|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users 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.
| |
| − | |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.
| |
| − | |Cross-country=No
| |
| − | |Comparative=No
| |
| − | |Government or policy=No
| |
| − | |Literature review=Yes
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | |Dataset={{Dataset}}{{Dataset}}
| |
| − | }}
| |
