Karin Beukel

Intellectual Property Rights Management

1. Introduction 2. IP Archetypes - Rookies, Strategists, Dealers and Strategic Dealers 3. The IP Rookie 4. The IP Dealer 5. The IP Strategist 6. The IP Strategic Dealer 7. IP Strategy 8. Markets for IP 9. IP Archetypes and Demographics 10. IP and Economic Performance Exercises

Price satisfaction and producer loyalty: The role of mediators in business to business relationships in Kenyan mango supply chain

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate which dimensions of price satisfaction influence producers’ trust in buyers and assess the mediating role of such trust in the relationship between price satisfaction and producer loyalty in fresh fruit supply chains. Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional study design using both semi-structured interviews and structured questionnaires was used. The study was conducted in the Eastern part of Kenya and included 600 smallholders. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling. Findings – The results show that price fairness, price reliability, and relative price are dimensions of price satisfaction that affect producers’ trust in the buyer. Moreover, trust between the producer and the buyer is found to be a strong mediator between price satisfaction and producer loyalty. The findings support recent studies about trust and its mediating role. Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on a cross-sectional study design, limitin...

Capturing Value from IP in a Global Environment

This paper documents the strong growth in tools used by firms to protect their intellectual property (IP), develop their know-how, and build and maintain their reputation globally during the last decades. We focus on three tools: patents, trademarks, and industrial designs. We find that, although most IP applications come from a few countries (the United States, European Union, Japan, China, and South Korea), most growth in IP activity has come from middle-income countries, especially in Asia. We observe important differences in the origins of this growth. For example, while in India most applicants were foreign firms, in China most were local. However, most Indian innovations are also applied overseas, while Chinese innovations rarely made it out of China. Interestingly, growth in applications varies by IP tool, with industrial designs experiencing the most growth.

Capturing Value from Intellectual Property (IP) in a Global Environment

Abstract Globalization should provide firms with an opportunity to leverage their know-how and reputation across countries to create value. However, it remains challenging for them to actually capture that value using traditional Intellectual Property (IP) tools. In this paper, we document the strong growth in patents, trademarks, and industrial designs used by firms to protect their IP globally. We then show that IP protection remains fragmented; the quality of IP applications might be questionable; and developing a comprehensive IP footprint worldwide is very costly. Growing numbers of applications are causing backlogs and delays in numerous Patent and Trademarks Offices and litigation over IP rights is expensive, with an uncertain outcome. Moreover, local governments can succeed in transferring value to local firms and influencing global market positions by using IP laws and other regulations. In essence, the analysis shows a global IP environment that leaves much to be desired. Despite these challenges, there are successful strategies to capture value from know-how and reputation by leveraging an array of IP tools. These strategies have important implications for management practice, as we discuss in our concluding section. Global companies will need to organize cross-functional value capture teams focused on appropriating value from their know-how and reputation by combining different institutional, market, and nonmarket tools, depending on the institutional and business environment in a particular region.

SME Managers’ Perceptions of Competitive Pressure and the Adoption of Environmental Practices in Fragmented Industries: A Multi-Country Study in the Wine Industry

This study explains how managers’ perceptions of pressure from competitors and industry associations to adopt environmental practices are associated with the adoption of such practices, and firm performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in fragmented industries. First, we hypothesize, in fragmented industries, perceived weaker competitive pressure focuses SME managers’ attention on opportunities associated with the adoption of environmental practices, resulting in further adoption of such practices. We also hypothesize that perceived stronger competitive pressure focuses managers’ attention on competitive threats and efforts to maximize value creation from adopted practices, thus, positively moderating the relationship between adopted environmental practices and financial performance. We test our hypotheses with survey data from wineries and vineyards in Italy, France, Denmark, and the United States, and find support for both hypotheses. These findings deepen our understanding of how SMEs in fragmented industries respond to perceived competitive pressure to adopt environmental practices.

LA INNOVACIÓN ABIERTA Y LA COMPARACIÓN ENTRE LAS STARTUPS Y LAS EMPRESAS ESTABLECIDAD EN ESPAÑA

This study compares the open innovation strategy between startups and incumbent firms over a period of ten years (2004-2013). Using a sample of startups and incumbent Spanish firms, we find that they differ considerably, and that this has implications for management. Incumbent firms and startups differ in terms of their use of external cooperation activities as a source of innovation. The lack of financial and human resources of startups leads them to open their borders more than incumbent firms, and startups benefit from being flexible, as they have yet to implement routines. This boosts startups’ innovation performance.

