Search results

This chapter provides evidence on how young technology startups are employing intellectual property (IP) protection when innovating and competing in the United States. Although researchers and teachers of university technology transfer often think only in terms of patents and the Bayh-Dole Act, this chapter suggests that adopting a more nuanced view of IP rights is appropriate. After reviewing the primary non-patent types of IP protection available in the U.S. (copyright, trademark, and trade secret), we explain that while patents are often considered the strongest protection, for some entrepreneurs – particularly those operating in the U.S. software and Internet sectors – patents may be the least important means of capturing value from innovation. We present evidence from the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey to demonstrate that IP is used by U.S. startups in very different ways, and to different effects, across technology sectors and other company-specific characteristics. Contrary to the common assumption in academic discourse, we show that different forms of IP protection often serve as complements, rather than substitutes.

How does career boundary-crossing affect an entrepreneur’s new venture? When entrepreneurs cross industry or functional boundaries to lead startups, they may lack specific experience needed for performance. Conversely, the diverse experiences they carry can enhance exploration and lead to the emergence of innovation in startups. We highlight important consequences of career boundary-crossing, using a multi-industry longitudinal sample of high-technology firms. We find that entrepreneurs who cross functional boundaries are more likely to lead their startups into new product areas. We also find that entrepreneurs’ industry boundary-crossing is associated with startup failure, but it also increases the probability of an IPO.

This chapter aims to analyze the participation of entrepreneurship studies from the perspective of capabilities and technology-based startups in Latin America, which implies considering capabilities from a perspective of innovation, technology, knowledge, and learning. The chapter conducts a bibliometric review from which the characteristics of the Latin American presence in the analysis of startups and related issues are identified. The analysis shows that Latin America has had a small but growing presence at the world level, as is the case with the treatment of the startups in the international arena, and where the topics of innovation and capabilities have been little addressed. A scheme is proposed based on which entrepreneurial capabilities are considered as a way of understanding the creation and trajectory of startup companies. In the trajectory of the startup companies, these capabilities unfold and grow through processes of integration of complementary resources and learning processes, which result in the construction of new capabilities that feed the further growth of the company.

Even if crowdfunding is now practiced on all continents, not all countries have reached the same stage in creating a legal framework. The countries based on common law were the first to practice crowdfunding and have, for the majority of them, already regulated the use of crowdfunding. On continental Europe, the countries experienced a later development of crowdfunding but they nevertheless wished to be at the forefront of crowdfunding legislation. The purpose of this chapter is to present the main legislation or projects related to crowdfunding seeking to compare, as far as possible, the different legal frameworks together.

This study examines to what extent Internet firms have globalized and the key factors that have enabled some firms to globalize more than others. Contrary to arguments that Internet-based firms automatically benefit from a global market, this study shows that most Internet firms serve regional markets, consistent with Rugman's (2000) findings for firms in the FT500. However, there are a few notable exceptions. In these cases a combination of early mover advantages, unique product, technology standards and complementary products and services have created a ‘winner-takes-all’ market in which a few firms dominate markets worldwide. Implications for globalization theories are discussed.