IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijimxx/v13y2009i03ns1363919609002339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

WHAT'S SMALL SIZE GOT TO DO WITH IT? PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL ASSETS IN SMEs

Author

Listed:
  • HEIDI OLANDER

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business, PO Box 20, F1-53851, Lappeenranta, Finland)

  • PIA HURMELINNA-LAUKKANEN

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business, PO Box 20, F1-53851, Lappeenranta, Finland;
    University of Oulu, Oulu Business School, PO Box 4600, F1-90014, University of Oulu, Finland)

  • JUKKA MÄHÖNEN

    (University of Turku, Faculty of Law, PO Box 1, F1-20014, University of Turku, Finland)

Abstract

The knowledge protection/sharing dilemma related to innovation activities is becoming known to all firms, even though it is generally more notable for SMEs: the small size of the firms inherently creates a need for inter-organizational collaboration, but it also makes dealing with the related contradictories more challenging. One factor behind this is that the needed tools — such as the protection mechanisms of intellectual assets — may be more limited. In line with this notion, we examine the protection available for and used by small firms in their innovation activities. We approach the issue by conducting a review on the relevant literature, and use a qualitative multiple case study conducted in eight small companies to empirically study the issue. Departing from prior research, we consider protection of innovations by distinguishing between the intangibles needed in innovation activities and the actual innovation outputs, and combine these considerations to the knowledge protection/sharing dilemma.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidi Olander & Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Jukka Mähönen, 2009. "WHAT'S SMALL SIZE GOT TO DO WITH IT? PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL ASSETS IN SMEs," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(03), pages 349-370.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:13:y:2009:i:03:n:s1363919609002339
    DOI: 10.1142/S1363919609002339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919609002339
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1363919609002339?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. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Sverre Grepperud & Pål Andreas Pedersen, 2006. "Crowding Effects and Work Ethics," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 20(1), pages 125-138, March.
    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. Antonioli,Davide & Marzucchi,Alberto & Montresor,Sandro, 2012. "Regional innovation policy and innovative behaviours. A propensity score matching evaluation," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201205, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    2. Luis Enrique Valdez-Juárez & Domingo García-Pérez-de-Lema & Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzmán, 2018. "ICT and KM, Drivers of Innovation and Profitability in SMEs," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-34, March.
    3. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    4. Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Mika Vanhala & Heidi Olander, 2016. "Appropriability Profiles – Different Actors, Different Outcomes," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(08), pages 1-26, December.

    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. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    2. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    5. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    6. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    8. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    9. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    10. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Etienne Pfister & Bruno Deffains & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Stéphane Saussier, 2006. "Institutions and contracts: Franchising," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-78, January.
    12. Luintel, Kul B. & Khan, Mosahid, 2017. "Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1738-1754.
    13. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    14. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    15. Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2020. "Trade secrets law," Working Papers wp1150, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    16. Ponce, Carlos J., 2011. "Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 418-434.
    17. 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.
    18. Ting, Hsiu-I & Wang, Ming-Chun & Yang, J. Jimmy & Tuan, Kai-Wen, 2021. "Technical expert CEOs and corporate innovation," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    19. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    20. repec:cbh:journl:v:14:y:2015:i:3:p:88-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.

    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:wsi:ijimxx:v:13:y:2009:i:03:n:s1363919609002339. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/ijim.shtml .

    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.