Search results

Firms have typically tried to profit from their technical innovations by selling them indirectly, embedded in goods and services. Markets for technology, in which innovations are sold or licensed, have been much rarer. Yet, trade in technology has grown systematically over the past 20 years, as reflected in the growth of arrangements such as licensing agreements, R&D joint ventures, and contract R&D. Recent estimates indicate that royalties received by American corporations for industrial processes may amount to about a quarter of total U.S. R&D. A number of supporting institutions that facilitate effective dissemination of information, standardization, and contracting are vital to the rise and functioning of markets for technology. Intellectual property rights, and in particular patents, are one such institution. The main objectives of this survey are to review critically the literature on the relationship between trade in technology and patent protection, and to assess the contribution of stricter and better-defined patent protection to the emergence of technology markets. We start our survey by providing a tentative taxonomy of markets for technology and some recent evidence on their extent and evolution. We then explore several reasons why firms would be willing to act as suppliers in the market for technology. The core of the survey revolves around the idea that patents facilitate the development of markets for technology in several ways: They enhance the ability of the licensor to extract rents from its innovation; they reduce costs in technology trade by forcing an increased codification of knowledge; they reduce information asymmetries, opportunistic behaviors, and transaction costs. However, the literature also points to some potential costs of stronger patents, including litigation costs and the problem of “anti-commons.” Finally, we explore the implications of patents and markets for technology for entry, competition and industry dynamics.

Before firms can focus on the development and commercialization of a given innovation, they have to address a more fundamental strategic issue – namely, what is their innovation strategy and how can they organize the innovation process. This involves three basic questions: (1) whether to invest in R&D, (2) how much to invest in R&D, and, (3) which type of R&D to perform. While these three questions have typically been studied in isolation, we argue that they are intimately linked with the choice of the innovation strategy of the firm. How the firm develops and commercializes a particular innovation will be a consequence of its innovation strategy.

In the last two decades the subject of intellectual property rights (IPR) took on major significance as an element of global trade regulation and commercial policy. Implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 obliged member countries, over various transition periods, to adopt and enforce minimum standards of protection for patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and related policies. This mandate forced legislative and administrative changes in virtually all countries, but had particular impact in developing nations, which had generally weaker IPR standards prior to TRIPS. Since 1995 there have been additional multilateral negotiations, largely at the World Intellectual Property Organization, over stronger global standards for patents and copyrights for digital electronic goods. Most controversially, in its negotiations of bilateral free trade areas the United States aggressively demands highly rigorous standards, beyond those called for in TRIPS, for patent rules governing pharmaceutical products and new biotechnological goods in the agricultural and life sciences.

We examine how knowledge‐intensive firms modify their organizational knowledge bases in the context of mobility of researchers. Building on a dynamic capabilities perspective, we propose a conceptual model of firm knowledge base dynamics that clearly distinguishes between two mechanisms: (1) changes in a firm’s pool of researchers and (2) a firm’s ability to reconfigure knowledge. Our model posits that these two mechanisms interact to affect the type of variation in a firm’s knowledge base and elucidates how firms deploy knowledge from different domains.

To assess the impact of TCE on the field of strategy, we first quantified the distribution of TCE-related research articles across all disciplines and fields. Specifically, we identified every article that appeared in a journal included in the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI's) Web of Knowledge between 1975 and 2008 and that included among its keywords some variation of “transaction costs.” We then removed those articles for which this term clearly did not refer to transaction costs of the Coasean kind (primarily articles in finance and computing, for which “transaction cost” has a different meaning). Finally, we categorized each journal according to its discipline or field. Granted, this requires some judgment, but we attempted to be objective in our categorizations.¹ As Table 1 shows, articles that are self-described as part of the TCE research stream have appeared more frequently in strategy journals than in the journals of any other discipline or field. We interpret this as evidence of TCE's impact on strategy, and of the importance of the strategy field to TCE.

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between heterogeneous collaborative networks and firm performance, using the resource-based view (RBV) and its extension through the knowledge-based view (KBV) as theoretical lens. Moreover, the authors examine family management and intellectual property rights (IPRs) as contingent factors that enhance the effectiveness of heterogeneous collaborative networks in achieving superior firm performance.

The hypotheses are developed and checked by using a panel data sample of 10,985 firm-year observations from 1,766 Spanish manufacturing firms over the period 2007–2016.

The results indicate that heterogeneous collaborative networks positively influence firm performance. Furthermore, the positive impact of these innovation networks on firm performance is reinforced by high levels of family management, and such effect is even stronger when there exists high levels of IPRs.

This research is the first, to our knowledge, to provide important new insights into the manner in which the effect of both family management and IPRs have the potential to amplify the performance gains attained from heterogenous collaborative networks.

The main purpose of this study is to offer a critical review of studies of scientific progress of strategic management (SM) research in the hospitality and tourism field (H&T).

This study was conducted through a critical literature review based on three dimensions: intellectual, conceptual and social structures of SM research.

The boundaries of SM under the three dimensions (intellectual, conceptual and social structure) are addressed. Based on these three components, SM in hospitality and tourism realm shows a discursive structure. There are few studies assessing the evolution of SM research in the H&T industry. However, all of these studies are review papers that explored the boundaries of SM research in H&T by using limited keywords to find SM papers, and generally considered papers which are published in a few leading H&T journals.

This study focused on only H&T journals to elaborate the boundaries of SM in H&T. The findings of this study can help researchers (re)design research agendas to contribute to both mainstream and H&T industry SM literature and to enhance the essential elements of theory development in SM research related to H&T industry.

This is one of the first studies assessing the development of SM research related to hospitality and tourism by considering the boundaries of SM in three issues: intellectual, conceptual and social structure.