Difference between revisions of "Hagedoorn and Ridder (2012)"
From Copyright EVIDENCE
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Full Citation=Hagedoorn, J., & Ridder, A. K. (2012). Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study. | |Full Citation=Hagedoorn, J., & Ridder, A. K. (2012). Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study. | ||
| − | |Abstract=Our exploratory empirical study, based on a series of in-depth interviews and a survey of firms, searches for answers on a number of questions that deal with the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights in the context of open innovation. We find that firms active in open innovation have a strong preference for the governance of their open innovation relationships through formal contracts. These contracts are relevant from both a control and a process monitoring perspective. Also, despite the open nature of open innovation, firms still see intellectual property rights as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. In a first attempt to explain this preference for intellectual property rights by open innovation firms, we find the degree of openness of firms, their legalistic attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to this preference. | + | |Abstract="Our exploratory empirical study, based on a series of in-depth interviews and a survey of firms, searches for answers on a number of questions that deal with the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights in the context of open innovation. We find that firms active in open innovation have a strong preference for the governance of their open innovation relationships through formal contracts. These contracts are relevant from both a control and a process monitoring perspective. Also, despite the open nature of open innovation, firms still see intellectual property rights as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. In a first attempt to explain this preference for intellectual property rights by open innovation firms, we find the degree of openness of firms, their legalistic attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to this preference." |
|Authentic Link=http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:164 | |Authentic Link=http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:164 | ||
|Link=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.570.4183&rep=rep1&type=pdf | |Link=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.570.4183&rep=rep1&type=pdf | ||
|Reference=Chesbrough (2003);Graham and Mowery (2006);Lichtenthaler and Ernst (2009);Enkel, Gassmann and Chesbrough (2009);Dahlander and Gann (2010) | |Reference=Chesbrough (2003);Graham and Mowery (2006);Lichtenthaler and Ernst (2009);Enkel, Gassmann and Chesbrough (2009);Dahlander and Gann (2010) | ||
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=* | + | |Plain Text Proposition=*The authors find that firms active in open innovation consider both the legal perspective (control) and the practical perspective (monitoring) to be relevant. On a 7 point Likert scale, the perceived importance of contracts as legal mechanism to control collaboration with partners is indicated by an average score of 5.42. As for the importance of formal contract in monitoring the progress of collaboration the average is slightly lower scoring at 5.10. |
| + | *Firms that are active in open innovation appear to have very strong preference for contracts for managing the relationship with their partner (joint R&D, joint product and process development and joint design). Firms in the sample used in this study would be less inclined to engage in collaboration with partners without IPR protection. | ||
| + | Concerning the role of different types of IPR in protecting the innovative capabilities of firms when engaging in open innovation, the authors find that patents and technical and commercial information (trade secrets) are considered to be the most important instruments (90% of the sampled firms). This is followed by trademarks (75%) and design rights (65%). The relevance of copyright is less important (53%) due to the industry breakdown in the sample chosen by the authors. | ||
| + | *This study indicates that when governing collaborative innovative activities, firms engaging in open innovation follow an ‘unadventurous’ strategy. Indeed, instead of openly disclosing or freely revealing their innovative activities to their partners, firms engaging in open innovation use formal contracts to manage their open innovation activities. The authors also note that as the objectives of collaboration might change over time, formal contracts used when engaging in open innovation are not discrete standard contracts, but rather flexible private ordering. | ||
|FundamentalIssue=4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption),1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare | |FundamentalIssue=4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption),1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare | ||
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts),B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts),B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) | ||
| − | |Intervention-Response= | + | |Intervention-Response=The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations. |
|Description of Data=For the data collection the authors applied two distinct methods that follow a two-phase design with separate qualitative field research and a quantitative survey of firms. During the period from January to February 2011 they conducted a series of interviews with representatives of five large firms that can be seen as open innovators. | |Description of Data=For the data collection the authors applied two distinct methods that follow a two-phase design with separate qualitative field research and a quantitative survey of firms. During the period from January to February 2011 they conducted a series of interviews with representatives of five large firms that can be seen as open innovators. | ||
|Data Year=2011 | |Data Year=2011 | ||
Revision as of 13:35, 25 November 2020
Contents
Source Details
| Hagedoorn and Ridder (2012) | |
| Title: | Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study |
| Author(s): | Hagedoorn, J., Ridder, A. K. |
| Year: | 2012 |
| Citation: | Hagedoorn, J., & Ridder, A. K. (2012). Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study. |
| Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | For the data collection the authors applied two distinct methods that follow a two-phase design with separate qualitative field research and a quantitative survey of firms. During the period from January to February 2011 they conducted a series of interviews with representatives of five large firms that can be seen as open innovators. |
| Data Type: | Primary and Secondary data |
| Secondary Data Sources: | |
| Data Collection Methods: | |
| Data Analysis Methods: | |
| Industry(ies): | |
| Country(ies): | |
| Cross Country Study?: | No |
| Comparative Study?: | No |
| Literature review?: | No |
| Government or policy study?: | No |
| Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
| Funder(s): | |
Abstract
"Our exploratory empirical study, based on a series of in-depth interviews and a survey of firms, searches for answers on a number of questions that deal with the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights in the context of open innovation. We find that firms active in open innovation have a strong preference for the governance of their open innovation relationships through formal contracts. These contracts are relevant from both a control and a process monitoring perspective. Also, despite the open nature of open innovation, firms still see intellectual property rights as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. In a first attempt to explain this preference for intellectual property rights by open innovation firms, we find the degree of openness of firms, their legalistic attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to this preference."
Main Results of the Study
- The authors find that firms active in open innovation consider both the legal perspective (control) and the practical perspective (monitoring) to be relevant. On a 7 point Likert scale, the perceived importance of contracts as legal mechanism to control collaboration with partners is indicated by an average score of 5.42. As for the importance of formal contract in monitoring the progress of collaboration the average is slightly lower scoring at 5.10.
- Firms that are active in open innovation appear to have very strong preference for contracts for managing the relationship with their partner (joint R&D, joint product and process development and joint design). Firms in the sample used in this study would be less inclined to engage in collaboration with partners without IPR protection.
Concerning the role of different types of IPR in protecting the innovative capabilities of firms when engaging in open innovation, the authors find that patents and technical and commercial information (trade secrets) are considered to be the most important instruments (90% of the sampled firms). This is followed by trademarks (75%) and design rights (65%). The relevance of copyright is less important (53%) due to the industry breakdown in the sample chosen by the authors.
- This study indicates that when governing collaborative innovative activities, firms engaging in open innovation follow an ‘unadventurous’ strategy. Indeed, instead of openly disclosing or freely revealing their innovative activities to their partners, firms engaging in open innovation use formal contracts to manage their open innovation activities. The authors also note that as the objectives of collaboration might change over time, formal contracts used when engaging in open innovation are not discrete standard contracts, but rather flexible private ordering.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
| Sample size: | 5 |
| Level of aggregation: | Company |
| Period of material under study: | 2011 |
