Search results

In this talk, I propose to cover two areas of intellectual property. These are copyright and patents. I will examine both of these topics in regard to the provision of scientific and technical information and the development of a dynamic and growing electronic information industry. For I believe that any country that plans to have a healthy information industry requires strong and rigorously enforced patent laws, and strong and rigorously enforced copyright laws.

Typical uses of patent information in the South African context are explained briefly, particularly novelty, infringement, family and equivalent searches. Certain computerised patents databases available on the DIALOG and ORBIT systems are outlined, with comments on the types of search for which they are appropriate, and on their limitations in terms of subjects, countries and time periods covered. Cost‐saving strategies and short‐cuts, aimed at reducing the high cost of online patents searching for the South African user, are suggested. These include using Dialog's Dialindex, MAPping, and OneSearch, as well as the use of low‐cost or training databases such as Dialog's ONTAP files and ORBIT s ORBPAT file.

In preparing this paper I was faced with the problem of not knowing how much you know about patents. I do not wish to bore those of you who are knowledgeable or confuse those who are expert in other subjects.

Technology acquisition is a common phenomenon of acquiring external knowledge, but we have a limited understanding of conditions in which the acquirer integrates the target or not. On one hand, the acquirer may have a policy to integrate the target to benefit from its prior knowledge. On the other hand, the target may face challenges in continuing its knowledge creation and the acquirer may want to provide it autonomy to not disrupt it. This paper aims to identify conditions in which targets tend to be less integrated after acquisitions, allowing them to maintain more autonomy and contribute more to knowledge creation.

We test our arguments in the empirical setting of the global biopharmaceutical industry using a difference-in-difference approach on a longitudinal dataset of matched patents. We examine self-cites received by patents belonging to acquirers and the targets before and after the acquisitions.

We find that, on average, the targets’ prior patents do not receive more self-cites after the acquisition. We conclude that this is because their R&D activities are disrupted, suggesting a higher level of post-acquisition integration. However, more nuanced findings reveal that it may not be the case all the time. When the target has more research experience, is international or is specialized in complementary technologies, prior patents of targets continue to receive more self-cites after the acquisition. It indicates that the targets in such conditions continue knowledge creation, suggesting a lower level of post-acquisition integration.

Our findings contribute to post-acquisition integration research. While post-acquisition integration downside is common, we present conditions in which such a downside may be less likely. We highlight that the context of an acquisition may be an important determinant of the extent of integration of the target. Moreover, we supplement the integration research (cultural, structural and human resource and leadership perspectives of integration) by adding a knowledge-based perspective to it. Such dynamics have important implications for acquirers and targets in deriving value from the acquisition.

This paper aims to map the evolution of hydrogen-based technologies (HBTs) by examining the patenting activity associated to these technlogies from 1930 to 2020. In doing so, the study provides a novel perspective on the development of HBTs and offers implications for managers and policymakers.

We collected patent data at the level of patent families (PFs). Our sample includes 317,089 PFs related to hydrogen production and 62,496 PFs to hydrogen storage. We examined PF data to delineate the state of the art and major technical advancements of HBTs.

Our analysis provides evidence of an increasing patenting activity in the area of HBTs, hence suggesting relatively high levels of expectations on the economic potential of these technologies. US and Japan hold the largest proportion of PFs related to HBTs (about 60%), while European applicants hold the highest proportion of highly cited PFs (about 60%). While firms represent the applicant with the highest share of PFs, our analysis reveals that firms holding HBT PFs are primarily from the chemical sector.

While our analysis is limited to examining patent data which capture some aspects of the innovation activity around HBTs (namelly, patented inventions), our study enriches existing literature by performinng a patent analysis on a much larger sample of data when compared to previous studies.

Two main implications emerge from our study. Firstly, there seems to be an urgent need to support the emergence of a dominant design so as to facilitate the consolidation and diffusion of the HBTs, hence the transition to a more sustainable energy production. Secondly, the majority of HBT PFs are held by a small number of countries. This, in turn, suggests opportunities to develop cross-country cooperation (e.g. international agreements, research and technology offices) to support the development and adoption of HBTs globally.

