IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v22y2013i1p131-151.html

Entrepreneurial commercialization choices and the interaction between IPR and competition policy

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua S. Gans
  • Lars Persson

Abstract

This article examines the interaction between intellectual property protection and competition policy on the choice of entrepreneurs with respect to commercialization as well as the rate of innovation. We find that stronger intellectual property protection makes it more likely that entrepreneurs will commercialize by cooperating with incumbents rather than competing with them. Consequently, we demonstrate that competition policy has a clearer role in promoting a higher rate of innovation in that event. Hence, we identify one reason why the strength of the two policies may be complements from the perspective of increasing the rate of entrepreneurial innovation. Copyright 2013 The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua S. Gans & Lars Persson, 2013. "Entrepreneurial commercialization choices and the interaction between IPR and competition policy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 131-151, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:22:y:2013:i:1:p:131-151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dts049
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guy Meunier & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2015. "Antitrust versus industrial policies, entry and welfare," Working Papers 2015-01, Alimentation et Sciences Sociales.
    2. Phillip H. Kim & Karl Wennberg & Gregoire Croidieu, 2016. "Untapped Riches of Meso-Level Applications in Multilevel Entrepreneurship Mechanisms," Post-Print hal-02276717, HAL.
    3. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus & Stenkula, Mikael, 2017. "Institutional Reform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Agenda for Europe," Working Paper Series 1150, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 16 Feb 2017.
    4. Choi, Donghyuk & Kim, Yeonbae, 2018. "Market share and firms’ patent exploitation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 72, pages 13-23.
    5. Josh Lerner & Joacim Tåg, 2013. "Institutions and venture capital," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 153-182, February.
    6. Phillip H. Kim & Karl Wennberg & Gregoire Croidieu, 2016. "Untapped Riches of Meso-Level Applications in Multilevel Entrepreneurship Mechanisms," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-02276717, HAL.
    7. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Magnus Henrekson, 2013. "Entrepreneurship, institutions, and economic dynamism: lessons from a comparison of the United States and Sweden," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, February.
    8. Dev K. Dutta & Mary Beth Rousseau, 2019. "Alliance Experience, Industry Conditions, And External Technology Commercialisation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(01), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Kenny Ching & Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2019. "Control versus execution: endogenous appropriability and entrepreneurial strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(2), pages 389-408.
    10. Norbäck Pehr-Johan & Persson Lars & Olofsson Charlotta, 2020. "Acquisitions for Sleep," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Steffen Juranek & Thomas Quan & John L. Turner, 2020. "Patents, Litigation Strategy and Antitrust in Innovative Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 667-696, June.

    More about this item

    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

    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:oup:indcch:v:22:y:2013:i:1:p:131-151. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.