Markets for Technology and Corporate Strategy



Although market transactions for technologies, ideas, knowledge or information are limited by several well-known imperfections, there is increasing evidence that they have become more common than in the past. In this paper we argue that these markets change the traditional mindset in which the only available option for a company wishing to introduce an innovation is to develop the technology in-house, or for a company developing the technology to own the downstream assets needed to manufacture and commercialize the goods. This affects the role of companies both as technology users (they can “buy” technologies) and as technology suppliers (they can “sell” technologies). The implications for management include more proactive management of intellectual property, greater attention to external monitoring of technologies, and organizational changes to support technology licensing, joint-ventures and acquisition of external technology. For entrepreneurial startups, markets for technology make a focused business model more attractive. At the industry level, markets for technology may lower barriers to entry and increase competition, with obvious implications for the firms’ broader strategy as well.


markets for technology intellectual property technology strategy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arora A. and Fosfuri A. The Market for Technology in the Chemical Industry: Causes and Consequences, Revue D’Economie Industrielle 2000; 92: 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora A. and Fosfuri A. Licensing the Market for Technology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2003, Vol. 52, Issue 2, pp. 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora A., Fosfuri A. and Gambardella A. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Arora A. and Gambardella A. The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Research Policy 1994; 23: 523–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arora A. and Gambardella A. “Evolution of Industry Structure in the Chemical Industry”. In Chemicals and Long Term Economic Growth, Arora, A., Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N., eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. Barney J.B. Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck and Business Strategy. Management Science 1986; 32(10): 1231–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney J.B. Firms’ Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 1991;17:99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. British Technology Group (BTG). 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Caves R., Crookel H. and Killing J.P. The imperfect market for technology licensing. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 1983: 249–267.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen W. and Levinthal D. Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. Economic Journal 1989; 99: 569–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen W. and Klepper S. Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D. Review of Economics and Statistics 1996; 78(2): 232–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cool K. and Dierickx I. Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science 1989; 35(12): 1504–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dengan S.A. The Licensing Payoff from U.S. R&D. Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International 1998; 33(4).Google Scholar
  14. Freeman C. Chemical Process Plant: Innovation and the World Market. National Institute Economic Review 1968; 45: 29–51, August.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Granstrand O. The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property. UK: Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. Granstrand O. The Shift Towards Intellectual Capitalism — The Role of Infocom Technologies. Research Policy 2000; 29: 1061–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granstrand O., Bohlin E., Oskarsson C and Sjöberg N. External Technology Acquisition in Large Multi-technology Corporations. R&D Management 1992; 22 (2): 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant R.M. The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review 1991; 119–45.Google Scholar
  19. Grindley P.C. and Teece D.J. Licensing and Cross-Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics. California Management Review 1997; 39(2): 8–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall B.H. and Ham R. The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1980–1994. Rand Journal of Economics 2001; 32 (1): 101–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henderson R. and Clark K. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990; 35 (1): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klepper S. Entry, Exit and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle. American Economic Review 1996; 86(3): 562–83.Google Scholar
  23. Kortum S and Lerner J. What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting. Research Policy 1999; 28: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamoreaux N and Sokoloff K., Location and Technological Change in the American Glass Industry during the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. NBER WP 5938. Cambridge MA: NBER, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. Lamoreaux N and Sokoloff K. “.Inventors, Firms, and the Market for Technology: US Manufacturing in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries”. In Learning by Firms, Organizations, and Nations, Lamoreaux, N., Raff, D. and Temin, P., eds. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,. 1998.Google Scholar
  26. Levinthal D.A. and March J.G. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal 1993;14:95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linden G and Somaya D. System-on-a-Chip Integration in the Semiconductor Industry: Industry Structure and Firm Strategies. Draft. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. March J.G. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science 1991;2:71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merges R and Nelson R. On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope. Columbia Law Review 1990; 90 (4): 839–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mowery D. Firm Structure, Government Policy, and the Organization of Industrial Research. Business History Review 1984; 58: 504–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson R.R. The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy 1959; 67 (2): 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Penrose E.T. The Theory of Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959.Google Scholar
  33. Porter M. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  34. Porter M. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press 1990.Google Scholar
  35. Rivette K.G. and Kline D. Rembrandt In The Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. Rotemberg J.J. and Saloner G. Benefits of Narrow Business Strategies. American Economic Review 1994; 84 (5): 1330–49.Google Scholar
  37. Stiglitz J.E. and Weiss A. Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information. American Economic Review 1981; 71(3): 393–410.Google Scholar
  38. Teece D.J. Profiting from Technological Innovation. Research Policy 1986; 15(6): 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teece D.J. “Technological Change and the Nature of the Firm”. In Technological Change and Economic Theory, Dosi, G. et al., eds. London: Printer Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  40. Teece D.J. Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets. California Management Review 1998; 40 (3): 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heinz School of Public Policy and ManagementCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationUniversidad Carlos III de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Sant’Anna School of Advanced StudiesPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations