the paradox of openness revisited: collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators

1. PATENTING AND
OPENNESS
The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative
innovation and patenting by UK innovators
Andy 7106026052
LUCKSIKA BUNYANG 71061026053

2. AGENDA
Introduction
Openness and Patenting
Leader and Followers
Relationship between openness
and patenting is contingent
Treating both patenting and openness
as choices made by the firm
New and more precise measures of the
use of patents based upon a new survey
Hypothesis
Data and method
Result
Conclusion

3. introduction
• Innovator are increasingly rely on collaboration with other firm and organization.
• Our main topic is the relationship between sourcing knowledge from the outside to develop
innovations using patents.
• The conflict between patenting and open innovation is spillover prevention theory and
organizational openness theory.
• Investigate the conflict on openness versus patenting
• First relationship between external sourcing (openness) and patenting is contingent
• Second, advance the literature by treating both patenting and openness as choices made by the firm.
• Third, is to introduce new and more precise measures of the use of patents based upon a new survey.
• To see positive association between patenting and openness.

4. Openness and
patenting
There are two dominant views on how
patenting is related to use of external
collaboration in innovation
“organizational
openness”
theory
“spillover
prevention”
theory

5. Leader and flowers
Followers have less gain
from patenting.
Leader is firm that dominating
or leading in the market and
make innovation through R&D.
Follower is firm that do
incremental innovation of
existing product.
Leader is likely go get
benefits from patents if
the are open

6. relationship between openness and patenting is
contingent
• The relation openness and patenting is depend on type of firm
• Relation between patenting and openness will be stronger for leader
• Leader who invest in R&D more vulnerable to spillovers
• Open leader reveal more information through collaboration
• open firm more incentive to patent than close firms
• Less Relationship of openness and patenting for followers
• Followers with incremental innovation have less benefits of patenting
• patenting for followers are difficult to collaborate with outsider
• Patenting perhaps makes follower Less able to derive value from collaboration

7. treating both patenting and openness as choices
made by the firm
• The choice based on cost and benefits of collaborative innovation
Patenting and openess
• If the firm have advantage in technical superior to their competitor
• leading market
• Benefits most for leader firms
• Patenting will harder to collaborate with outsider.
Not patent and close firm
• No patent innovation has more benefit from customer interaction.
• Close firm has Less risk for spillover through secrecy
• more benefits for follower
• If patenting is ineffective it may choose close firm

8. new and more precise
measures of the use
of patents based
upon a new survey
•If E(Patent | closed)L > E(Patent |closed)F :
leaders value patents more than followers.
•If E(Patent | open)L > E(Patent |open)F :
leaders value patents more when collaborating
compared to followers.
(i) collaborate and patent
(ii) collaborate and not patent
(iii) not collaborate and patent
(iv) not collaborate and not patent
Comparing patenting by leaders and followers

9. hypothesis
• E(Patent | open)L − E(Patent |closed)L > E(Patent | open)F − E(Patent |
closed)F.
First hypothesis is that leaders are more easier to spillovers during collaboration than
are followers.
• E(Patent | open)L − E(Patent |closed)L > 0
Second hypothesis is patenting by leaders is higher when they are open compared to
when they are closed.
• E(Patent | open)F − E(Patent |closed)F > 0
Third hypothesis is patenting by followers is higher when they are open compared
to when they are closed.

10. new and more precise measures of the use of
patents based upon a new survey
data and method
• The survey used from survey of innovation and patent use (SIPU)
• Using sixth wave of the community innovation survey (CIS6)
• Sample of 329 innovating firms
• Variable is leader and follower in open and close firms

11. Leader and followers

12. Open and close firm

13. Correlation matrix

14. new and more precise
measures of the use of
patents

15. Coeff 1 Coeff 4
Coeff 3
Coeff 2

17. Coeff 1
Coeff 3
Coeff 4
Coeff 2
Coeff 5

18. result
• From the result of column 5, we find out that the leader are more likely to introduce
product innovation rather than service or process innovation, and product innovation are
more likely to be patented because product are easier to detect and easier to protect through
patent rather than process or services that may be protect through secrecy.
• As result we find that open leader did more patent than follower, and close leader have
similar number with open and close followers. this prof the hypothesis that association
between openness and patenting is positive and significant for leader. And larger than
followers
• The relationship implies that leaders are have bigger chance to spillover while collaborating
with outsiders while followers’s chance to spillover are appear to be balance by benefits of
openness in terms of increasing efficiency of collaboration.

19. conclusion
• When the firms open up to outsiders to collect knowledge it may weaken the firm’s power to capture
knowledge relating with this case thre are two theoretical hyphoteses. Spillover theory and organizational
openness. Firm are more likely to find external collaboration if they can protect their innovation against
unwanted spillover to partners by patents in other hand focusing on patent and exclusivity makes firm less
efficient in developing collaborative innovation.We conclude that the relation between openness and
patenting is resolved differently by different type of firms. And leading fims are more danger to spillover
during collaboration comparing to followers We also find that increase in patent due openness is higher for
leader than followers, and followers with incremental innovation are less benefit from patenting and they
may less willing to patent because it makes them less attractive in collaboration and may not able to get value
from collaboration.