|
on Innovation |
| By: | John Vickers |
| Abstract: | One of the most controversial questions in current competition policy is when, if ever, should competition law require a firm with market power to share its property, notably intellectual property, with its rivals? And if supply is required, on what terms? These questions are discussed with reference to recent law cases including the EC Microsoft judgment of 2007 and the US linkLine case of 2009. The analysis focuses on whether competition law and regulation are complements or substitutes, and on incentives for investment and (sequential) innovation. |
| Keywords: | Property rights, refusal to supply, price squeeze, Intellectual property, Sequential innovation, Antitrust |
| JEL: | K21 L41 O31 O34 |
| Date: | 2009 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oxf:wpaper:436&r=ino |
| By: | Zhang, Jian Xiong |
| Abstract: | In this thesis, we will analyze the effect of venture capitalists (VC) on patent applications, focusing on their effects on patent applications in the pre-and post-IPO periods for Japanese firms. It can be stated that the shareholding by VC is positively correlated with their patent applications in the pre-IPO period; however, this effect becomes feeble in the post-IPO period. On the basis of the analysis, it was found that VC promoted the patent application of Japanese firms in the pre-IPO period, in order to enhance their market values. |
| Keywords: | Patent Applications, IPO, Venture capitalists, Shareholding |
| Date: | 2009–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hit:iirwps:09-02&r=ino |
| By: | Julian P. Christ (Universität Hohenheim); André P. Slowak (Universität Hohenheim) |
| Abstract: | Extensive research has been conducted on how firms and regions take advantage of spatially concentrated assets, and also why history matters to regional specialisation patterns. In brief, it seems that innovation clusters as a distinctive regional entity in international business and the geography of innovation are of increasing importance in STI policy, innovation systems and competitiveness studies. Recently, more and more research has contributed to an evolutionary perspective on collaboration in clusters. Nonetheless, the field of cluster or regional innovation systems remains a multidisciplinary field where the state of the art is determined by the individual perspective (key concepts could, for example, be industrial districts, innovative clusters with reference to OECD, regional knowledge production, milieus & sticky knowledge, regional lock-ins & path dependencies, learning regions or sectoral innovation systems). According to our analysis, the research gap lies in both quantitative, comparative surveys and in-depth concepts of knowledge dynamics and cluster evolution. Therefore this paper emphasises the unchallenged in-depth characteristics of knowledge utilisation within a cluster’s collaborative innovation activities. More precisely, it deals with knowledge dynamics in terms of matching different agents´ knowledge stocks via knowledge flows, common technology specification (standard-setting), and knowledge spillovers. The means of open innovation and system boundaries for spatially concentrated agents in terms of knowledge opportunities and the capabilities of each agent await clarification. Therefore, our study conceptualises the interplay between firm- and cluster-level activities and externalities for knowledge accumulation but also for the specification of technology. It remains particularly unclear how, why and by whom knowledge is aligned and ascribed to a specific sectoral innovation system. Empirically, this study contributes with several descriptive calculations of indices, e.g. knowledge stocks, GINI coefficients, Herfindahl indices, and Revealed Patent Advantage (RPA), which clearly underline a high spatial concentration of both mechanical engineering and biotechnology within a European NUTS2 sample for the last two decades. Conceptually, our paper matches the geography of innovation literature, innovation system theory, and new ideas related to the economics of standards. Therefore, it sheds light on the interplay between knowledge flows and externalities of cluster-specific populations and the agents’ use of such knowledge, which is concentrated in space. We find that knowledge creation and standard-setting are cross-fertilising each other: although the spatial concentration of assets and high-skilled labour provides new opportunities to the firm, each firm’s knowledge stocks need to be contextualised. The context in terms of ‘use case’ and ‘knowledge biography’ makes technologies (as represented in knowledge stocks) available for collaboration, but also clarifies relevance and ownership, in particular intellectual property concerns. Owing to this approach we propose a conceptualisation which contains both areas with inter- and