Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services

By Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, N. Traoré. 2008

255 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd8bae885f63e913a3dd6f87c31ede64b4f452f1

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Appropriability mechanisms, innovation, and productivity: evidence from the UK (2014, unknown): “…Laursen and Salter (2005) found that the first mover advantage is the preferred appropriability mechanism for UK firms, while Amara, Landry, and Traore (2008) confirmed these findings for Canadian firms from the knowledge intensive business sectors, but they also found that patents and secrecy…”
French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property (2012, background): “We note two main exceptions Amara et al. (2008) and Hanel (2008), although the latter fails to take into account the complementarities between the means.”
Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms (2016, background): “There have been historical swings in the patentability of business methods (including auction methods, e-commerce techniques, and banking and financial services methods), with a more restrictive approach to their patentability since the late 1990s (Andersen and Howells, 2000).”
THE ELIXIR (OR BURDEN) OF YOUTH? EXPLORING DIFFERENCES IN INNOVATION BETWEEN START-UPS AND ESTABLISHED FIRMS. (2008, background): “Most service products are intangible, are characterized by a coterminality of service production and consumption (Amara et al. 2008; Hipp and Grupp 2005; Miles 2005; Sirilli and Evangelista 1998), and have low capital intensity relative to manufacturing (Sirilli and Evangelista 1998).”
Are Trademark Counts a Valid Indicator of Innovation? Results of an In-Depth Study of New Benelux Trademarks Filed by SMEs (2014, background): “Others have also suggested or shown that trademarksmay be a complementarymeans to appropriate the rents from innovation (Teece, 1986; Rujas, 1999; Miles et al., 2000; Amara et al., 2008).”
Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models (2013, methodology): “Moreover, as studies on determinants of innovation have shown the importance of external sources of knowledge for the development and improvement of product and process innovations (Spithoven et al., 2011; Vega-Jurado et al., 2008; Amara et al., 2008; Laursen and Salter 2006; von Hippel, 1988), more”
Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs (2016, background): “In other words, this is the familiar distinction between formal and informal IP protection (Amara et al., 2008; Thomä and Bizer, 2013).”
Measurement of innovation activities in the knowledge-intensive services industry: a trademark approach (2012, background): “Dealing with the question of whether trademarking could signal innovative activity, prior investigations found a correlation between trademarks and productivity (Greenhalgh/Rogers, 2005) or stock market value (Greenhalgh/Rogers, 2007) as well as between trademarks and innovation (Rammer, 2003; Schmo”
How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods (2015, background): “Failing to control for significant correlations can lead to biased estimation of parameters (Amara et al., 2008).”