THE EFFECT OF PATH-DEPENDENCE AND UNCERTAINTY ON THE VALUE OF MATURE TECHNOLOGIES

This paper examines whether technological advances benefit more from path-dependent or path-creating capabilities. Consistently with recent advances in the literature, we argue that multiple technological trajectories can coexist in a field; therefore, firms may contribute to technological development by recombining in novel ways the capabilities that are widespread in the field, or by building novel and rare capabilities. The paper also conceptualises how technological uncertainty affects the value of such capabilities. Using patent data from 1977 to 2007 for firms developing the hydrocracking technology, the paper finds that both rare and widespread capabilities are valuable to the invention process, thereby suggesting that both path-dependent and path-creating strategies are beneficial for technological development. The paper shows that uncertainty has an inverted U-shaped effect on invention value. In particular, under conditions of low uncertainty, path-dependent capabilities tend to be more valuable.

IP Archetypes and Demographics

This chapter maps similarities in IP practice between firms sharing particular demographic dimensions. We explain, theoretically, how IP practices may overlap among a defined set of organizations. Specifically, we emphasize four mechanisms: isomorphism; heritage of practices; market selection; and resource constraints. These mechanisms operate globally and shape general practice. However, they may also impact the choices made with respect to IP management causing overlap in, for instance, practices across firms within the same geographical area, in the same industry, or of the same size. The chapter also puts forward empirical investigations which suggest that these four mechanisms do indeed operate in numerous dimensions, putting a upper limit on the observed variation in IP practices in a specified set of organizations. In comparing the four IP archetypes with respect to size and composition of employees, we find that IP Strategists and IP Strategic Dealers in general employ a relatively higher number of managers, engineers and scientists with a PhD. These firms tend to be both larger and younger when compared to IP Rookies and IP Dealers.

The IP Strategist

The IP Strategist is typically an innovative firm, which often experiences substantial costs in developing new products. The IP Strategist is well aware of the importance of IP to their business for protecting their investment in product development. To many IP Strategists, the continued survival of the firm depends on the successful use of IP. The IP Strategist employs a formal process when working with IP, a process that is well structured and articulated. Commonly, the IP Strategist will have resources dedicated to working with IP, including a dedicated IP person, though that person may not necessarily be formally trained. The IP Strategist is often internationally oriented due to a saturated home market or to selling niche products with a limited customer base in the home market. This pushes the IP Strategist to work with IP internationally and requires substantial knowledge of IP regulation and conduct in export, transit and production countries. The IP Strategist is reluctant to engage in trading or licensing IF, which is a key point in distinguishing the IP Strategist from the IP Dealer and IP Strategic Dealer. This can be due to a lack of knowledge of the potential benefits, but in many cases it is a deliberate strategic decision due to the firm’s competitive situation.

The IP Dealer

The IP Dealer and the IP Rookie are quite similar, both archetypes are defined by a low level of integrated IP management and lack personnel and resources dedicated to W. However, unlike the IP Rookie, the IP Dealer has had a limited experience of dealing with IP, for example in licensing or trading in W. IP Dealers can be firms who generate value from selling or out-licensing technological inventions to third parties, or firms who buy or in-license well-known, popular brands to further the sales of their existing products. Like the IP Rookie, many IP Dealers find that working with IP is a complex and expensive endeavor. The IP dealers express their own approach to IP as a sign of agility and nimbleness, but also recognize that their approach (being non-strategic) is ad hoc and a highly serendipitous approach to achieving success working with W. Some firms become IP Dealers through choice, having identified a business opportunity in licensing IP rights. However, it may also occur by circumstance, where the IP Dealer is approached by a third party wanting to license one or more of their IP rights or when the firm has infringed a third party right unintentionally and is therefore forced to in-license the IP to keep the firm’s products on the market. No matter why they engage in licensing or trading IP, IP Dealers are more inquisitive than IP Rookies, and may have taken the first steps towards a more organized way of handling W.