intra-cluster focus. This proposal additionally concludes that spatial and technological proximity benefits standard-setting in high-tech and low-tech industries in very different ways. More precisely, the versatile tension between knowledge stocks, their evolution, and technical specification & implementation requires the conceptualisation and analysis of a non-linear process of standard-setting. Particularly, the use case of technologies is essential. Related to this approach, clusters strongly support the establishment of technology use cases in embryonic high-tech industries. Low-tech industries in contrast rather depend on approved knowledge stocks, whose dynamics provide better and fast accessible knowledge inputs within low-tech clusters. |
| Keywords: | innovation clusters, standard-setting, knowledge externalities and flows, knowledge alignment, mechanical engineering, biotechnology |
| JEL: | D89 L22 M20 O32 |
| Date: | 2009–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:old:wpaper:y:2009:i:27:p:1-59&r=ino |
| By: | Uwe Cantner (Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Department of Economics and Business Adminstration); Elisa Conti (IULM University, Department of Economics and Marketing); Andreas Meder (Graduate College EIC, Friedrich Schiller University Jena and Thuringian Ministry of Economic Affairs) |
| Abstract: | The claim of a positive association between a firm's social assets and its innovative capacity is a widely debated topic in the literature. Although controversial, such an argument has informed recent innovation policy across Germany, increasingly directed to cluster formation. In the light of the growing attention and financial efforts that cluster-based innovation policies are receiving, it is worth answering two main questions. First, are firms with a relatively high level of social capital likely to be more innovative? Second, do companies pursuing innovation in partnership innovate more? This paper empirically answers these questions by exploring a cross-sectoral sample of 248 firms based in the Jena region. On the one hand, the extent to which a firm is integrated in its community life does not contribute to an explanation of its innovative performance. On the other hand, directed cooperation with the specific goal of innovating shows a positive impact on innovative performance. However, the correlation between the extent of the network of co-innovators and firms' innovative capacity presents an inverted U-shaped relation: there is a threshold in the number of co-innovators justified by the costs of innovating by interacting. A policy lesson can be drawn from these findings: cluster-based policies are to be treated with caution as firms face costs of networking and not merely benefits. |
| Keywords: | innovation, social capital, innovation network, innovation cooperation, cluster-based policy. |
| JEL: | O33 L14 R5 |
| Date: | 2009–06–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2009-040&r=ino |
| By: | Brita Bye and Karl Jacobsen (Statistics Norway) |
| Abstract: | We analyse welfare effects of supporting general versus emission saving technological development when carbon emissions are regulated by a carbon tax. We use a computable general equilibrium model with induced technological change (ITC). ITC is driven by two separate, economically motivated research and development (R&D) activities, one general and one emission saving specified as carbon capture and storage. We study public revenue neutral policy alternatives targeted towards general R&D and emission saving R&D. Support to general R&D is the welfare superior, independent of the level of international carbon price. However, the welfare gap between the two R&D policy alternatives is reduced if the carbon price increases. |
| Keywords: | Applied general equilibrium; Endogenous growth; Research and Development; Directed technological change; Carbon policy |
| JEL: | C68 E62 H32 O38 O41 |
| Date: | 2009–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ssb:dispap:584&r=ino |
| By: | Dupuy, Arnaud (ROA, Maastricht University); Smits, Wendy (Statistics Netherlands) |
| Abstract: | The aim of this paper is to measure the extent to which lower wages in R&D functions reflect a preference effect. In contrast to the bulk of the literature on compensating wage differentials that compares wage levels of jobs with different attributes, we constructed measures of willingness to accept (WTA) and pay (WTP) for an R&D jobs using contingent valuation technique. Earnings regressions using OLS show an R&D wage penalty of about 3.5%. However, hedonic OLS regressions of WTA and WTP give significant relative preference parameters for R&D jobs that range from 0.19 to 0.22. |
| Keywords: | R&D workers, compensating wage differentials, hedonic prices |
| JEL: | J3 |
| Date: | 2009–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp4194&r=ino |