The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis

By Pia Hurmelinna, Kalevi Kyläheiko, Tiina Jauhiainen. 2007

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study (2015, background): “Several scholars have discussed means for protecting firms from employees who leak potentially harmful knowledge (Delerue and Lejeune, 2010; Hurmelinna et al., 2007; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007) and from knowledge loss due to staff turnover (Lowman et al., 2012).”
Advancing a Typology of Open Innovation (2010, background): “In contrast to closed innovation systems, where proprietary innovation is prominent, open innovation espouses the exploitation of both internal and external intellectual property (Hurmelinna et al, 2007).”
APPROPRIABILITY OF INNOVATION RESULTS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN SPANISH MANUFACTURING FIRMS (2007, methodology): “, 2000; Arundel, 2001; Brouwer and Kleinkenecht, 1999; Hall y Ziedonis, 2001; Kingston, 2001) or the organizational resources (Maurer and Zugelder, 2000; Hurmelinna et al., 2005; Galende, 2006; Hertfeld et al., 2006).”
The dark side of knowledge transfer: Exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects (2015, background): “The efficacy of the appropriability regime depends in part on the strength of institutional protection mechanisms such as formal protection for IP through patents and copyrights (Hurmelinna et al., 2007; Teece, 1986).”