IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aap/wpaper/012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing

Author

Listed:
  • Henrique M. Barros

Abstract

This paper investigates firms’ propensities to patent in manufacturing. Using a unique data set from the UK Community Innovation Survey (CIS) this paper detects the determinants of the importance of patents as a protective device. In addition, this paper explores how patents interact with other appropriability mechanisms. We find that i) the importance of patents varies across industrial sectors and by firm size, ii) a perceived high importance of patents is associated with a higher innovative capacity, iii) competition is to a certain extent conducive to a greater importance for patents, iv) innovation collaborations and government support may increase the importance of patents depending on the agents engaged in these activities, and v) patents seem to work as complements rather than substitutes for other appropriability mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrique M. Barros, 2008. "The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing," Business and Economics Working Papers 012, Unidade de Negocios e Economia, Insper.
    • Handle: RePEc:aap:wpaper:012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repositorio.insper.edu.br/handle/11224/5746
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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 101-128, Spring.
    2. Masao Nakamura & John Hagedoorn & Hans van Kranenburg & Richard N. Osborn, 2003. "Joint patenting amongst companies - exploring the effects of inter-firm R&D partnering and experience," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2-3), pages 71-84.
    3. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 681-700, May.
    4. Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
    5. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    6. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    7. Cohen, Wesley M. & Goto, Akira & Nagata, Akiya & Nelson, Richard R. & Walsh, John P., 2002. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1349-1367, December.
    8. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    9. Panagopoulos, Andreas, 2003. "Understanding when universities and firms form RJVs: the importance of intellectual property protection," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1433, November.
    10. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-720, May.
    11. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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..
    13. 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.
    14. Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
    15. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    16. Singh, Satwinder & Utton, Michael & Waterson, Michael, 1998. "Strategic behaviour of incumbent firms in the UK," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 229-251, March.
    17. Saviotti, Pier Paolo, 1998. "On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 843-856, April.
    18. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    19. Gourieroux,Christian, 2000. "Econometrics of Qualitative Dependent Variables," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521589857, June.
    20. Arora, Ashish, 1997. "Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 391-403, December.
    21. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Windmeijer, Frank, 2002. "Individual effects and dynamics in count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 113-131, May.
    22. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    23. Pitkethly, Robert H., 2001. "Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 425-442, March.
    24. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    25. William S. Comanor, 1967. "Market Structure, Product Differentiation, and Industrial Research," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 81(4), pages 639-657.
    26. Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1985. "Post-entry Competition in the Plain Paper Copier Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 15-19, May.
    27. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
    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. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_105, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. LOPES BENTO Cindy & HOTTENROTT Hanna, 2012. "Quantity or Quality? Collaboration Strategies in Research and Development and Incentives to Patent," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-29, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    7. Hanna Hottenrott & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2015. "Quantity or quality? Knowledge alliances and their effects on patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(5), pages 981-1011.
    8. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    9. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    10. Sofka, Wolfgang & Shehu, Edlira & de Faria, Pedro, 2014. "Multinational subsidiary knowledge protection—Do mandates and clusters matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1320-1333.
    11. Machado, H. B., 2007. "Understanding the Rationale to Patent in Pharmaceuticals," Insper Working Papers wpe_76, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    12. Bradley, Wendy A. & Kolev, Julian, 2023. "How does digital piracy affect innovation? Evidence from software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    13. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    14. Delin Yang & Xibao Li & Jiagui Chen, 2010. "Patent Propensity in Small Technology‐based Firms: Evidence from Zhongguancun Science Park," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 18(1), pages 99-116, January.
    15. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Danguy, Jérôme, 2010. "The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective," CEPR Discussion Papers 8145, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Burhan, Muqbil & Singh, Anil K. & Jain, Sudhir K., 2017. "Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 181-190.
    17. de Faria, Pedro & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2010. "Knowledge protection strategies of multinational firms--A cross-country comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 956-968, September.
    18. Jérôme Danguy & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2014. "On the origins of the worldwide surge in patenting: an industry perspective on the R&D–patent relationship," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(2), pages 535-572.
    19. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "Appropriability and the Patenting Process: An Exploratory Analysis of Pharmaceuticals," Insper Working Papers wpe_139, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:aap:wpaper:012. 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: Biblioteca Telles (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inspebr.html .

    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.