and development resources, coopetitive performance and cooperation: The case of standardization in 3GPP, 2004–2013," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Emeric Henry & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Keeping Secrets: The Economics of Access Deterrence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 95-118, August.
    12. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    13. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    14. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2012. "Innovation Beyond Patents: Technological Complexity as a Protection against Imitation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Erika Raquel Badillo & Rosina Moreno, 2016. "Are Collaborative Agreements in Innovation Activities Persistent at the Firm Level? Empirical Evidence for the Spanish Case," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 49(1), pages 71-101, August.
    16. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    17. Colombelli, Alessandra & Grilli, Luca & Minola, Tommaso & Mrkajic, Boris, 2020. "To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    18. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2021. "The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    19. Lingyan Meng & Md Qamruzzaman & Anass Hamad Elneel Adow, 2021. "Technological Adaption and Open Innovation in SMEs: An Strategic Assessment for Women-Owned SMEs Sustainability in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Ana Villar & César Camisón & Montserrat Boronat, 2007. "Technical Strategic Alliances And Performance: The Mediating Effect Of Knowledge ¿Based Competencies," Working Papers. Serie EC 2007-11, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).

    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:eee:techno:v:123:y:2023:i:c:s0166497223000251. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.