Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation

By Oliver Alexy, Paola Criscuolo, Ammon J. Salter. 2009

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3dd19956aaebcce12874e081ba8d43adc08c7296

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Technology Transfer across Organizational Boundaries: Absorptive Capacity and Desorptive Capacity (2010, background): “patents (meaning that 60 percent of the patent holders receive just 1 percent of the revenues).(4) Accordingly, firms differ substantially in their technology transfer performance.”
The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes (2017, background): “Extant IP management literature increasingly accounts for the fact that firms adopt various types of open innovation strategies and thereby need to match their IP strategies with this (e.g., Alexy et al., 2009; Somaya, 2012; Granstrand and Holgersson, 2014; Manzini and Lazzarotti, 2016).”
Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms (2016, background): “For example, some firms are known to screen patent databases to identify potential partners for collaboration (Alexy et al., 2009; Audretsch et al., 2012).”
Cui Bono? The Selective Revealing of Knowledge and Its Implications for Innovative Activity (2013, background): “Second, it might struggle to manage the increased complexity of its innovative activities that now transcend the boundary of the firm in a way that runs counter to the traditional emphasis on the value and protection of intellectual property generated in-house (Alexy et al., 2009).”
How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward (2021, background): “There are internal aspects that prevent or limit how we can use open innovation (Alexy et al., 2009).”
The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration (2014, background): “…associated with ffective external engagement, the literature on open innovation hows that over-emphasis on this area can have significant negtive consequences for the possibilities for external collaboration Laursen and Salter, 2005; Chesbrough, 2006; Alexy et al., 2009; eitzig and Puranam, 2009).”
Ready to Be Open? Explaining the Firm-Level Barriers to Benefiting from Openness to External Knowledge (2017, unknown): “…flows among innovation partners, with others claiming that patents represent a useful “currency” for partnering and hence may favor openness (e.g. see Alexy et al, 2009; Bogers, 2011; Hertzfeld, Link and Vonortas, 2006; Murray and Stern, 2007), our focus in this paper is on informal safeguards,…”
Open for Ideation: Individual-level Openness and Idea Generation in R&D (2012, background): “Despite the move toward open innovation, large R&D organizations are extremely focused on the creation and protection of IP, which can have a significant impact on how they engage with external sources (Alexy, Criscuolo, and Salter, 2009; Chesbrough, 2006).”