Nature and Dynamics of Appropriability: Strategies for Appropriating Returns on Innovation

By Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Kaisu Puumalainen. 2007

209 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7025801d19c68fb40a5fef6adfd54303c9af5aae

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

1. Paavo Ritala
2. Georgvon Krogh
3. Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
4. Snejina Michailova
5. Carliss Y. Baldwin

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. Paavo Ritala
2. Georgvon Krogh
3. Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
4. Aino Kianto
5. Snejina Michailova
6. Kenneth Husted
7. Heidi Olander

In Strategy and Management

1. Paavo Ritala
2. Aino Kianto
3. Georgvon Krogh
4. Snejina Michailova
5. Kenneth Husted
6. Heidi Olander
7. Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
8. Henri Inkinen

Citations in the corpus

• The Fit between Technological Innovation and Business Model Design for Firm Growth: Evidence from China (2014, unknown): “Previous literature argues that technological innovation fits with firm strategy, regimes of appropriability, dominant design paradigm, complementary assets (Teece, 1986; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007; Huang et al., 2013; Ritala and HurmelinnaLaukkanen, 2013), and their combinations (Th”
• Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study (2015, background): “Firms traditionally attempt to protect their innovation- based competitive advantages with intellectual property rights (IPRs), trademarks, copyrights or other knowledge-protecting mechanisms (Choi et al., 2004; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007; Teece, 1986).”
• How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda (2012, background): “A central argument in the knowledge-based view of the firm is that the development of these three institutional capabilities makes firms more effective at protecting knowledge than legal mechanisms (Colombo et al., 2011; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007; Liebeskind, 1996).”
• Patent Management in Entrepreneurial SMEs: A Literature Review and an Empirical Study of Innovation Appropriation, Patent Propensity, and Motives (2013, unknown): “For example, both patents and secrecy can be strategically used to create market lead times (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007).”
• Intellectual capital in service‐ and product‐oriented companies (2010, background): “In this companies can rely on intellectual property rights (IPRs), secrecy, contracting, employment legislation, HRM practices, technical means of concealment, lead-time, and tacitness ( Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007”
• Appropriability mechanisms, innovation, and productivity: evidence from the UK (2014, unknown): “…firms are more likely to patent than small firms, likely because of the patent application costs some of which can be spread across many patents.2 Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen (2007) find that there exists a positive relationship between pursuing short-term value and the use of lead time…”