|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{MainSource
| + | |
| − | |Source={{Source
| |
| − | |Name of Study=Willoughby (2013)
| |
| − | |Author=Willoughby, K.
| |
| − | |Title=Intellectual Property Management and Technological Entrepreneurship
| |
| − | |Year=2013
| |
| − | |Full Citation=Willoughby, K. W. (2013). Intellectual property management and technological entrepreneurship. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 10(06), 1340027.
| |
| − | |Abstract=This paper investigates the distinctive technology protection strategies of entrepreneurial technology firms. In contrast with much popular opinion, it is reported that intellectual property features more prominently in the business of small entrepreneurial firms than it does in the business of large, established mature firms. The intellectual property portfolios of technology firms of all sizes and ages exhibit a rich array of instruments in addition to patents for protecting technology, including trade secrets, trademarks and copyright, together with licenses to externally sourced technology. The intellectual property profiles of technology firms appear to be influenced by their context, organizational profiles and corporate goals and by the character of their technology.
| |
| − | |Authentic Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1630666
| |
| − | |Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1630666
| |
| − | |Reference=Curado and Bontis (2006); Boldrin and Levine (2008); Craig and Moore (2011); Dolfsma (2011);
| |
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=* It is suggested that the development of an intellectual property strategy for a technology firm is heavily influenced by the firm’s context, its organizational profile, its corporate goals and the character of its technology; and that this general principle applies to small and young firms at least as much as it applies to large and established firms.
| |
| − | * Thus, the challenges of developing and implementing an intellectual property strategy— for small and young firms as well as large and established firms—mirror those of developing an overall business strategy or corporate strategy, in terms of both the complexity of the challenges and the contingencies that may come in to play.
| |
| − | * A number of commentators and observers believe that the benefits of intellectual property accrue disproportionately to large established firms and that the costs (both direct costs and transaction costs) of obtaining intellectual property rights, and of appropriating business value from them, work against the interests of small and medium sized enterprises. The fact (at least as reported in this paper) that small and medium sized enterprises typically invest proportionally more heavily in intellectual property than do large established firms, suggests that some popular beliefs about this subject are misplaced. The distinctive intellectual property profiles of entrepreneurial technology firms, in contrast with those of the large established firms, may provide clues as to how entrepreneurial managers go about crafting strategies to match their difficult circumstances.
| |
| − | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption),
| |
| − | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction), A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right),
| |
| − | |Discipline=O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
| |
| − | |Description of Data=All of the empirical data that were collected by the author during this study came from a sample of firms in the bioscience-technology industries in the United States. This industry sector was selected because it is replete with excellent examples of the “high technology” firms about which much of the literature on intellectual property is concerned; yet it is also very diverse in both its technological character and the technological intensity of its firms and products. The sector includes not only dedicated biotechnology firms (narrowly defined) but also firms active in medical devices technology, pharmaceuticals technology, and other fields of technology related to the life-sciences (predominantly bio-processing). This group of firms, including dedicated biotechnology firms, may be labeled collectively as the “bioscience-technology” sector. Additionally, the sector exhibits wide diversity in the morphology of its member firms related to size and age.
| |
| − | The final data set assembled for the analysis below consisted of 184 records of valid data, drawn from 93 confirmed bioscience technology firms in New York State and 91 confirmed bioscience technology firms in Utah.
| |
| − | |Data Year=1996-1998
| |
| − | |Data Type=Primary and Secondary data
| |
| − | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Qualitative Collection Methods
| |
| − | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Qualitative Analysis Methods
| |
| − | |Country=United States;
| |
| − | |Cross-country=No
| |
| − | |Comparative=No
| |
| − | |Government or policy=No
| |
| − | |Literature review=Yes
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | |Dataset={{Dataset
| |
| − | |Sample Size=93
| |
| − | |Level of Aggregation=Firms,
| |
| − | |Data Material Year=1996
| |
| − | }}{{Dataset
| |
| − | |Sample Size=91
| |
| − | |Level of Aggregation=Firms,
| |
| − | |Data Material Year=1998
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | }}
| |
