Search results

In this paper we look at patents as alternative to trade secrets. We disentangle the disclosure motive for patent protection from the traditional reward motive by adjusting the level of patent protection so as to make the innovator just indifferent between patenting and keeping the innovation secret. Thus, we keep the reward (expected profits) to the innovator fixed and focus on ex post efficiency. When duplication is not feasible and secrecy only entails the risk of public disclosure (a leakage), patents and secrets are perfect substitutes. Yet, a distinctive features of trade secret protection is that it allows for independent creation. The duplicative efforts to reproduce a concealed innovation make patents and secrets imperfect substitutes. If such duplicative efforts are actually exerted under secrecy, patents provide the pre-specified incentive to innovate at least social cost. If, however, the threat of duplication induces the innovator to preemptively license her trade secret, and such licensing agreements allow the innovator to appropriate all the saved duplication costs, then secrets can reward innovative activity more efficiently than patents. Thus, the issue of whether patents are socially preferable to secrets boils down to an assessment of the prevalence and the efficiency of trade secret licensing. The available empirical evidence suggests that licensing of trade secret information is limited and so hints at the superiority of patents.

Despite increasing interest in business model innovation (BMI), there is only limited scholarship that examines how business model (BM) innovators present and explain their innovations to various stakeholders. As BMI often involves the creation of a new ecosystem, understanding how innovators can gain support of future ecosystem members is important. Based on a longitudinal case study of Salesforce, a pioneer in cloud computing, the authors show how the innovator’s skillful framing to different audiences fosters the emergence of an ecosystem around the new BM. The authors suggest that effective framing constitutes an important strategic process that enables BM innovators to shape new ecosystems due to the performative power of words.

What sets health sciences librarians apart from other academic librarians when it comes to partnering with health-focused innovators? Do health-related innovators have different information needs or space requirements? This chapter illustrates some of the major issues and topics health sciences librarians consider as they offer information services to entrepreneurs and innovators. Health sciences innovators must be aware of relevant policies and laws such as HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. They also need to meet federal safety regulations required by the Food and Drug Administration; moreover, device materials must be biocompatible. Those developing therapeutic games and apps in this arena need to ensure their products are supported by current literature and scientific evidence. In many cases, these new technologies require clinical trials and testing to ensure their safety and efficacy. Health sciences librarians guide innovators to relevant resources, knowledge, and experts on these and other topics. This navigator role is extremely valuable to students, who may not understand the healthcare landscape and its processes. Additionally, librarians assist innovators with identifying dissemination venues for their scholarly output. They provide instruction and guidance on how to write and tailor conference proposals to meet specific professional association criteria. A retired health sciences library director shares her experiences. Tips and lessons learned are highlighted so others may gain an understanding of the unique information needs of health innovators.

This chapter explores the extent to which an innovator is able to capture innovation rents. After examining the two main drivers of such rents, the strength of the appropriability regime and the ownership of specialized complementary assets, the chapter examines how their interaction is so critical in affecting imitation, commercialization options, and firm performance. After reviewing the underlying conceptual framework and empirical evidence, and using a perspective that cuts across both time and industries, the authors then discuss the implications of innovation profits for the resources to be devoted to the discovery of new or improved product and processes.

We live in the Age of Knowledge, which is impelling us towards the Age of Imagination. The technological wave rises and with it rises a wave of change that will affect both the economy and society. When these two waves will reach the coast where knowledge meets ignorance, and how to ride them, are questions that require us to imagine the future. We must, therefore, embark on the vessel of imagination, leaving behind us the baggage of what we know and understand. Imagination is not just the springboard for ideas; it also acts to connect ideas in different ways that may blossom in the garden of an entrepreneurial renaissance. Symbols, metaphors and concepts that belong to our tacit knowledge come to light in our memory. It is from here that the imagination draws its lifeblood, broadening our horizons, inducing us to interact with others who may be the bearers of other cultures. Are we ready to engage in an imaginative learning process to join business with innovation and art? Are we prepared to design a wide-open white space where the actors of entrepreneurship, innovation and art can generate a constructive tension that will sweep away what appears to be mutual antagonism or incompatibility?

This chapter explores the role of individual cognitive abilities in the radical innovation of business models and their value proposition. The focus on a specific cognitive construct – metacognition – contributes to understanding the specificities of “criticism,” an approach relevant to addressing the challenges of the radical innovation of value drivers. Based on empirical data, this exploratory research identifies the characteristic elements of criticism from a metacognition perspective, pinpointing the key moments and attitudes of innovators, i.e., cognition of own cognition. The analysis of the findings shows that successful innovators are able to leverage the perception and control of own cognition to more effectively develop and negotiate the radical innovation of the business model in their organization, going beyond the dichotomy between rational and affective mental states. This chapter concludes with a discussion and future research outlook.

In a dynamic environment where underlying competition is “for the market,” this chapter examines what happens when entrants and incumbents can instead negotiate for the market. For instance, this might arise when an entrant innovator can choose to license to or be acquired by an incumbent firm (i.e., engage in cooperative commercialization). It is demonstrated that, depending upon the level of firms’ potential dynamic capabilities, there may or may not be gains to trade between incumbents and entrants in a cumulative innovation environment; that is, entrants may not be adequately compensated for losses in future innovative potential. This stands in contrast to static analyses that overwhelmingly identify positive gains to trade from such cooperation.