Research on Markets for Inventions and Implications for R&D Allocation Strategies

References

• Aggarwal V., Hsu D. 2009. Modes of cooperative R&D commercialization by start-ups. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 835–864. (doi:10.1002/smj.765) Google Scholar
• Almirall E., Casadesus-Masanell R. 2010. Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 27–47. (doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.45577790)Abstract , Google Scholar
• Anand B. N., Khanna T. 2000. The structure of licensing contracts. Review of Industrial Organization, 48(1): 103–134. Google Scholar
• Anton J. J., Yao D. A. 1994. Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. American Economic Review, 84(1): 190–209. Google Scholar
• Arora A. 1995. Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4: 41–59. (doi:10.1080/10438599500000013) Google Scholar
• Arora A. 1996. Contracting for tacit knowledge: The provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts. Journal of Development Economics, 50(2): 233–256. (doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(96)00399-9) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Ceccagnoli M. 2006. Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Science, 52(2): 293–308. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0437) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Fosfuri A. 2003. Licensing the market for technology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52: 277–295. (doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00002-7) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. 2000. Specialized technology suppliers, international spillovers and investment: Evidence from the chemical. Journal of Development Economics, 65(1): 31–54. (doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(01)00126-2) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. 2001. Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Arora A., Fosfuri A., Roende T. forthcoming. Managing licensing in a market for technology. Management Science, 59(5) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Gambardella A. 1990. Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4): 361–379. (doi:10.2307/2098345) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Gambardella A. 1994a. The changing technology of technical change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Research Policy, 23(5): 523–532. (doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01003-X) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Gambardella A. 1994b. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 24(1): 91–114. (doi:10.1016/0167-2681(94)90055-8) Google Scholar
• Arora A., Nandkumar A. 2012. Insecure advantage? Markets for technology and the value of resources for entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 33(3): 221–251. (doi:10.1002/smj.953) Google Scholar
• Arrow J. K. 1962. “Economics welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”. In The rate and direction of inventive activity, Edited by: Nelson R. 164–181. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J. 1983. “Innovation in large and small firms”. In Entrepreneurship, Edited by: Ronen J. 15–28. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B. 2000. Design rules, volume 1, the power of modularity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., von Hippel E. 2011. Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6): 1399–1417. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0618) Google Scholar
• Baum J. A.C., Korn H. 1996. Competitive dynamics of interfirm rivalry. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2): 255–291. (doi:10.2307/256781)Abstract , Google Scholar
• Bercovitz J., Feldman M. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19: 69–89. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0295) Google Scholar
• Bernheim B. D., Whinston M. D. 1990. Multimarket contact and collusive behavior. Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1): 1–26. (doi:10.2307/2555490) Google Scholar
• Black F., Scholes M. 1973. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. The Journal of Political Economy, 81(3): 637–654. (doi:10.1086/260062) Google Scholar
• Boudreau K., Lakhani K., Lacetera N. 2011. Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 57(5): 843–863. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322) Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T., Gambardella A. 1998. “The division of inventive labor and the extent of the market”. In General-Purpose technologies and economic growth, Edited by: Helpman E. 253–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Brusoni S., Prencipe A. 2011. Patterns of modularization: The dynamics of product architecture in complex systems. European Management Review, 8(2): 67–80. (doi:10.1111/j.1740-4762.2011.01010.x) Google Scholar
• Cassiman B., Veugelers R. 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D, cooperation in R&D and external technology acquisition. Management Science, 52(1): 68–82. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470) Google Scholar
• Caves R. E. 1984. Economic analysis and the quest for competitive advantage. American Economic Review, 74(2): 127–132. Google Scholar
• Caves R., Crookel H., Killing J. P. 1983. The imperfect market for technology licensing. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 45(3): 249–267. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.1983.mp45003002.x) Google Scholar
• Ceccagnoli M., Jiang L. 2013. The cost of integrating external technologies: Supply and demand drivers of value creation in the markets for technology. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4): 404–425. (doi:10.1002/smj.2020) Google Scholar
