Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution

By Gary P. Pisano. 2006

382 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/923f903d90bef1993c5266b62f764646f2c71820

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

Citations in the corpus

China's national innovative capacity (2008, background): “a tendency amongst some firms to patent as a substitute for real innovation, and even as a block to innovation ( Pisano, 2006 ) – nevertheless for latecomer countries that are looking to catch-up with the industrial leaders today a capacity to register innovative capacity in terms of patenting activ”
Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs (2016, background): “Reflecting on Teece’s (1986) classic work, Pisano (2006) notes that In order to help innovators specialize (safely), markets for know-how must work effectively.”
The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators (2016, background): “Interestingly, even those who believe that open innovation is often facilitated by strong intellectual property rights (IPR), concede that firms may benefit from voluntarily waiving some of their intellectual property rights (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007; Pisano, 2006).”
Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry (2014, background): “The more open approach towards IP changed its role and importance within the firm’s value creation processes (Pisano 2006).”
Cocreating IT Value: New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments (2012, background): “What are the criteria for equitable distribution of “value” among cocreators given the need to protect intellectual property (Pisano 2006)?”
Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness (2016, background): “…to be considered as primarily exogenously given and as such firms can influence the characteristics of their appropriability context by means of specific strategies and behaviours (Pisano, 2006; Pisano & Teece, 2007; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2011; Neuhaeusler, 2012; Milesi, Petelski, & Verre, 2013).”
The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes (2017, background): “This distinction between formal and informal technology governance relates to the distinction between explicit contracting enforceable by law, implicit contracting enforceable by markets (Klein et al., 1978) or social norms (Ostrom, 1999; Ostrom et al., 1999), and possibly no contracting at all.”
Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives (2011, background): “As many examples have shown that the most profitable protection is not always strong protection, companies need to develop conscious strategies for appropriation (Pisano, 2006).”
The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration (2014, background): “As Pisano (2006) suggests, research on appropriability largely focuses on the industry-level environment and how the presence of tight or weak appropriability regimes shapes individual firm behavior (Levin et al., 1987; Cohen et al., 2000; Arora and Merges, 2004), and downplays the role of…”
The dark side of knowledge transfer: Exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects (2015, background): “However, the appropriability regime is not purely exogenous but may also be a product of a firm's strategy (Pisano, 2006).”
Who Profits from Innovation in Global Value Chains? A Study of the iPod and Notebook PCs (2010, background): “, when imitation is easy), innovators shaping their supply chain are more likely to see their advantage erode unless they keep specialized complements in-house or otherwise under control (Pisano, 2006).”
The effects of global knowledge reservoirs on the productivity of multinational enterprises: The role of international depth and breadth (2012, background): “By showing that advantageous regimes are not necessarily strong (Pisano, 2006), our findings challenge the prevalent view that environments with inefficient protection are detrimental to innovation and performance.”
The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society (2007, background): “Png and Wang (2006) look at the impact of copyright extensions on the production of movies in OECD countries, finding that extension from 50 to 70 years after author’s life did increase production by around 10%.”