Considering the results obtained in this study, from a social point of view, the attention that organizations have paid to hydrogen related technologies is evident. This suggests that the development HBTs can function as a social enabler for a sustianable energy transition.

Extant research has focused on the individual components of the hydrogen chain. As a result, we lack a comprehensive understanding of the progress made in the area of HBTs. To address this gap, this study examined HBTs by focusing on both production and storage technologies since their initial developments, hence adopting an observation period of about 70 years.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive overview of green innovation (GI) in China, which is carried out by reviewing the evolution of GI from 2000 to 2019, and the main type of technology, actors and localizations. When appropriate, GI is compared to non-GI.

The study uses patent data from the European Patent Office database (PATSTAT); these data are processed to map trends and identify the main contributors to GI and the location of such innovation. The findings are then discussed and complemented with academic literature.

Key findings reveal an increasing divergence between GI and nongreen innovation after the 2008 crisis. It is also observed that solar energy appears to be the main component of GI in China, with a shift from photovoltaic thermal energy to solar photovoltaic energy after 2008. Other areas, such as waste management, greenhouse gases capture and climate change adaptation, are less innovative. Companies play an essential role in the development of all types of innovation. In terms of location, green patents are mainly filed in China’s three main megacities. The study also highlights the significant role of the Chinese state, which led policies shaping the trajectories and forms of GI.

This study expands knowledge on GI in China, highlighting its main specificities and the role of key actors. It provides to the reader a comprehensive picture of China’s green policies and innovation realities. The results can therefore be used to improve the understanding of GI evolution in China and facilitate the formulation of new research questions.

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.

Scientific knowledge has characteristics of a pure public good. It is non-rivalrous in the sense that once generated, it is neither depleted nor diminished by use. Knowledge is also non-excludable since, once it is made available, in the absence of clearly defined property rights, users cannot be excluded from using it. These aspects imply that private market mechanisms will not provide adequate incentives for knowledge creation. Legal property rights, such as patents, are one means of dealing with this problem. Patronage in the form of government support for research provides another solution, as does the priority system of awarding credit for scientific discoveries to the first to find them. In the last two decades, there has been a growth in the relative importance of the use of legal property rights in the university setting and with it a growing controversy as to whether the costs may be outweighing the benefits. In this chapter, we discuss issues and evidence with regard to the ownership and licensing of publicly funded research intellectual property rights (IPR). We begin with an overview of incentives created by the patent system and discuss the ways in which these incentives differ from traditional norms of science. We then draw on the legal and economic literatures which distinguish among the incentives to invent, disclose, and innovate, and argue that the rationale for providing IPR for university research stems from the last of these. Finally, we discuss the available evidence on the creation and diffusion of academic research under current IPR regimes.

The debate about university technology transfer policy would benefit from increased attention to two parts of the technology transfer equation: the societal purpose of basic scientific research and the characteristics of scientific researchers.11This Chapter was prepared for the Colloquium on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer hosted by the Karl Eller Center of the University of Arizona and sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. I am grateful to them for their support. I am also grateful to the participants in the Colloquium for helpful comments. Finally, I thank my research assistant, David Zelner, for assistance with this project. One purpose of curiosity-driven research is to provide a demand function that can serve as a proxy for the socially optimal (but unknowable) demand function for the unpredictable research that is necessary for long-term technological progress. Preserving the curiosity-driven research peer review “market” is thus important for that progress. This analysis highlights the importance of adequate funding for curiosity-driven research. A model of typical university scientists’ preferences can be used to assess how technology transfer policies may affect the social norms of the research community and the long-term viability of the curiosity-driven research endeavor. The analysis suggests that patenting will be an ineffective technology transfer mechanism unless researchers are precluded from using patenting to maintain control over follow-on research.

The People’s Republic of China has long craved advanced technologies, and has undertaken an overwhelming number of changes in its intellectual property laws in order to foster domestic innovation and to encourage foreign investment. China implemented its first patent law in 1985. However, implementation and enforcement of this law and its amendments have been difficult, such that many foreign firms are reluctant to invest in Chinese markets. This paper describes the many changes that have been made to Chinese patent laws, and then illustrates patent activity in China as those changes have been implemented. Managerial issues are discussed in detail.