Institutional Contexts, the Management of Patent Portfolios, and the Role of Public Policies Supporting New Entrepreneurial Ventures

  • Giovanni Battista Dagnino
  • Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri
  • Daniela Baglieri
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 22)


This chapter aims to increase our understanding of the relationships between firm strategies, the design of institutional contexts on behalf of public agents, and the stimulation of diffused entrepreneurship within the economic system. In particular, it analyzes the way in which firm patent portfolio management strategies may systematically hinder the emergence of entrepreneurial endeavors within the economic system and, on this basis, critically discusses how the acknowledgement of these interactions should influence the design of public policies at the economic system level. We argue that in economic contexts where intellectual property rights (IPR) are influential, large firms may intentionally develop and strategically manage wide portfolios of patents in order to purposely pre-empt the rise of direct competition and thwart the efforts of new potential entrepreneurs, rather than merely to protect the fruits of their R&D. This strategy leads to patent proliferation, eventually hindering the emergence of nascent entrepreneurship, thereby preventing the creation of new value in the system. The pre-emptive strategy described may be observed in a variety of contexts in which global firms (such as IBM, Microsoft and other firms in the biotech, nanotech and pharmaceutical industries) tend to aggressively invest in building and protecting wide ranged and overarching patent portfolios directed primarily toward preventing potential competition.


Intellectual Property Institutional Context Intellectual Property Right Entrepreneurial Behavior Nanotechnology Patent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agrawal, A. (2006). “Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge”. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen R.C. (1983) “Collective invention” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, n. 4.Google Scholar
  3. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., and Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baglieri, D., and Giordani, S. (2008). “Exploiting nanotech opportunities: A strategic entrepreneurship perspective”. In Gandhi, A., Giordani, S., Merhari, L., Tsakalakos, L., and Tsamis, C. (Eds). The Business of Nanotechnology. MRS Proceedings, 1106E. Warrendale, PA.Google Scholar
  5. Berg M. (1991). “Commerce and creativity in eighteenth-century Birmingham”. In Berg, M. (Ed). Markets and Manufacturers in Early Industrial Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bessen J. (2003). Patent Thickets. Working paper, Research on Innovation, Boston University School of Law.Google Scholar
  7. Bower, G.H., and Hilgard, E.R. (1981). Theories of Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Branhdshaw, G.F., Langley, P.W., and Simon, H.A. (1983). “Studying scientific discovery by computer simulation”. Science, 222: 971–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt K.M. (1995) “Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions”. Academy of Management Review, 20: 343–378.Google Scholar
  10. Casson, M. (1982). The Entrepreneur. An Economic Theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
  11. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models. How to Thrive un the New Innovation Landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., and Walsh, J. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or Not)NBER Working Paper no. 7552.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J.S. (1993). Properties of rational organizations. In Lindenberg, S., and Schreuder, H. (Eds). Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Organization Studies. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  15. Dougherty, D. (1992). “Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms”. Organization Science, 3: 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutton, H.I. (1984). The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Foray D. (2004). Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., and Luzzi A. (2007). “The markets for patents in Europe”. Research Policy, 36(8).Google Scholar
  19. Graff, G.D., Cullen, S.E., Bradford, K.J., Zilberman, D., and Bennett, A.B. (2003). “The public–private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology”. Nature Biotechnology, 21(9): 989–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Granovetter, M. (1992). “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”. In Granovetter, M., and Swedberg, R. (Eds). The Sociology of Economic Life. Boulder, CL: Westview.Google Scholar
  21. Grant, R.M. (1998). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Application. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, B.H., and Ziedonis, R.H. (2001). “The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995”. RAND Journal Economy, 32(1): 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayek, F.A. (1945), “The use of knowledge in society”. American Economic Review, 35. Reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.Google Scholar
  24. Heiner, R.A. (Dec. 1983). “The origin of predictable behavior”. American Economic Review, 4: 103–124.Google Scholar