• Chen M. J., Miller D. 2012. Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 135–210. (doi:10.1080/19416520.2012.660762)Abstract , Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. 2006a. “New puzzles and new findings”. In Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Edited by: Chesbrough H.Vanhaverbeke W.West J. 15–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. 2006b. “Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation”. In Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Edited by: Chesbrough H.Vanhaverbeke W.West J. 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H., Appleyard M. M. 2007. Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1): 57–76. (doi:10.2307/41166416) Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H., Crowther A. K. 2006. Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3): 229–236. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H., Vanhaverbeke W., West J. 2006. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Edited by: Chesbrough H.Vanhaverbeke W.West J. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Cockburn I., Henderson R. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: Determinants of research productivity in the pharmaceutical industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1): 32–59. (doi:10.2307/2555791) Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99: 569–596. (doi:10.2307/2233763) Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152. (doi:10.2307/2393553) Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Malerba F. 2001. Is the tendency to variation a chief cause of progress?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3): 587–608. (doi:10.1093/icc/10.3.587) Google Scholar
• Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., & Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not) (NBER Working Paper No. 7552). Cambridge, MA: NBER. Google Scholar
• Contractor F. J. 1981. International technology licensing: Compensation, costs, and negotiation, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Google Scholar
• Daft R. L. 1978. A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2): 193–210. (doi:10.2307/255754)Abstract , Google Scholar
• Dahan E., Mendelson H. 2001. An extreme-value model of concept testing. Management Science, 47(1): 102–116. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.1.102.10666) Google Scholar
• Dixit A., Pindyck R. 1994. Investment under uncertainty, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
• Dodgson M., Gann D., Salter A. 2006. The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36(3): 333–346. Google Scholar
• Dushnitsky G., Klueter T. 2011. Is there an e-Bay for ideas? Insights from online knowledge marketplaces. European Management Review, 8(1): 17–32. (doi:10.1111/j.1740-4762.2010.01002.x) Google Scholar
• Dyer J. H., Singh H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660–679.Link , Google Scholar
• Eggers J. P. 2012. All experience is not created equal: Learning, adapting and focusing in product portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 33(3): 315–335. (doi:10.1002/smj.956) Google Scholar
• Fauchart E., von Hippel E. 2008. Norms-based intellectual property systems: The case of French chefs. Organization Science, 19(2): 187–201. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0314) Google Scholar
• Folta T. B., O'Brien J. P. 2004. Entry in the presence of dueling options. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2): 121–138. (doi:10.1002/smj.368) Google Scholar
• Forman C., Goldfarb A., Greenstein S. 2008. Understanding the inputs into innovation: Do cities substitute for internal firm resources?. Journal of Management and Strategy, 17(2): 295–316. Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A. 2006. The licensing Dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12): 1141–1158. (doi:10.1002/smj.562) Google Scholar
• Franke N., von Hippel E. 2003. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7): 1199–1215. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00049-0) Google Scholar
• Franke N., Shah S. 2003. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1): 157–178. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00006-9) Google Scholar
• Galasso, A., Schankerman, M., & Serrano, C.J. (2011). Trading and enforcing patent rights (NBER Working Paper 17367). Cambridge, MA: NBER. Google Scholar
• Gallini N. T. 1984. Deterrence through market sharing: A strategic incentive for licensing. American Economic Review, 74(5): 931–941. Google Scholar
• Gambardella A., Giarratana M. 2013. General technologies, product-market fragmentation and the market for technology. Research Policy, 42(2): 315–325. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.08.002) Google Scholar
• Gambardella A., Giuri P., Luzzi A. 2007. The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36(8): 1163–1183. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.07.006) Google Scholar
• Gambardella A., McGahan A. 2010. Business-model innovation, general purpose technologies, specialization and industry change. Long Range Planning, 43: 262–271. (doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.009) Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Hsu D. H., Stern S. 2002. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(4): 571–586. (doi:10.2307/3087475) Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Hsu D. H., Stern S. 2008. The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: Evidence from patent grant delays. Management Science, 54(5): 982–997. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0814) Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Stern S. 2000. Incumbency and R&D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9(4): 485–511. (doi:10.1162/105864000567945) Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Stern S. 2003. The product market and the market for ideas: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2): 333–350. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00103-8) Google Scholar
• Garud R., Nayyar P. 1994. Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by inter-temporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 365–385. (doi:10.1002/smj.4250150504) Google Scholar
• Ghemawat P. 1984. Capacity expansion in the titanium dioxide industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(2): 145–163. (doi:10.2307/2098506) Google Scholar
• Ghemawat P. 1991. Commitment: The dynamic of strategy, New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
• Gimeno J., Woo C. Y. 1996. Hypercompetition in a multimarket environment: The role of strategic similarity and multimarket contact on competitive de-escalation. Organization Science, 7(3): 322–341. (doi:10.1287/orsc.7.3.322) Google Scholar
• Gimeno J., Woo C. Y. 1999. Multimarket contact, economies of scope, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3): 239–259. (doi:10.2307/256917)Link , Google Scholar
• Green J., Scotchmer S. 1995. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 26(1): 20–33. (doi:10.2307/2556033) Google Scholar
• Greenberg G. forthcoming. Small firms, big patents? Estimating patent value using data on Israeli start-ups’ financing rounds. European Management Review, 10(2) Google Scholar
• Greenwood R., Raynard M., Kodeih F., Micelotta E. R., Lounsbury M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371. (doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.590299)Link , Google Scholar
• Grindley P., Teece D. 1997. Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39: 8–41. (doi:10.2307/41165885) Google Scholar
• Gruber M., Henkel J. 2006. New ventures based on open innovation—An empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(4): 356–372. (doi:10.1504/IJTM.2006.009249) Google Scholar
• Gulati R., Singh H. 1998. The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781–814. (doi:10.2307/2393616) Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Ziedonis R. H. 2001. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor Industry, 1979–1995. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1): 101–128. (doi:10.2307/2696400) Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Sutton R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716–749. (doi:10.2307/2393655) Google Scholar
• Henkel J. 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7): 953–969. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.010) Google Scholar
• Hill C. W.L. 1992. Strategies for exploiting technological innovations: When and when not to license. Organization Science, 3(3): 428–441. (doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.428) Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. 2010. “Users as sources of invention (Chapter 9)”. In Handbook of economics of technological change, Edited by: Hall B. H.Rosenberg N. 411–425. New York: Elsevier B.V. Google Scholar
• von Hippel E., Finkelstein S. N. 1979. Analysis of innovation in automated clinical chemistry analyzers. Science and Public Policy, 6(1): 24–37. Google Scholar
• von Hippel E., von Krogh G. 2003. Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2): 209–223. (doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992) Google Scholar
• Hoetker G. 2006. Do modular products lead to modular products?. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 501–518. (doi:10.1002/smj.528) Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B. 1989. Agency costs and innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 12(3): 305–327. (doi:10.1016/0167-2681(89)90025-5) Google Scholar
• Huchzermeier A., Loch C. H. 2001. Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, 47(1): 85–101. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.1.85.10661) Google Scholar
• Ibarra H. 1993. Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 471–501. (doi:10.2307/256589)Link , Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm, managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305–360. (doi:10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X) Google Scholar
• Kaplan S. 2008. Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5): 729–752. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0340) Google Scholar
• Kaplan S., Tripsas M. 2008. Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37(5): 790–805. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.002) Google Scholar
• Karnani A., Wernerfelt B. 1985. Multipoint competition. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 87–96. (doi:10.1002/smj.4250060107) Google Scholar
• Katz M. L., Shapiro C. 1994. Systems competition and network effects. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2): 93–115. (doi:10.1257/jep.8.2.93) Google Scholar
• Katz R., Allen T. J. 1982. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1): 7–19. Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(2): 383–397. (doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383) Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342–369. (doi:10.2307/2393394) Google Scholar
• Kulatilaka N., Lin L. 2006. Impact of licensing on investment and financing of technology development. Management Science, 52(12): 1824–1837. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0589) Google Scholar
• Kulatilaka N., Perotti A. 1998. Strategic growth options. Management Science, 44(8): 1021–1031. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.8.1021) Google Scholar
• Lakhani K., von Hippel E. 2003. How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32(6): 923–943. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00095-1) Google Scholar
• Langlois R. N. 2002. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(1): 19–37. (doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00056-2) Google Scholar
• Laursen K., Leone I., Torrisi S. 2010. Technological exploration through licensing: New insights from the licensee's point of view. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3): 871–897. (doi:10.1093/icc/dtq034) Google Scholar
• Laursen K., Salter A. J. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2): 131–150. (doi:10.1002/smj.507) Google Scholar
• Leiponen A., Helfat C. E. 2011. Location, decentralization, and knowledge sources for innovation. Organization Science, 22(3): 641–658. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0526) Google Scholar
• Leone M. I., Reichstein T. 2012. Licensing fosters rapid innovation! The effect of the grant-back clause and technological unfamiliarity. Strategic Management Journal, 33(8): 965–985. (doi:10.1002/smj.1950) Google Scholar
• Levin R. C., Klevorick A., Nelson R., Winter S. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3: 783–831. (doi:10.2307/2534454) Google Scholar
• Li D., Eden L., Hitt M., Ireland R. D. 2008. Friends, acquaintances or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. Academy Management Journal, 51(2): 315–334. (doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767271)Abstract , Google Scholar
• Lim, K. (2000). The many faces of absorptive capacity: Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips (Working Paper No. 4110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management. Google Scholar
• Lin, L., & Kulatilaka, N. (2007). Strategic growth options in network industries. Advances in Strategic Management, 24, 181–203. Google Scholar
• Loch C. H., Terwiesch C., Thomke S. 2001. Parallel and sequential testing of design alternatives. Management Science, 47(5): 663–678. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.5.663.10480) Google Scholar
• Malerba F., Orsenigo L. 1997. Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1): 83–118. (doi:10.1093/icc/6.1.83) Google Scholar
• Markides C. C., Geroski P. A. 2005. Fast second: How smart companies bypass radical innovation to enter and dominate new markets, San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Google Scholar
• McDonald R., Siegel D. 1986. The value of waiting to invest. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(4): 707–727. (doi:10.2307/1884175) Google Scholar
