Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting the diffusion of patented military technology in the field of weapons and ammunition

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we carry out an empirical analysis to address some questions concerning the flow of knowledge stemming from military patented technologies. Patented military technology consists of a set of inventions which nature, uses or/and applications have defensive or offensive purposes. In this paper, we focus on the field of weapons and ammunition. Our objective is to identify, why the knowledge embedded in a military technology diffuses into other patented technologies. The methodology relies on a patent citations analysis and involves the specification of several multilevel logit models to identify the individual and country characteristics that determine the citation of military patents in subsequent patents. The data contain 1,756 citations to 582 patents of military origin with a simultaneous Europe–US protection and registered by companies/institutions from 1998 to 2003. The results reveal that military knowledge diffuses more intensively across civil patents, when the original military patent includes diverse technologies (civil and military) and is progressively less specific in terms of weapons and ammunition. Military patents filed by British, French, US, Japanese and German companies are, in this order, more likely to have a larger number of citations in subsequent civil patents. The ownership of the original military patent is not a determining factor for explaining the diffusion into civil patents, but it does influence the diffusion across mixed and military technologies. Finally, the technological capacity of the citing company also affects the type and intensity of the diffusion of the military knowledge.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This percentage is the ratio between the number of patented inventions under the F41 and F42 (weapons and ammunition) codes in the IPC and the total number of military patented inventions in the IPC for the period under study (1998–2003). “Other military technologies and IPC codes” includes codes and definitions of other type of inventions with defensive/offensive purposes identified in the IPC.

  2. James (2009a) reviewed studies analysing the dual use of military technology and provided a list of papers that have addressed issues, such as defence R&D and innovation or the role of military R&D in innovation systems.

  3. Citations can be incorporated during the process of application, but most patent databases consider only applicant citations and examiner citations.

  4. Available on the WIPO IPC website: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/.

  5. The IPC Guide is available on line at http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/general/.

  6. Guidelines for determining subject matter appropriate for obligatory and non obligatory classification (i.e. "What to classify within patent document disclosures") adopted by the Committee of experts of the IPC Union at its forty-second session (9–12 February 2010).

  7. To be sure that the citing patents in this group do not have a military nature we have checked that they do not contain any other military codes of those listed in “Other military technologies and IPC codes”.

  8. The use of patent families with at least one EPO patent and one USPTO patent assures the quality of the patent. It is not a triadic family, because we have not included Japanese patents, but this is not necessary, because we are working on patents related to weapons and ammunition, and Japan has not got a relevant paper in this market.

  9. In relation to the problems of patents as a measure of technological innovation, an additional problem in the case of military patents is the possibility that a patent is affected by a secrecy order. This means that the patent cannot be published for defence and security reasons. The national laws of the countries give the military authorities the option of ordering secrecy for a patent, if the invention is important for national security. However, the final number of patents affected by secrecy orders is scarce. There are no official data for all countries, but in the US, three patents out of 10,000 applied patents are affected by this problem, whereas the corresponding numbers in the UK and Spain are 15 and 17 per 10,000 applied patents, respectively. These secret patents can be not only military patents, but also patents related to nuclear technology or electronics.

  10. We have estimated other models than the multilevel model to verify the precision of the results obtained in Table 5. The results of these estimates highlight the advantages of multilevel models compared with those that do not take into account the possible heterogeneous effects that can exist between the original patents.

References

  • Acosta, M., & Coronado, D. (2003). Science technology flows in Spanish regions. An analysis of scientific citations in patents. Research Policy, 32, 1783–1803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alic, J., Branscomb, L., Brooks, H., Carter, A., & Epstein, G. (1992). Beyond spinoff: Military and commercial technologies in a changing world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antweiler, W. (2001). Nested random effects estimation in unbalanced panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 101, 295–313.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Avadikyan, A., Cohendet, P., Dupouët, O. (2005). A study of military innovation diffusion based on two case studies. In: P. Llerena, M. Mireille (Eds.) Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy (pp. 161–190). Springer: New York.

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Mattsson, P., & Perruchas, F. (2011). Smoothing the lies: the distinctive effects of patent characteristics on examiner and applicant citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1727–1740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellais, R., & Guichard, R. (2006). Defence innovation, technology transfers and public policy. Defence and Peace Economics, 17(3), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosi, S., Laurent, T. (2006). Military R&D, growth and the optimal allocation of government spending. Centre for economic policy studies (EPEE), Department of Economics, University of Paris-Evry: France (November 10).

  • Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Knowledge networks from patent data: Methodological issues and research targets. CESPRI working papers. Milan: Universita L. Boconi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buesa, M. (2001). Controlling the international exchanges of armaments and dual-use technologies: the case of Spain. Defence and Peace Economics, 12, 439–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A. K., & Dror, I. (1994). Technology transfers and knowledge interactions among defence firms in the USA. An analysis of patent citations. International Journal of Technology Management, 9, 757–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A. K., Dror, I., & Eakabuse, N. (1993). Interorganizational transfer of technology: an analysis of patent citations of a defence firm. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 40, 91–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1995). Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development. Research Policy, 24, 851–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37, 1892–1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 14, 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrmann, M. (2008). Exporting mass destruction? The determinants of dual-use trade. Journal of Peace Research, 45(5), 633–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillou, S., Lazaric, N., Longhi, C., & Roccia, S. (2009). The French defence industry in the knowledge management era: a historical overview and evidence from empirical data. Research Policy, 38, 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Fogarty, M. S., & Banks, B. A. (1998). Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patent citations and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: report on the NBER/case-western reserve survey of patentees. American Economic Review, 90, 215–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, A. D. (2006). The transatlantic defence R&D gap: causes, consequences and controversies. Defence and Peace Economics, 17(3), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, A. D. (2009a). Re-evaluating the role of military research in innovation systems: introduction to the symposium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 449–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, A. D. (2009b). Organizational change and innovation system dynamics: the reform of the UK government defence research establishments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 505–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollias, C., Naxakis, C., & Zarangas, L. (2004). Defence spending and growth in Cyprus: a causal analysis. Defence and Peace Economics, 15(3), 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulve, H., & Smit, W. A. (2003). Civilian–military co-operation strategies in developing new technologies. Research Policy, 32, 955–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Ch., & Chen, S. (2007). Do defence expenditures spur GDP? A panel analysis from OECD and non-OECD countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 18, 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (1997). Which way to go? Defence technology and the diversity of dual-use’ technology transfer. Research Policy, 26, 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (2001). Government defence research establishments: the uncertain outcome of institutional change. Defence and Peace Economics, 12, 417–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J., & Sinclair, T. (1999). From technology generation to technology transfer: the concept and reality of “dual-use technology centres”. Technovation, 19, 661–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, B. R. (1990). Interpretation of graphs that compare the distribution functions of estimators. Econometric Theory, 6, 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modelling using Stata. Texas: StataCorp LP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieh, J. Y., Lai, C. C., & Chang, W. Y. (2002). Endogenous growth and defence expenditures: a new explanation of the Benoit hypothesis. Defence and Peace Economics, 13(3), 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review, 93(2), 133–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2006). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics: An extended analysis. Michigan: Michigan State University (Mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakovlev, P. (2007). Arms trade, military spending and economic growth. Defence and Peace Economics, 18(4), 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, J., Sezgin, S., & Ocal, N. (2005). Military expenditure and economic growth in Middle Eastern countries: a dynamic panel data analysis. Defence and Peace Economics, 16(4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors highly appreciate the helpful comments of the anonymous Reviewer, which significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of the paper. We are also grateful for the financial assistance provided by Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa (P08-SEJ-03981) and the ISDEFE-IEB Chair of Markets and Industrial Policy (ISDEFE is Ingeniería de Sistemas para la Defensa de España, S.A. and IEB is Institut d’Economia de Barcelona).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Economía General, Facultad CC.EE. y Empresariales, University of Cádiz, Avda. Duque de Nájera s/n, 11002, Cádiz, Spain

    Manuel Acosta, Daniel Coronado, Rosario Marín & Pedro Prats

Authors
  1. Manuel Acosta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Coronado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosario Marín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pedro Prats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Acosta.

Appendix

Appendix

Military technologies under F41 and F42 codes of the International Patent Classification (IPC)

 F41

Weapons

 F41A

Functional features or details common to both small arms and ordnance, e.g. cannons; mountings for small arms or ordnance

 F41B

Weapons for projecting missiles without use of explosive or combustible propellant charge; weapons not otherwise provided for

 F41C

Small arms, e.g. pistols, rifles; accessories therefor

 F41F

Apparatus for launching projectiles or missiles from barrels, e.g. cannons; launchers for rockets or torpedoes; harpoon guns

 F41G

Weapon sights; aiming

 F41H

Armour; armoured turrets; armoured or armed vehicles; means of attack or defence, e.g. camouflage, in general

 F41J

Targets; target ranges; bullet catchers

F42

Ammunition; blasting

 F42B

Explosive charges, e.g. for blasting; fireworks; ammunition

 F42C

Ammunition fuzes; arming or safety means therefor

 F42D

Blasting

  1. Source: International Patent Classification. More details of subclasses and groups can be found online at http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/

Other military technologies and IPC codes

  • Travelling or camp articles specially adapted for military purposes: A45F 3/06

  • Toy figures with self-moving parts able to perform military exercises: A63H 13/08

  • Chemical warfare substances: A62D 101/02

  • Warfare at sea (offensive or defensive arrangements on water-borne vessels, mine-laying, mine sweeping, submarines): B63G

  • Warfare in the air (arrangement of military equipment, e.g. armaments, armament accessories or military shielding, in aircraft; adaptations of armament mountings for aircraft: B64D 7/00; other equipment for fitting in or to aircraft the articles being explosive, e.g. bombs B64D 1/04; bomb releasing; bomb doors B64D 1/06)

  • Buildings, groups of buildings, or shelters, adapted to withstand or provide protection against, abnormal external influences, e.g. war-like action against air-raid or other war-like actions: E04H 9/04

  • Doors, windows or like closures for special purposes; for protection against air-raid or other war-like action, etc.: E06B 5/10

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Marín, R. et al. Factors affecting the diffusion of patented military technology in the field of weapons and ammunition. Scientometrics 94, 1–22 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0857-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0857-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation