IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v17y2008i1-2p5-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collective Knowledge, Prolific Inventors And The Value Of Inventions: An Empirical Study Of French, German And British Patents In The Us, 1975-1999

Author

Listed:
  • Claudine Gay
  • William Latham
  • Christian Le Bas

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to test two related hypotheses: The first is that the involvement of both prolific and foreign inventors in the production of knowledge has a direct, positive impact on the collective dimension of this knowledge production as measured by the size of the inventive team. The second is that the involvement of both prolific and foreign inventors has a direct, positive impact on the value of the new knowledge produced. We use detailed information from nearly 300,000 patents granted by the US Patent Office to French, German, and British inventors over the period from 1975 to 1999. From the data available from each patent regarding citations of prior patents and the numbers and identities of the inventors listed in the patent application, we are able to construct measures of collective knowledge, the presence of prolific and foreign inventors, and the imputed value of patents. In a novel approach in this literature, we estimate negative binomial multiple regression models for determining both the size of the collective dimension and the value of the patents. After controlling for the effects of years, technological fields, and patenting country, we find a strong support for the hypothesis that both prolific and foreign inventors tend to be parts of larger teams of inventors and for the hypothesis that prolific and foreign inventors tend to produce inventions having more value. In the conclusion, we draw some implications from these results for knowledge governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudine Gay & William Latham & Christian Le Bas, 2008. "Collective Knowledge, Prolific Inventors And The Value Of Inventions: An Empirical Study Of French, German And British Patents In The Us, 1975-1999," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1-2), pages 5-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:17:y:2008:i:1-2:p:5-22
    DOI: 10.1080/10438590701279193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10438590701279193
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10438590701279193?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. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & Frederic M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1997. "Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Innovation," CIG Working Papers FS IV 97-26, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    2. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2001. "The Microeconomics of Technological Systems," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245536.
    3. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Jeff Armstrong, 1994. "Intellectual Capital and the Firm: The Technology of Geographically Localized Knowledge Spillovers," NBER Working Papers 4946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "The Search for R&D Spillovers," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 251-268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Mariani, Myriam, 2000. "Networks of Inventors in the Chemical Industry," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Stolpe, Michael, 2001. "Mobility of research workers and knowledge diffusion as evidenced in patent data: the case of liquid crystal display technology," Kiel Working Papers 1038, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R, 2001. "Capturing Technological Opportunity via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms' Biotech Patents and Products," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 37-58, January.
    8. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1996. "Flows of Knowledge from Universities and Federal Labs: Modeling the Flowof Patent Citations Over Time and Across Institutional and Geographic Boundari," NBER Working Papers 5712, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R. & Armstrong, Jeff, 1994. "Inter-Institutional Spillover Effects in the Commercialization of Bioscience," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt4d96f3xh, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Malwina Mejer, 2012. "The impact of knowledge diversity on inventive performance at European universities," Working Papers TIMES² 2013-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. William Latham & Christian Le Bas & Dmitry Volodin, 2012. "Mobility, Productivity and Patent Value for Asian Prolific Inventors : China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, 1975 - 2010," Working Papers halshs-00734980, HAL.
    3. Cornelia Lawson & Valerio Sterzi, 2014. "The role of early-career factors in the formation of serial academic inventors," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 464-479.
    4. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Martínez, M. Ángeles, 2012. "Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 692-703.
    5. William Latham & Christian Le Bas & Dmitry Volodin, 2011. "Value of invention, prolific inventor productivity and mobility : evidence from five countries, 1975-2002," Working Papers 1133, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    6. Koski, Heli & Pajarinen, Mika, 2015. "Mobility of ideas for innovation: The role of inventor-specific knowledge flows," ETLA Working Papers 27, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    7. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluigi Ferraris, 2011. "Innovation as an Emerging System Property: An Agent Based Simulation Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(2), pages 1-1.
    8. William Latham & Christian Le Bas, 2011. "Causes, Consequences and Dynamics of ‘Complex’ Distributions of Technological Activities: The Case of Prolific Inventors," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Cristiano, Antonelli & Ferraris, Gianluigi, 2009. "Innovation as an Emerging System Property: an Agent Based Model," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200911, University of Turin.
    10. Varshney, Mayank & Jain, Amit, 2023. "Technology acquisition following inventor exit in the biopharmaceutical industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    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. Heide Fier & Andreas Pyka, 2014. "Against the one-way-street: analyzing knowledge transfer from industry to science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 219-246, April.
    2. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2019. "Academic Inventors and the Antecedents of Green Technologies. A Regional Analysis of Italian Patent Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 247-263.
    3. Eleftherios Sapsalis & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007. "The Institutional Sources Of Knowledge And The Value Of Academic Patents," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 139-157.
    4. Autant-Bernard, Corinne, 2001. "Science and knowledge flows: evidence from the French case," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1069-1078, August.
    5. Bee Yan Aw & Alfons Palangkaraya, 2004. "Local Knowledge Spillovers in the Indonesian Manufacturing Industry," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n18, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Johnson, Daniel K.N. & Acri nee Lybecker, Kristina M. & Moore, Jeffrey, 2019. "Sure, but who has the energy? The importance of location for knowledge transfer in the energy sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 582-588.
    7. Junichi Nishimura & Hiroyuki Okamuro, 2011. "R&D productivity and the organization of cluster policy: an empirical evaluation of the Industrial Cluster Project in Japan," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 117-144, April.
    8. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eleftherios Sapsalis & Ran Navon, 2006. "Academic vs. industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Working Papers CEB 05-008.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Hamid Seddighi, 2015. "A Model of a Firm’s Innovation and Growth in a Knowledge-Based Economy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(2), pages 215-227, June.
    10. Fritjof Karnani, 2013. "The university’s unknown knowledge: tacit knowledge, technology transfer and university spin-offs findings from an empirical study based on the theory of knowledge," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 235-250, June.
    11. C. Gay & C. Le Bas, 2005. "Uses without too many abuses of patent citations or the simple economics of patent citations as a measure of value and flows of knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 333-338.
    12. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R. & Furner, Jonathan & Liu, Robert C. & Ma, Hongyan, 2007. "Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 850-863, July.
    13. Cristiano Antonelli & Pier Paolo Patrucco & Federica Rossi, 2010. "The Economics of Knowledge Interaction and the Changing Role of Universities," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Ajay Agrawal & Iain M. Cockburn, 2002. "University Research, Industrial R&D, and the Anchor Tenant Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 9212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Chen-Lung Chin & Picheng Lee & Hsin-Yi Chi & Asokan Anandarajan, 2006. "Patent Citation, R&D Spillover, and Tobin's Q: Evidence from Taiwan Semiconductor Industry," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 67-84, February.
    16. Fors, Gunnar & Zejan, Mario, 1996. "Overseas R&D by Multinationals in foreign Centers of Excellence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 111, Stockholm School of Economics.
    17. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1996. "Costly Information in Firm Transformation, Exit, or Persistent Failure," NBER Working Papers 5577, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Chol-Won Li, 2003. "Endogenous Growth Without Scale Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 1009-1017, June.
    19. H. R. Seddighi & P. J. Huntley, 2007. "R&D Activities In a Peripheral Region: an Empirical Study with Special Reference to the North East Region of the UK," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 211-225.
    20. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2014. "Innovation and Productivity in Services: Evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2014-04, Joint Research Centre.

    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:taf:ecinnt:v:17:y:2008:i:1-2:p:5-22. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GEIN20 .

    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.