• McGahan A. M., Silverman B. S. 2006. Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value. Research Policy, 35(8): 1222–1242. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.006) Google Scholar
• McGrath R. G. 1997. A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 974–996.Link , Google Scholar
• Menon T., Pfeffer J. 2003. Valuing internal versus external knowledge: Explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4): 497–513. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.497.14422) Google Scholar
• Merton R. K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Morrison P. D., Roberts J. H., von Hippel E. 2000. Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Management Science, 46(12): 1513–1527. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1513.12076) Google Scholar
• Mowery D. C., Rosenberg N. 1982. “The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies”. In Inside the black box: Technology and economics, Edited by: Rosenberg N. 193–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Nelson R. R. 1961. Uncertainty, learning, and the economics of parallel research and development. Review of Economics and Statistics, 43(4): 351–368. (doi:10.2307/1927475) Google Scholar
• Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I. (1991, November–December). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, pp. 96–104. Google Scholar
• Ocasio W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1): 187–206. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.3.CO;2-B) Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Pisano G. P. 1990. The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 153–176. (doi:10.2307/2393554) Google Scholar
• Podolny J. M. 1993. A status-based model of market competition. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(4): 829–872. (doi:10.1086/230091) Google Scholar
• Poppo L., Zenger T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 707–725. (doi:10.1002/smj.249) Google Scholar
• Porter M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy, New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
• Porter M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage, New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
• Rai A. K. 1999. Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwestern University Law Review, 94(1): 77–152. Google Scholar
• Raymond E. 1999. The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary, Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly. Google Scholar
• Rivette K. G., Kline D. 2000. Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review, 78(1): 54–66. Google Scholar
• Rockett K. E. 1990. Choosing the competition and patent licensing. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1): 161–171. (doi:10.2307/2555501) Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N. 1996. “Uncertainty and technological change”. In The mosaic of economic growth, Edited by: Landau R.Taylor T.Wright G. 334–353. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• Rotenberg J. J., Saloner G. 1994. Benefits of narrow business strategies. The American Economic Review, 84(5): 1330–1349. Google Scholar
• Sakkab N. Y. 2002. Connect and develop complements research and develop at P&G. Research-Technology Management, 45(2): 38–45. Google Scholar
• Sanchez R., Mahoney J. T. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 7: 63–76. Google Scholar
• Scherer F. M. 1980. Industrial market structure and economic performance, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
• Schilling M. A. 2000. Towards a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2): 312–334.Abstract , Google Scholar
• Schilling M. A., Steensma K. 2002. Disentangling the theories on firm boundaries: A path model and empirical test. Organization Science, 13(4): 387–401. (doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.387.2950) Google Scholar
• Scotchmer S. 1991. Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 29–41. (doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.29) Google Scholar
• Serrano C.J. 2012. Estimating the gains from trade in the market for innovation: Evidence from the transfer of patents. (NBER Working Papers 17304). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Google Scholar
• Shane S. 2002. Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48(1): 122–138. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.122.14281) Google Scholar
• Sine W. D., Shane S., Di Gregorio D. 2003. The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university innovations. Management Science, 49(4): 478–496. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.478.14416) Google Scholar
• Somaya D., Kim Y., Vonortas N. S. 2011. Exclusivity in licensing alliances: Using hostages to support technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2): 159–186. (doi:10.1002/smj.883) Google Scholar
• Spence A. M. 1979. Investment strategy and growth in a new market. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1): 1–19. (doi:10.2307/3003316) Google Scholar
• Stephan P. E. 1996. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 34(3): 1199–1235. Google Scholar
• Stern S. 2004. Do scientists pay to be scientists?. Management Science, 50(6): 835–853. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0241) Google Scholar
• Sutton J. 1998. Technology and market structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 15(6): 285–305. (doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2) Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 3: 55–79. (doi:10.2307/41165943) Google Scholar
• Thomke S. H., von Hippel E. 2002. Customers as innovators: A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review, 80(4): 74–81. Google Scholar
• Waguespack D. M., Fleming L. 2008. Scanning the commons? Evidence on the benefits to start-ups participating in open standards development. Management Science, 55(2): 210–223. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0944) Google Scholar
• West, J. (2006). Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation? In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new paradigm (pp. 109–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. 1989. “Transaction cost economics”. In Handbook of industrial organization, Edited by: Schmalensee R.Willig R. 135–182. Amsterdam: North Holland. Google Scholar
• Winter S. G. 1987. “Knowledge and competence as strategic assets”. In The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal, Edited by: Teece D. J. 159–184. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar