1. 박민아

2. Introduction  The open innovation paradigm conceives R&D as an open system where firms can benefit from a variety of collaborative activities with external knowledge partners.  R&D collaboration facilitates the synergistic blending of external and internal ideas into new products, processes and systems. http://bfsinnovations.com/innov.html

3. Paradox of openness  The more that firms collaborate with external partners, the more difficult it becomes to appropriate the outcomes of such collaborative efforts for the partners involved.  Creating innovation benefits from openness while commercializing innovation requires appropriability.  The paper focus on co-patenting as a potential window for investigating this openness paradox.

4. Discussion: co-patenting  Co-patenting 정의는 무엇인가 ?  Co-patenting 을 하는 이유는 무엇인가 ?  Co-patenting 의 단점과 어려운 점은 무엇인가 ?

5. Co-patenting  Some researchers labels co-patenting as a strategy that firm prefer to avoid. industrial and corporate change, volume 12, number5, pp. 1035-1050 Azzola, Landoni, Van Looy (2010). Patstat data ECOOM/INCENTIM (KU Leuven) However, the number of co- patents in the US increased steadily over time. US co-patents by year EPO co-patents by year

6. This paper…  Acknowledges that co-ownership of intellectual property (IP) as an empirically relevant strategy for companies developing technology jointly.  Explores the role and performance implications of co- patenting in the setting of collaborative R&D activities.  Interviews with 10 IP managers  Analysis of data from 164 European, US and Japanese firms to test some of the insights that emerged from out interviews. (1995-2003) 1. Value-appropriation implication of co-patenting 2. Value-creation implication of co-patenting POINT

7. 1. Value-appropriation implication of co-patenting  Co-patenting resembles a duopoly in which the joint owners can compete against each other, creates fewer opportunities.  Interviewees emphasized that the challenges of appropriating value from co-patents heavily depends on the type of partners involved 1. University 2. Inter-industry 3. Intra-industry

8.  University Lack of incentives and abilities to commercially exploit the co-owned knowledge Standard procedure to contractually negotiate that universities do not have the right to license such knowledge to competitors.  Intra-industry The risk that they will deploy the co-owned knowledge for similar purpose is higher, implying a risk of intensified competition that could jeopardize vale appropriation. Risk of overlapping application domain is relatively high challenges in appropriation value

9. Empirical analysis of value appropriation challenge  University A significant positive relationship between co-patents with universities and market valuation was observed.  Intra-industry Significantly negative relationship between the share of co- patents with intra-industry and the firm’s performance (Tobin’s q) was observed. I.Lack of appropriation risk from co-patenting II.Relatively strong investor responses Reasons

10. Discussion: size of firm  What are differential effects depending on the size of the partner firm?  The author stated that technologically weaker firms engage more in intra-industry co-patenting. Why?

11. 2.Value-creation implication of co-patenting  Negotiating co-patenting arrangements ex-ante may influence the collaboration processes hence the vale creation resulting from collaboration.  R&D collaboration requires intensive interaction for synergy effect however ex-ante concerns of exposing critical resources and capabilities to partner decrease willingness to involve in collaboration.  Ex-ante contractual IP allocation procedures mitigate such knowledge appropriation concerns. Willingness of partners to effectively combine their complementary knowledge through ex-ante negotiation increased probability of effective joint vale creation

12. Empirical analysis of value-creation  Co-patents with inter-firm and intra-firm industry partners received more citation than individually owned patents.  However, self-citation are negatively correlated when co-patenting implies industrial partners. Higher forward citation Increased probability of effective joint value creation Willingness to participate in collaboration and intensive interaction Through ex-ante negotiation: mitigate concerns and build trust Ex-ante concerns: fear of exposure and likely presence of gray zone

13. Discussion: types of technology  기존의 기술을 발전하는 exploitation 과 새로운 기술을 만들려는 exploration, co-patenting 은 어떤 관계가 있을 까 ?