IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/13033.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determinants of Demand for Technology in Relationships with Complementary Assets in Japanese Firms

Author

Listed:
  • KANI Masayo
  • MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki

Abstract

There is a growing trend of open innovation in the new product development process, while technology insourcing has not been investigated very well as compared to technology outsourcing in empirical literature. In this paper, we examine the factors that determine whether to acquire external knowledge and how to assimilate it in the process of new product development by using novel dataset at the product level, conducted by RIETI in 2011. We distinguish whether technology partners are also business partners such as suppliers or customers, and show their distinct patterns. In the case that technology partners are not business partners, patents play an important role in moderating transaction costs in the partnership, while co-specialization of technology and its complementary assets with partners is found for cases in which technology partners are also business partners.

Suggested Citation

  • KANI Masayo & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2013. "Determinants of Demand for Technology in Relationships with Complementary Assets in Japanese Firms," Discussion papers 13033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:13033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/13e033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gooroochurn, Nishaal & Hanley, Aoife, 2007. "A tale of two literatures: Transaction costs and property rights in innovation outsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1483-1495, December.
    2. Peter G. Klein, 2005. "The Make-or-Buy Decision: Lessons from Empirical Studies," Springer Books, in: Claude Menard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, chapter 17, pages 435-464, Springer.
    3. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
    4. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Claudia Bird Schoonhoven, 1996. "Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 136-150, April.
    5. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2010. "Is there a market for ideas?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 805-837, June.
    6. Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, 2007. "Vertical Integration and Firm Boundaries: The Evidence," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 629-685, September.
    7. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    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. Kwon, Seokbeom & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2017. "How institutional arrangements in the National Innovation System affect industrial competitiveness: A study of Japan and the U.S. with multiagent simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 221-235.
    2. Dang, Jianwei & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Huo, Dong, 2022. "Get Pennies from many or get a Dollar from one? Multiple licensing in markets for technology," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 113(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. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    2. 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).
    3. Alain-Désiré Nimubona & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2011. "Polluters and Abaters," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 103-104, pages 9-24.
    4. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    5. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    6. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    7. Desyllas, Panos & Sako, Mari, 2013. "Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 101-116.
    8. Horsky Sharon & Michael Steven C. & Silk Alvin J., 2012. "The Internalization of Advertising Services: An Inter-Industry Analysis," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, October.
    9. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    10. Bei, Xiaoshu, 2019. "Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    12. Olena Ivus & Walter G Park & Kamal Saggi, 2023. "Patent protection and the composition of multinational activity: Evidence from US multinational firms," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 14, pages 317-345, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    14. Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & Lampel, Joseph & Rietveld, Joost, 2013. "New horizons or a strategic mirage? Artist-led-distribution versus alliance strategy in the video game industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 954-964.
    15. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Marco, Antonio De & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa & Caviggioli, Federico, 2017. "Global markets for technology: Evidence from patent transactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1644-1654.
    17. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    18. Ralph Siebert, 2013. "Are Ex Ante and Ex Post Licensing Agreements Useful Instruments to Lessen Uncertainty in R&D?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4535, CESifo.
    19. Basu, Sandip & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2011. "Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 153-171, March.
    20. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:eti:dpaper:13033. 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: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.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.