Abstract
In recent years, firms have increased their use of internal and external knowledge through intermediaries. Knowledge brokers match buyers and sellers in the technology marketplace as well as connect and combine existing knowledge. We discuss how financial incentives in the technology marketplace can address challenges to open innovation, and how the marketplace could make individual inventors essential contributors. And then, we identify the key determinants of intellectual-property auction bids and different characteristics of auctioned and non-auctioned patents. Relevance, the scope of patents, and other factors suggested in the literature impact patent auctions, as mediated by knowledge brokers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramowicz, M. (2006). Patent auctions, Bepress Legal Series, Working Paper 1177, http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1177.
Ahonen, M., Antikainen, M., Makipaa, M. (2007). Supporting collective creativity within open innovation. In EURAM 2007 conference proceedings, May 16–19. Paris: EURAM.
Aldrich, H., & von Glinow, M. A. (1991). Business starts-ups: The HRM imperative. In S. Subramony (Ed.), International perspectives on entrepreneurship research (pp. 233–253). New York, NY: Elsevier Publications.
Arya, A., & Mittendorf, B. (2004). Purchasing sleeping patents to curtail budget padding. Economics Letters, 82, 221–226.
Astebro, T. (2003). The return to independent invention: Evidence of unrealistic optimism, risk seeking or skewness loving? The Economic Journal, 113, 226–239.
Barzel, Y. (1968). Optimal timing of innovations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 50(3), 348–355.
Benassi, M. (2007). Playing in between: IP brokers in markets for technology, Econpapers, Working paper from Department of Economics University of Milan Italy, http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/milwpdepa/2007-15.htm.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation model. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Choi, C.-W., Kim, S.-K., & Park, Y.-T. (2007). A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: The case of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, l74, 1296–1314.
Connor, D., & Cooper, M. (2005). Participatory processes: Creating a marketplace of ideas with open space technology. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(1), 1–12.
Dahlin, K., Taylor, M., & Fichman, M. (2004). Today’s Edison or weekend hobbyists: Technical merit and success of inventions by independent inventors. Research Policy, 33, 1167–1183.
Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1985). Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology. Review of Economic Studies, 52, 383–401.
Gambardella, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36, 1163–1183.
Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2000). Incumbency and R&D incentives: Licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9, 485–551.
Gilfillan, C. S. (1935). The sociology of invention. Chicago, Illinois: Follett Publishing.
Graham, S. J. H., & Mowrey, D. C. (2004). Submarines in software? Continuations in US software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(5), 443–456.
Guellec, D., & Potterie, B. V. P. (2000). Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters, 69, 109–114.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly in Business, 42(4), 716–749.
Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition, and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.
He, Z.-L., Lim, K., & Wong, P.-K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35, 1147–1165.
Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.
Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: The uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405–432.
Lee, Y.-G. (2008). Patent licensability and life: A study of U.S. patents registered by South Korean public research institutes. Scientometrics, 75(3), 463–471.
Lee, Y.-G. (2009a). What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic, and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach, Scientometrics, 79(3), Forthcoming.
Lee, Y.-G. (2009b). Sectoral strategic differences of technological development between electronics and chemistry: A historical view from analyses of Korean-invented US patents during the period of 1989 to 1992, Scientometrics, Forthcoming.
Lee, Y.-G., Lee, J.-D., Song, Y.-I., & Lee, S.-J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(1), 27–39.
Lerner, J. D., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of the open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2, 197–234.
Merges, R., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 91, 839–916.
Niioka, H. (2006). Patent auctions: Business and investment strategy in IP commercialization. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 1(11), 728–731.
Prusa, T., & Schmitz, J. (1991). Are new firms an important source of invention? Evidence from the PC software industry. Economics Letters, 35, 339–342.
Rammert, W. (2006). Two styles of knowing and knowledge regimes: Between “exploitation” and “exploration” under conditions of functional specialization or fragmental distribution. In J. Hage (Ed.), Innovation, science, and institutional change (pp. 256–284). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Reinganum, J. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73, 741–748.
Schrage, M. (June, 2003). In the weed: Amateur innovation. In Technology review (p.18). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row, New York.
Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 1–32.
Shohert, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: Institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R&D Management, 26, 283–298.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Rankin, N. (1996). Bricoleurs and boundary riders: Managing basic research and innovation knowledge networks. R&D Management, 26, 267–282.
Van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3), 347–363.
Perry, J., Viscounty, M. W. D. V., Eric, M. K. (2006, May 8), Patent auctions: Emerging trend? The National Law Journal.
Wang, S.-J. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71(3), 509–522.
Wartburg, W. I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607.
West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Open innovation in open source software. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 82–106). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, YG., Lee, JH. Different characteristics between auctioned and non-auctioned patents. Scientometrics 82, 135–148 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0029-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0029-7