|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
| By: | Azagra-Caro, Joaquín M.; Mattsson, Pauline; Perruchas, François |
| Abstract: | Examiner patent citations are a popular source of indicators of technological impact and knowledge flows, despite various critiques. We analyse the distribution of examiner patent citations according to patent characteristics, to show their comparative meaningless. Our findings show that it is the science-base of the technology that determines the inclusion of applicant citations. However, this gets masked by the citations added by patent examiners, who smooth the distribution of citations across technology classes and include the 'standard' knowledge bases regardless of which references applicants cite. Some researchers have called for the use of applicant rather than examiner patent citations to build indicators of technology impact and knowledge flows. However, we show that the former are not necessarily 'better' than the latter, because applicants may 'inflate' the numbers in international patents especially when there are co-applicants. The implications are that analysts should consider alternative uses of patent citations e.g. to build indicators of trust within a research system. |
| JEL: | O31 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2010–06–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ing:wpaper:201005&r=ipr |
| By: | Gabaldón-Estevan, Daniel; Molina-Morales, Francesc Xavier; Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio |
| Abstract: | This work applies the systemic approach to analyze the innovation process in an industrial district through the notion of the District Innovation System. We are particularly interested in the analysis of the interactions between the productive-technological and the scientific environments through the analysis of research contracts and patents. The empirical section of the paper develops a quantitative analysis of the interactions between different actors of the system included in the district. This analysis was used to indicate the special features of the innovation system in a territorially bounded industrial district. Findings suggest relevant conclusions about specific characteristics of the inter-organizational environments in the industrial district which have to be considered. |
| Keywords: | innovation systems; industrial districts, tile industry; agglomeration; research contracts; patents |
| Date: | 2009–06–26 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ing:wpaper:200901&r=ipr |
| By: | Henry Sauermann; Paula E. Stephan |
| Abstract: | Some scholars view academic and industrial science as qualitatively different knowledge production regimes. Others claim that the two sectors are increasingly similar. Large-scale empirical evidence regarding similarities and differences, however, has been missing. Drawing on prior work on the organization of science, we first develop a framework to compare and contrast the two sectors along four key dimensions: (1) the nature of research (e.g., basic versus applied); (2) organizational characteristics (e.g., degree of independence, pay); (3) researchers’ preferences (e.g., taste for independence); and (4) the use of alternative disclosure mechanisms (e.g., patenting and publishing). We then compare the two sectors empirically using detailed survey data from a representative sample of over 5,000 life scientists and physical scientists employed in a wide range of academic institutions and private firms. Building on prior work that has emphasized different “research missions”, we also examine how the nature of research is related to other characteristics of science within and across the two sectors. Our results paint a complex picture of academic and industrial science. While we find significant industry-academia differences with respect to all four dimensions, we also observe remarkable similarities. For example, both academic institutions and private firms appear to allow their scientists to stay actively involved in the broader scientific community and provide them with considerable levels of independence in their jobs. Second, we find significant differences not just between industrial and academic science but also within each of the two sectors as well as across fields. Finally, while the nature of research is a significant predictor of other dimensions such as the use of patenting and publishing, it does not fully explain the observed industry-academia differences in those dimensions. Overall, our results suggest that stereotypical views of industrial and academic science may be misleading and that future work may benefit from a richer and more nuanced description of the organization of science. |
| JEL: | J31 J44 O31 O32 O34 |
| Date: | 2010–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16113&r=ipr |
| By: | Edwards, Mónica; Fernández-Diego, Marta; González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, Fernando |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes the interrelationships between creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship as key enablers of an entrepreneurial and innovation-oriented culture. Empirical results of exploring perceptions and opinions about these three concepts are presented, using a sample of 121 engineering students. The findings show that the majority of students perceive the traditional linear model of innovation and consider innovation strongly related to creativity but moderately related to entrepreneurship. There are contradictions between the students' self-perceptions as entrepreneurs, their high desirability to start a new firm and their work preferences after graduation, which are principally to get a job in a private company and become public servants. Their low willingness for mobility and the poor contribution of the education system in developing their innovation and entrepreneurial competences constitutes other relevant obstacles for improving an entrepreneurial and innovation-oriented culture. |
| Keywords: | engineering students; perceptions; innovation; entrepreneurship; creativity; competences |
| JEL: | L26 |
| Date: | 2010–04–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ing:wpaper:201004&r=ipr |
| By: | Tommy Clausen (Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo); Mikko Pohjola (Turku School of Economics, Finland); Koson Sapprasert (Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo); Bart Verspagen (Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo) |
| Abstract: | An important topic in the recent literature on firms’ innovation is the question of whether, and to what extent, firms which innovate once have a higher probability of innovating again in subsequent periods. This phenomenon is called the ‘persistence of innovation’. Although the literature has established that innovation persistence is indeed important from an empirical point of view, relatively little attention has been paid to identifying the reasons why this is the case. This study proposes that the differences in innovation strategies across firms are an important driving force behind innovation persistence, and analyses this issue using a panel database constructed from R&D and Community Innovation Surveys in Norway. Empirical measures of various innovation strategies are identified by means of a factor analysis. A cluster analysis is used in addition to a dynamic random effects probit model to extend the methodology adopted by prior studies, for the purpose to not only examine innovation persistence, but also determine how this persistence is influenced by innovation strategies. The results support the idea that the differences in innovation strategies across firms are an important determinant of the firms’ probability to repeatedly innovate. The study also distinguishes the effects of strategy differences on the persistence of product and process innovation in all firms, and within high-tech versus low-tech firms. |
| Keywords: | Persistence of innovation, Firm heterogeneity, Innovation strategy, Panel data |
| Date: | 2010–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tik:inowpp:20100617&r=ipr |