Little patents and big secrets: managing intellectual property

By James J. Anton, D. Yao. 2004

396 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b2af72552da967b0868972abacae4bf0b211f84

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 Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness (2016, background): “In an interesting theoretical contribution, Anton & Yao (2004) suggest that firms characterized as radical innovators rely less on formal appropriation mechanisms than other firms that can be found more on the incremental side of innovativeness.”
Managing liquidity in research‐intensive firms: signaling and cash flow effects of patents and alliance activities (2009, methodology): “Arellano and Bond (1991) developed a generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator using the approach of instrumental variables to address this problem, and Blundell and Bond (1998) further refined the GMM estimator to increase efficiency.”
The effects of proprietary information on corporate disclosure and transparency: Evidence from trade secrets (2018, neutral): “, 1985; Grossman and Helpman, 1991; Scotchmer, 1991; O’Donoghue, 1998; Anton and Yao, 2004; Saidi and Zaldokas, 2017. 7 Harabi (1995) surveys 358 Swiss R&D experts and finds that “the ability of competitors to 'invent around' patented innovations and the perception that patent documents require the ”
Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? (2010, background): “2.2 Patents as quality signals Anton and Yao (2004) find that many of the patents do not actually reveal complete information on the invention process, therefore leading to ‘little patents-big secrets’.”
The importance (or not) of patents to UK firms (2013, positive): “If firms consider inventions characterised by a larger inventive step to be more valuable, then disclosing the information through a patent application may be less desirable to the firm and hence a firm may be more likely to opt for secrecy (Anton and Yao, 2004).”
French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property (2012, background): “Anton and Yao (2004) show that large inventions are protected primarily through secrecy and small inventions, which are much less imitated, through patents.”
Innovation without Patents: Evidence from World’s Fairs (2012, background): “This result contradicts theoretical predictions for cost-saving process innovations, which should be less likely to be patented if they are more valuable (Anton and Yao 2004).”
Swimming with Sharks: Technology Ventures, Defense Mechanisms and Corporate Relationships (2008, background): “…protect their intellectual property, such as economies of scale and complementary assets, because of their small size and limited resources (Teece, 1986), they can use two common legal instruments to protect their inventions: patents and trade secrets (Katila and Mang, 2003; Anton and Yao, 2004).”
IS SILENCE GOLDEN? PATENTS VERSUS SECRECY AT THE FIRM LEVEL (2006, background): “(1985) and Anton and Yao (2004) develop information signaling models on the decision to patent or to keep an invention secret with respect to strategic aspects. The fact that neither patents – appropriability in the monopoly situation is not perfect, nor is diffusion through public disclosure ultima”
Patent Systems for Encouraging Innovation: Lessons from Economic Analysis (2006, neutral): “Anton and Yao (2004) show that, when property rights offer only limited protection, the value of the disclosure is offset by the increased threat of imitation.”