  25. Heiner, R.A. (1986). “Uncertainty, signal-detection experiments, and modeling behavior”. In Langlois, R.N. (Ed). Economics as a Process. Essays in the New Institutional Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Heller, M.A., and Eisenberg, R.N., (1998). “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research”. Science, 280: 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilaire-Perez, L. (2000). L’Invention Technique au Siecle des Lumieres. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  28. Hodgson, G.M. (1998). “The approach of institutional economics ”. Jounal of Economic Literature, 36.Google Scholar
  29. Hunt, R.M., and Bessen, J. (2004). “The software patent experiment ”. Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia: 22–32.Google Scholar
  30. Hunter L.C. (1949). Steamboats on the Western Rivers. An Economic and Technological History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Intellectual Property Rights Commission (2002) Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights London.Google Scholar
  32. Kayat, M., and Greenberg, T. (Feb./Mar. 2006). “IP-based open innovation pre-empts trolls”. Intellectual Asset Management March 43–46.Google Scholar
  33. Khan, Z.B., and Sokoloff, K.L. (1993). “Schemes of practical utility: entrepreneurship and innovation among ‘great inventors’ in the United States States, 1790–1865”. Journal of Economic History, 53.Google Scholar
  34. Kirzner, I.M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kirzner, I.M. (1979). Perception, Opportunity, and Profit. Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kirzner, I.M. (Feb. 1982). “Uncertainty, discovery, and human action: a study of the entrepreneurial profile in the Misesian system”. In Israel, Kirzner, Editor, Method, Process, and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honor of Ludwig non Mires, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA (1982).Google Scholar
  37. Kortum, S., and Lerner, J. (1999). “What is behind the recent surge in patenting?”. Research Policy, 28.Google Scholar
  38. Lachmann, L.M. (1956). The Market as an Economic Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Langlois, R.N. (1984). “Internal organization in a dynamic context: some theoretical considerations”. In Jussawalla, M., and Ebenfield, H. (Eds). Information and Communication Economics: New Perspectives. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 23–49.Google Scholar
  40. Langlois, R.N. (Ed). (1986). Economics as a Process. Essays in the New Institutional Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, North-Holland 23–49.Google Scholar
  41. Langlois, R.N. (1992a). “Transaction-cost economics in real time”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1(1).Google Scholar
  42. Langlois, R.N. (1992b). “External economies and economic progress: the case of the microcomputer industry”. Business History Review, 66(1).Google Scholar
  43. Langlois, R.N. (1995). Transaction Costs, Production Costs, and the Passage of Time. Working papers 1995–03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  44. Lemley, M.A. (2005). “Patenting nanotechnology”. Stanford Law Review, 58: 601–630.Google Scholar
  45. R.C.Levin(1988). “Appropriability; R&D spending and technological performance”, in American Economic Review, 78.Google Scholar
  46. Loasby, B.J. (1983). “Knowledge, learning and enterprise”. In Wiseman, J. (Ed). Beyond Positive Economics?. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  47. Loasby, B.J. (1986). “Organisation, competition, and the growth of knowledge”. In Langlois, R.N. (Ed). Economics as a Process. Essays in the New Institutional EconomicsInstitutional Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Loasby, B.J. (1994). “Organizational capabilities and interfirm relations”. Metroeconomica, 45(3).Google Scholar
  49. Loasby, B.J. (1998). “The Organization of capabilities”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35.Google Scholar
  50. Maccoby, M. (2003). The Productive Narcisist. The Promise and Peril of Visionary Leadership. New York, NY: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  51. MacLeod, C. (1988). Inventing the Industrial Revolution. The English Patent System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mauzy, J., and Harriman, R.A. (2003). Creativity, Inc. Building an Inventive Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  53. Merges, R., and Nelson, R.R. (1994). “On limiting or encouraging rivalry technical progress: the effect of patent-scope decisions”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25.Google Scholar
  54. Mises, L. (1966). Human Action. A Treatise on Economics, 3rd edn., New York: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
  55. Mocciaro Li Destri, A. (2005). Contesti istituzionali e sviluppo d’impresa. Un’applicazione alla produzione di software dai modelli open source ai modelli ibridi. Torino, Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  56. Mocciaro Li Destri, A. (2006). The Strategic Management of Institutions for Value Creation: A Study of Hybrid Models for Software Development. Paper presented at SPRU’s 40th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, 11–13 September. Also presented at the “Second Annual Conference on Institutional Foundations for Industry Self-Regulation, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
