FACTORS INFLUENCING PATENT AND UTILITY MODEL PROTECTION STRATEGIES OF FIRMS

Year 2016, , 189 - 208, 01.04.2016

Hakan Eren Ali Kılıç

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.20162819852

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This article analyses empirically a set of factors that may influence the firms’ evaluations about patent/utility model UM effectiveness and the importance they attach to the protection. The analysis focuses on inputs including different types of knowledge sources and cooperations in addition to traditional factors such as firm and market size, R&D activities and funds. Firmlevel data of Turkish Statistical Institute Innovation Survey 2012 was used. Our results indicate that patents/UM protection behavior of firms is mostly associated with outward-oriented innovation strategy. Our results also confirm that firm size, R&D, internal and external sources of knowledge, acquisition of funds, market size and cooperation with rivals have a positive influence on decisions about patent/UM protection

Keywords

Patent/Utility Model, Protection Strategy, Knowledge Sources, Cooperations

FİRMALARDA PATENT VE FAYDALI MODEL EDİNİM STRATEJİSİNİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLER

Abstract

Bu çalışma, firmaların patent ve faydalı model FM korumasının etkililiğine yönelik değerlendirmelerini ve korumaya verdikleri önemi etkileyebilecek bir dizi faktörü ampirik olarak incelemektedir. Analizler, firma ve ürün sunulan pazar büyüklüğü, AR-GE aktiviteleri ve destekler gibi geleneksel faktörlerin yanısıra, organizasyonlar arası işbirlikleri ve farklı bilgi kaynakları gibi girdilere de odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumunun Yenilik Araştırması 2012 verisinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmanın temel bulgusu, bir firmanın patent/FM koruma davranışının, daha çok dışa dönük yenilik stratejisi ile ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar ayrıca, firma büyüklüğü, AR-GE, iç ve dış bilgi kaynakları ve finansal desteklerden yararlanma, pazar büyüklüğü ve rakiplerle işbirliği yapmanın patent/FM koruma kararı üzerinde pozitif yönde bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Patent/Faydalı Model, Koruma Stratejisi, Bilgi Kaynakları, İşbirlikleri

References

• Amara, N., Landry, R., & Traoré, N. (2008). Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services. Research Policy, 37, 1530-1547.
• Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30, 611-624.
• Arvanitis, S., Sydov, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 504-533.
• Beneito, P. (2006). The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models. Research Policy, 35, 502-517.
• Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35, 655-672.
• Brouwer, E., & Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28, 615-624.
• Cassiman, B., Pérez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2001). Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20(6), 775-799.
• Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169-1184.
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new ımperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). SSRN Working Paper no. 7552, 1-50.
• Dachs, B., Ebersberger, B., & Lööf, H. (2008). The innovative performance of foreign-owned enterprises in small open economies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4), 393-406.
• Dericioğlu, K. (2010). Türkiye’de ulusal patent sayıları. Erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2015, http:// www.inovasyon.org/getfile.asp?file=Turkiye’deki_Ulusal_Patent_Sayilari.pdf
• Duguet, E., & Kabla, I. (1998). Appropriation strategy and the motivation to use the patent system: An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 49/50, 289-327.
• Elche, D. (2011). Sources of knowledge, investments and appropriability as determinants of innovation: An empirical study in service firms. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 13, 220-235.
• Gallié, E. P., & Legros, D. (2012). French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property. Research Policy, 41, 780-794.
• Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic ındicators: A survey part I. NBER Working Paper Series No. 3301, Cambridge, MA.
• Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R and D: is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27(2), 265-283.
• Hanel, P. (2006). Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of the literature. Technovation, 26, 895-931.
• Hanel, P. (2008). The use of intellectual property rights and innovation by manufacturing firms in Canada. Economics of Innovation and New-Technology, 17, 285-309.
• Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30, 791-804.
• Kay L., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2014). Signs of things to come? What patent submissions by small and medium-sized enterprises say about corporate strategies in emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 85, 17-25.
• Keller, W. (2004). International technology diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 752-782.
• Kim, Y. K., Lee, K., Park, W. G., & Choo, K. (2012). Appropriate intellectual property protection and economic growth in countries at different levels of development. Research Policy, 41, 358-375.
• Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397.
• Laforet, S. (2013). Organizational innovation outcomes in SMEs: Effects of age, size, and sector. Journal of World Business, 48, 490-502.
• Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43, 867-878.
• Lederman, D., & Saenz, L. (2005). Innovation and development around the World, 1960-2000. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3774, 24-26.
• Leiponen, A., & Byma, J. (2009). If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. Research Policy, 38, 1478-1488.
• Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285-318.
• Lin, J. L., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Tsai, F. S. (2009). Network embeddedness and technology transfer performance in R&D consortia in Taiwan. Technovation, 29, 763-774.
• Lotti, F., & Schivardi, F. (2005). Cross country differences in patent propensity: A firm-level investigation. Giornale degli Economisti, 64(4), 469-502.
• Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859-876.
• Macdonald, S. (2004). When means becomes ends, considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation. Information Economics and Policy, 16(1), 135-158.
• Malewicki, D., & Sivakumar, K. (2004). Patents and product development strategies: A model of antecedents and consequences of patent value. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 5-22.
• Markman, G. D., Espina, M. I., & Phan, H. P. (2004). Patents as surrogates for inimitable and non-substitutable resources. Journal of Management, 30(4), 529-544.
• Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson, R. (1998). The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27, 273-284.
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Olsson, H., & McQueen, D. H. (2000). Factors influencing patenting in small computer software producing companies. Technovation, 20, 563-576.
• Palmqvist, H. C., Sandberg, B., & Mylly, U. M. (2012). Intellectual property rights in innovation management research: A review. Technovation, 32, 502-512.
• Peeters, C., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2006). Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms. J Evol Econ, 16, 109-135.
• Pekol, O., & Erbaş, B. C. (2011). Patent sisteminde Türkiye’deki teknoparkların yeri. Ege Akademik Bakış, XI, 39-58.
• Pitkethly, R. H. (2012). Intellectual property awareness. Int .J. Technology Management, 59(3/4), 163-179.
• Shukla, D. B. (2005). Need to inculcate the culture of intellectual property protection in research and development. Current Science, 1553-1561.
• Sichelman, T., & Graham, S. J. H. (2010). Patenting by entrepreneurs: An empirical study. 17 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 111. Erişim Tarihi: 12.04.2015, http://www.mttlr.org/ volseventeen/Sichelman&Graham.pdf
• Siebeck, W., Evenson, R. E., Lesser, W., & Primo Braga, C. A. (1990). Strengthening protection of intellectual property in developing countries: A survey of the literature. World Bank Discussion Papers 112.
• Sobrero, M., & Roberts, E. B. (2002). Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development. Research Policy, 31(1), 159-182.
• Tether, B.S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947-967.
• Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organisational change. Wiley, Chichester.
• TPE, Türk Patent Enstitüsü. (2015). Patent/Faydalı Model. Erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2015, http:// www.tpe.gov.tr/TurkPatentEnstitusu/commonContent/Publications
• Van Ophem, H., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Mohnen, P. (2001). The mutual relation between patents and R&D. In A. Kleinknecht, P. Mohnen (Eds.), Innovation and firm performance: Econometric explorations of survey data. New York: Palgrave.
• Veer, T., & Jell, F. (2012). Contributing to markets for technology? A comparison of patent filing motives of individual inventors, small companies and universities. Technovation, 32, 513-522.
• Weck, M., & Blomqvist, K. (2008). The role of inter-organizational relationships in the development of patents: A knowledge-based approach. Research Policy, 37, 1329-36.
• WIPO. (2012). WIPO IP Facts and Figures. Erişim Tarihi: 13.05.2015, http://www.wipo.int/ edocs/pubdocs/en/statistics/943/wipo_pub_943_2012.pdf