Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?

Thickets of partially overlapping patent rights raise costs to secure IPR for innovation. Fragmented IP ownership raises coordination costs to resolve mutual blockades. Inadvertent patent infringement poses the risk of fruits from investments to be exploited. A gap in economic commitment levels may be exploited if capital-intensive innovators have more invested application-specifically than inadvertently infringed IPR owners. I study whether fragmentation or heterogeneous capital-intensities among owners of overlapping patents affect propensities to invest in innovation. I find that firms with small patent portfolios are less likely to invest in innovation if IPR is fragmented. Firms with large patent portfolios are less likely to invest in innovation if cited patent owners have smaller stocks of fixed capital. This suggests that effects of patent thickets on innovation are not evenly spread among innovating firms

Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats – do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?

Innovation is commercialization of technology. Imperfections in markets for technology should leave marks on physical investments for innovation. Two types of transaction costs could affect innovative investments: royality stacking and hold-up threats. Backward references in firm's patent portfolio indicate potential technology suppliers. I find a negative effect of ownership fragmentation on investments related to innovation for firms with small patent portfolios. Hold-up threats are credible when upstream patentees have less specific capital sunk than innovating firms. Differences in fixed capital stocks between downstream firms and upstream patentees negatively affect investments in innovation for firms with large patent portfolios. These effects are specific to investments in innovation. There are no comparable effects on investments in R&D or residual physical investments. The effects of patent thickets on innovation are thus not uniform. They depend on the characteristics of the downstream firm

The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations

Open standard-setting organizations (SSOs) have emerged as important coordination and diffusion mechanism for information and communication technologies. Open standards are developed non-discriminatorily and licensed to anybody at reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Little is known about the value of IP contributions to open standards for technology providers. This paper provides a large-scale empirical assessment thereof. Our findings show that disclosure of standard-relevant IP ownership is valued positively by financial markets only if the disclosure refers explicitly to associated patents. The loss of exclusivity to IPR appears to be outweighed by the expected benefits from open standards. Patents appear to signal the technological quality of IP contributions from firms with low R&D intensities

The Effects of Experience on Selecting Innovation Projects: Better the Devil You Know

Innovation success depends heavily on firm's ability to set priorities and select the most promising options from its project portfolio before the odds of success or failure become visible and reliable. We ask: What does previous innovation experience tell firms about what not to do in the future? With this in mind, we focus on projects that did not materialise or were abandoned - an important building block for choosing and implementing the right projects. We suggest two major learning mechanisms. On the one hand, real options theory suggests a process based on financial data. On the other hand, research on absorptive capacities finds that previous innovation experience translates into superior ability to value, extract and exploit external knowledge. We test both hypotheses on an empirical basis for more than 600 German firms, covering innovation activities in the period 1997 to 2005. Our results indicate congruence between firms' innovation experience and their project selection patterns. Extensive R&D experience materialises as a stock of knowledge that enables firms to judge projects based on knowledge criteria. Non-R&D innovation experience, stemming from producing and introducing products to markets, resonates as decision-making based on economic factors in the future. Both types of innovation experience appear to generate distinct decision-making capabilities inside the firm which are subsequently exploited in selecting projects for the future. --Project selection,real options,absorptive capacity

The effects of experience on selecting innovation projects : better the devil you know

Innovation success depends heavily on firm’s ability to set priorities and select the most promising options from its project portfolio before the odds of success or failure become visible and reliable. We ask: What does previous innovation experience tell firms about what not to do in the future? With this in mind, we focus on projects that did not materialise or were abandoned - an important building block for choosing and implementing the “right” projects. We suggest two major learning mechanisms. On the one hand, real options theory suggests a process based on financial data. On the other hand, research on absorptive capacities finds that previous innovation experience translates into superior ability to value, extract and exploit external knowledge. We test both hypotheses on an empirical basis for more than 600 German firms, covering innovation activities in the period 1997 to 2005. Our results indicate congruence between firms’ innovation experience and their project selection patterns. Extensive R&D experience materialises as a stock of knowledge that enables firms to judge projects based on knowledge criteria. Non-R&D innovation experience, stemming from producing and introducing products to markets, resonates as decision-making based on economic factors in the future. Both types of innovation experience appear to generate distinct decision-making capabilities inside the firm which are subsequently exploited in selecting projects for the future

Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?

Trademarks are often supposed to reduce substitutability and imitability of product innovations. Using data of the German innovation survey, we provide empirical evidence that trademarking firms in manufacturing and services assess easy product substitutability as less characteristic for their competitive environment. This is particularly the case for service firms which are knowledge-intensive, product innovators and which consider trademark protection as important. This suggests that trademarks are an important complementary asset for commercializing innovations in knowledge-intensive services

Dokumentation zur Innovationserhebung 2013

Das Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) erhebt seit 1993 jährlich die Innovationsaktivitäten der deutschen Wirtschaft. Die Erhebungen finden im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) statt und sind als ein Panel konzipiert(Mannheimer Innovationspanels - MIP). Die Innovationserhebungen werden in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Fraunhofer Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung sowie dem Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft (infas) durchgeführt. Die Innovationserhebungen im Rahmen des MIP sind gleichzeitig der deutsche Beitrag zu den Community Innovation Surveys (CIS) der Europäischen Kommission. In diesem Bericht werden wesentliche Ergebnisse der Erhebung des Jahres 2013 dokumentiert

Innovation in Germany - results of the German CIS 2006 to 2010

Innovation is regarded as a key driver of productivity and market growth and thus has a great potential for increasing wealth. Surveying innovation activities of firms is an important contribution to a better understanding of the process of innovation and how policy may intervene to maximise the social returns of private investment into innovation. Over the past three decades, research has developed a detailed methodology to collect and analyse innovation activities at the firm level. The Oslo Manual, published by OECD and Eurostat (2005) is one important outcome of these efforts. In 1993 both organisations have started a joint initiative, known as the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), to collect firm level data on innovation across countries in concord (with each other). The German contribution to this activity is the so-called Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP), an annual survey implemented with the first CIS wave in 1993. The MIP fully applies the methodological recommendations laid down in the Oslo Manual. It is designed as a panel survey, i.e. the same gross sample of firms is surveyed each year, with a biannual refreshment of the sample. The MIP is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and conducted by the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) in cooperation with the Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) and the Institute for Applied Social Science (infas)