İmalât Sanayi Firmalarında Sınaî Mülkiyet Koruma Tercihleri

Abstract

Bu çalışma, gelişmekte olan bir ülkede, firmaların sınai mülkiyet koruma tercihlerini ve korumaya verdikleri önemi etkileyebilecek bir dizi faktörü ampirik olarak incelemektedir. Çalışmada, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumunun Yenilik Araştırması 2012 verisinden yararlanılmıştır. Analizlerde, ürün sunulan pazar büyüklüğü, Ar-Ge aktiviteleri, istifade edilen bilgi kaynakları ve destekler gibi geleneksel faktörlerin yanısıra, organizasyonlar arası işbirlikleri ve farklı kurumsal stratejilerin etkilerine odaklanılmıştır. Henüz SM korumasının ilk aşamasında olunmasına rağmen, genel olarak farklı koşullar altında firmaların resmi ve stratejik koruma yöntemleri arasından tercihte bulunduğu görülmektedir. Sonuçlar, bir firmanın patent/FM koruma davranışının, firmanın yenilik stratejisine sahip olması ve daha çok dışa dönük yenilik faaliyetleri ile ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Kurum içi ve piyasa temelli bilgi kaynakları ile yenilik stratejisi, tüm koruma yöntemleri üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahiptir. Diğer firma ve bilgi merkezleri ile işbirliklerinde patent/FM ve gizlilik birbirlerinin tamamlayıcısıdır. Sonuçlar ayrıca, marka tescili, patent/FM ve üretim süresi avantajının, ürün yeniliğini anlamlı olarak en fazla oranda etkileyen koruma yöntemleri olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

• Sınaî Mülkiyet,Koruma Yöntemleri,Gelişmekte Olan Ülke,Kurumsal Stratejiler,Sıralı Lojistik Regresyon

Intellectual Property Protection Preferences of Manufacturing Firms

Abstract

This article explores the IP protection in a developing country by using a set of factors that may drive IP protection method preferences of firms and the importance they attach to the protection. Empirical analyses are based on the Turkish Community Innovation Survey 2012 data. The analysis focuses on inputs including different types of corporate strategies and cooperation in addition to traditional factors such as market size, R&D activities, knowledge sources and funds. Despite being in early stages of IP system, firms use both formal and informal protection mechanisms under different circumstances. Our results indicate that patents/UM protection behavior of firms is mostly associated with having an innovation strategy and outward-oriented innovation activities. Internal and market-based information sources and innovation strategy have a positive effect on all protection methods. Patent/UM and secrecy are complementary to each other in cooperation with other firms and information centers. Our results also confirm that trademark registration, patent/UM and lead-time advantages are the protection methods that significantly influence product innovation.

Keywords

• Intellectual Property,Protection Mechanisms,Developing Country,Corporate Strategies,Ordered Logistic Regression

References

1. Amara, N., Landry, R. and Traoré, N. (2008). Managing The Protection of Innovations in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. Research Policy, Vol. 37, 1530-1547.
2. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R. and Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to Patent: Empirical Evidence from Germany. Research Policy, Vol. 35, 655-672.
3. Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative Output, and A Firm’s Propensity to Patent: An Exploration of CIS Micro Data. Research Policy, Vol. 28, 615-624.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (6. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem.
5. Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, 1169-1184.
6. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
7. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J. (2000). Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not). SSRN Working Paper No. 7552, 1-50.
8. Delerue, H. and Lejeune, A. (2011). Managerial Secrecy and Intellectual Asset Protection in SMEs: The Role of Institutional Environment. Journal of International Management, Vol. 17, 130-142.

9. Dericioğlu, K. (2005). Türkiye’de Ulusal Patent Sayıları. Erişim Tarihi 12 Aralık 2016, http://www.inovasyon.org/getfile.asp?file=Turkiye'deki_Ulusal_ Patent_Sayilari.pdf
10. Duguet, E. and 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.
11. Elche, D. (2011). Sources of Knowledge, Investments and Appropriability as Determinants of Innovation: An Empirical Study in Service Firms. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 13, 220-235.
12. Eren, H. ve Kılıç, A. (2016). Firmalarda Patent ve Faydalı Model Edinim Stratejisini Etkileyen Faktörler. International Journal of Management Economics & Business, Vol. 12, Iss. 28, 189-208.
13. Frenz, M. and Prevezer, M. (2012). What can CIS Data Tell Us about Technological Regimes and Persistence of Innovation? Industry and Innovation, Vol. 19, No. 4, 285-306.
14. Gallié, E.P. and Legros, D. (2012). French Firms’ Strategies for Protecting Their Intellectual Property. Research Policy, Vol. 41, 780-794.
15. Hanel, P. (2008). The Use of Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation by Manufacturing Firms in Canada. Economics of Innovation and New-Technology, Vol. 17, 285-309.
16. Kaufmann, A. and Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-Industry Interaction in the Process of Innovation: The Importance of Boundary-Crossing Between Systems. Research Policy, Vol. 30, 791-804.
17. Kay, L., Youtie, J. and 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, Vol. 85, 17-25.
18. Keller, W. (2004). International Technology Diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 42, 752-782.
19. Kim, Y.K., Lee, K., Park, W.G. and Choo, K. (2012). Appropriate Intellectual Property Protection and Economic Growth in Countries at Different Levels of Development. Research Policy, Vol. 41, 358-375.
20. Lall, S. (2003). Indicators of the Relative Importance of IPRs in Developing Countries. Research Policy, Vol. 32, 1657-1680.
21. Laursen, K. and Salter, A.J. (2014). The Paradox of Openness: Appropriability, External Search and Collaboration. Research Policy, Vol. 43, 867-878.
22. Lederman, D. and Saenz, L. (2005). Innovation and Development Around the World, 1960-2000. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3774, 24-26.
23. Leiponen, A. and Byma, J. (2009). If You cannot Block, You Better Run: Small Firms, Cooperative Innovation, and Appropriation Strategies. Research Policy, Vol. 38, 1478-1488.
24. Lerner, J. (1999). The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program. Journal of Business, Vol. 72, No. 3, 285-318.
25. Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1987). Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 3, 783-820.
26. Löfsten, H. and Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and The Growth of New Technology-Based Firms Academic-Industry Links, Innovation and Markets. Research Policy, Vol. 31, 859-876.
27. Macdonald, S. (2004). When Means Becomes Ends, Considering The Impact of Patent Strategy on Innovation. Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, 135-158.
28. Markman, G.D., Espina, M.I. and Phan, H.P. (2004). Patents as Surrogates for Inimitable and Non-Substitutable Resources. Journal of Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, 529-544.
29. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University.
30. Nunnaly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
31. Oliver, J.L.H. and Ripoll, F.S. (2015). Disentangling the Influence of Technological Process and Product Innovations. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, No. 1, 109-118.
32. Olsson, H. and McQueen, D.H. (2000). Factors Influencing Patenting in Small Computer Software Producing Companies. Technovation, Vol. 20, 563-576.
33. Peeters, C. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2006). Innovation Strategy and the Patenting Behavior of Firms. J Evol Econ, Vol. 16, 109-135.
34. Pekol, Ö. ve Erbaş, B.Ç. (2011). Patent Sisteminde Türkiye’deki Teknoparkların Yeri. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt XI, 39-58.
35. Shukla, D.B. (2005). Need to Inculcate the Culture of Intellectual Property Protection in Research and Development. Current Science, 1553-1561.
36. Sichelman, T. and Graham, S.J.H. (2010). Patenting by Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Study. 17 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 111. Erişim Tarihi 12 Kasım 2016, http://www.mttlr.org/volseventeen/Sichelman&Graham.pdf
37. Sobrero, M. and Roberts, E.B. (2002). Strategic Management of Supplier-Manufacturer Relations in New Product Development. Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 1, 159-182.
38. Tether, B.S. (2002). Who Co-Operates for Innovation, and why: An Empirical Analysis. Research Policy, Vol. 31, 947-967.
39. Thomä, J. and Bizer, K. (2013). To Protect or not to Protect? Modes of Appropriability in the Small Enterprise Sector. Research Policy, Vol. 42, 35-49.
40. TPE, (2015). Patent/Faydalı Model. Erişim Tarihi 12 Aralık 2016, http://www.tpe.gov.tr/TurkPatentEnstitusu/commonContent/Publications
41. Uysal, F. (2012). Patent ve Faydalı Model Edinim Eğilimlerini Etkileyen Faktörler; Ankara’daki Teknoparklarda Yerleşik Firmalar Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Yayınlanmamış YL Tezi). KHO Sav.Bil.Enstitüsü, Ankara.
42. WIPO, (2012). WIPO IP Facts and Figures. Erişim Tarihi 13 Eylül 2016, http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/statistics/943/wipo_pub_943_2012.pdf
43. WIPO, (2016). What is Intellectual Property?, Erişim Tarihi 23 Aralık 2016, http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/
44. Yalçıner, U.G. and Akın, A. (2009). State Supports (Incentives) for Patent Applications. TED: Technology and Economic Development 3rd International Conference on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Economics.