  57. Mocciaro Li Destri, A. (2007). Designing Institutions for Open Innovation: A Comparative Study of Software Development Models. Paper presented at the “2007 International User Innovation Workshop. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, 26–28 June.Google Scholar
  58. Mocciaro Li Destri, A., and Dagnino, G.B. (2005). “The Development of the resource-based firm between value appropriation and value creation”. Advances in Strategic Management, 22: 153–188.Google Scholar
  59. Mokyr, J. (1999). “The New Economic History and the Industrial Revolution”. In Mokyr, J. (Ed). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective, 2nd edn. Boulder, CL: Western Press.Google Scholar
  60. Moser, P. (2004). “What do Inventors Patent”. In Proceedings of the fourth EPIP conference “What Motivates Inventors to Invent?”. Pisa, 2–3 April.Google Scholar
  61. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B., and Ziedonis, A.A. (1998). The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on US University Research and Technology Transfer: An Analysis of Data from Columbia University, the University of California, and Stanford University. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  62. Nonaka I. (Spring 1988). “Speeding organizational information creation: toward middle-up-down management”. Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
  63. North, D.C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton BooksNorton.Google Scholar
  64. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. North, D.C. (1991). “Institutions”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1).Google Scholar
  66. North, D.C. (1994). “Economic performance through time. Sweden: The Nobel Foundation, December 9, 1993; published in American Economic Review 84(3): 359–368.Google Scholar
  67. North, D.C. (1998). “Where have we been and where are we going?”. In Ben-Ner, A., and Putterman, L. (Eds). Economics, Values, and Organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. North, D.C., and Thomas, R.P. (1973). The Rise of the Western World. A New Economic History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Nuvolari, A. (2004). “The Anatomy of Collective Invention Processes: A Study of Early Nineteenth Century Steam Engineering”. In Proceedings of the fourth EPIP conference “What Motivates Inventors to Invent?”, Pisa, 2–3 April 2004.Google Scholar
  70. Penin, J. (2004). “Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview of the Empirical Evidences and the Economic Motivations”, in Proceedings of the fourth EPIP conference “What Motivates Inventors to Invent?”, 2–3 April, Pisa, 2004.Google Scholar
  71. Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Polanyi, K. (1957). “The Economy as Instituted Process”. In Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M., and Pearson, H.W. Trade Market in the Early Empires. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Unwin University Books.Google Scholar
  76. Serrato, R., Hermann, K., and Douglas, C. (2005). “The nanotech intellectual property (“IP”) landscape”. Nanotechnology Law and Business Journal, 2(2) No. 3.Google Scholar
  77. Shapiro C. (2001). “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Polls, and Standard Setting”. In Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., and Stern, S.(Eds). Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Siegel D., and Roco, M.C. (1999). Nanostructure Science and Technology: A Worldwide Study. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.Google Scholar
  79. Simon, H.A. (1985). “What We Know about the Creative Process”. In Kuhn, R.L. (Ed). Frontiers in Creative and Innovative Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  80. Sokoloff, K.L. (1988). “Inventive activity in early industrial America: evidence from patent records”. Journal of Economic History, 48.Google Scholar
  81. Teece, D.J. (1986).“Profiting from technological innovation”. Research Policy, 15(6).Google Scholar
  82. Teece, D.J. (2000). Managing Intellectual Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation. Change and Meaning in the Age of Internet. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. von Hippel E. (1976) “The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process”. Research Policy, 5(3).Google Scholar
  85. von Hippel E. (1977). “Transferring process equipment innovations from user-innovators of equipment manufacturing firms”. R&D Management, 8(1).Google Scholar
  86. von Hippel E. (1986). “Lead users: a source of novel product concepts”. Management Science, 32(7).Google Scholar
  87. von Hippel E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. von Hippelvon Hippel, E. (1994). ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation”. Management Science, 40(4).Google Scholar
  89. von Hippel E. (1998). “Economics of product development by users: the impact of sticky local information”. Management Science, 44(5).Google Scholar
  90. von Hippel E. (2006). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Williams, A. (2005). The Patent Explosion. Report of New Paradigm’s Information Technology and Competitive Advantage Program (IT&CA). Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Battista Dagnino
    • 1
  • Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri
    • 1
  • Daniela Baglieri
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations