Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patent Policies of Small Danish Firms in Three Industries

  • Chapter
Contemporary Management of Innovation

Abstract

Empirical surveys of the economic effects of patents have uncovered striking industry differences in patent effectiveness and importance (e.g., Cohen et al.. 2000; Harabi, 1995; Bertin & Wyatt, 1988; Levin et al., 1987). Other studies have focused specifically on the role of patents in high-tech sectors. In telecommunications, for example, firms typically cross-license their inventions, using patents as a kind of bargaining tool or trading currency to secure appropriability (e.g., Grindley & Teece, 1997; Hall & Ham, 1999). The software industry is interesting because the nature of digital technology renders appropriability difficult (e.g., Conner & Rumelt, 1991; Davis, 2002; Shapiro & Varian, 1999). Initially, copyrights were used to protect software innovations; only since the 1980s has it been possible to patent them. In pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and biotechnology, by contrast, patents are widely recognized as both important and effective in securing appropriability (e.g., Arora, 1997; Liebeskind et al., 1996; Merges & Nelson, 1994).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Andersen, B. (ed.) (2005), Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation, Governance and the Institutional Environment ( Cheltenham: Edward Elgar ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. (1997), ‘Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry’, Research Policy, 26, pp. 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.A. (1962), ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention’, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Conference no. 13 ( Princeton, NJ: NBER/Princeton University Press ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A. (2001), ‘The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 611–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. (2002), ‘The dynamic role of small firms: evidence from the US’, Small Business Economics, Feb.-May, 18 (1–3), pp. 13–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., Buysters, G. & Verspagen, B. (2002), ‘Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1141–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertin, G.Y. & Wyatt, S. (1988), Multinationals and Industrial Property: The Control of the World’s Technology ( Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf).

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S.M. & Raskind, L.J. (1991), ‘An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property’. Journal of Economic Perspectives, winter, 5 (1), pp. 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J. & Hunt, R.M. (2003), ‘An Empirical Look at Software Patents’, Working Paper, no. 03–17, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, at <www.researchoninnovation.org/swpat.pdf>.

  • Burgelman, R.A. & Chesbrough, H. (eds) (2001), Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution ( Amsterdam: JAI Elsevier Science ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. & Walsh, J.P. (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not) ( Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K.R. & Rumelt, R.P. (1991), ‘Software piracy: An analysis of protection strategies’, Management Science, Feb., pp. 125–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dam, K.W. (1995), ‘Some economic considerations in the intellectual property protection of software’, Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2), pp. 321–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. (2002), ‘Is Appropriability a ‘Problem’ for Innovations in Digital Information Goods’ (Copenhagen: LEFIC, Center for Law, Economics and Financial Institutions, Working Paper vol. 1 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. (2005), ‘Why do small high-tech firms apply for patents, and why not?’ (in Andersen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazier, S. (1995), ‘Inventing around your competitors’ patents’, Managing Intellectual Property, 51, July-Aug., pp. 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (1999), The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property ( Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P.C. & Teece, D.J. (1997), ‘Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics’, California Management Review, 39 (2), pp. 8–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. and Ham, R.M. (1999), ‘The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry’, NBER Working Papers, No 7062 ( Cambridge Massachusetts: NBER Inc ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. & Ziedonis, R.H. (2001), ‘The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979–1995’, Rand Journal of Economics, 32(2), spring, pp. 101–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harabi, N. (1995), ‘Appropriability of Technical Innovations–An Empirical Analysis’, Research Policy, 24, pp. 981–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, U. & Roende, T. (2004), ‘A Danish View on Software Related Patents’ (Discussion Paper 2004–05, Centre for Economic & Business Research).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, W. (2001), ‘Innovation needs patent reform’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 403–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitch, E.W. (1977), ‘The nature and function of the patent system’, Journal of Law and Economics, Oct. (20), pp. 265–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, L.A. & Lefebvre, E. (1993), ‘Competitive positioning and innovative efforts in SMEs’, Small Business Economics, 5 (4), pp. 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, T.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1987), ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 783–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J.P., Lumerman, A., Zucker, L. & Brewer, M. (1996), ‘Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms’, Organization Science, 7(4), July-Aug., pp. 428–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindman, M.T. (2002), ‘Open or closed strategy in developing new products? A case study of industrial NPD in SMEs’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (4), pp. 224–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M. & Wagner, S. (1981), ‘Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study’, Economic Journal, 91, Dec., pp. 907–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R.P. & Nelson, R.R. (1994), ‘On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decisions’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, pp. 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R. (1959), ‘The simple economics of basic research’, Journal of Political Economy, 67, June, pp. 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenlaender, K.H. (1977), ‘Patent policies and technical progress in the Federal Republic of Germany’, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 8 (2), pp. 97–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pooley, J. & Bratic, W. (1999), ‘The value of trade secrets’, Managing Intellectual Property, (93), Oct., pp. 66–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivette, K.G. & Kline, D. (2000a), ‘Discovering new value in intellectual property’, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb., pp. 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivette, K.G. & Kline, D. (2000b), Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents ( Boston, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M. (2001), ‘US Japan patent systems’ (in Burgelman & Chesbrough).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. (1991), ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), winter, pp. 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. & Varian, H.R. (1999), Information Rules ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G. & von Hippel, E. (2003), ‘Editorial: Special issue on open source software development’, Research Policy, 32 (7), pp. 1149–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Lee Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Roskilde University, Denmark

    Jon Sundbo (Professor in Business Administration with speciality in innovation and technology management), Andrea Gallina (PhD in Economics, Assistant Professor) & Göran Serin (Dr in Economic History and Associat Professor) (Professor in Business Administration with speciality in innovation and technology management),  (PhD in Economics, Assistant Professor) &  (Dr in Economic History and Associat Professor)

  2. Roskilde University, Denmark

    Jerome Davis (Professor of Business Economics) (Professor of Business Economics)

Copyright information

© 2006 Lee Davis

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davis, L. (2006). Patent Policies of Small Danish Firms in Three Industries. In: Sundbo, J., Gallina, A., Serin, G., Davis, J. (eds) Contemporary Management of Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378841_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation