|
|
|
© Evanston Photographic
Prof. Scott Stern |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theory:
Scott Stern
Intellectual
property and the market for ideas
By Scott
Stern, associate professor of management and strategy
Intellectual property rights (IPR) such as those provided
through the patent system seem to play a simple economic
role, providing incentives for innovation by giving inventors
the right to limit imitation. However, while the role of
IPR in enhancing the value of intellectual capital is indeed
important, the more subtle strategic role of IPR in
fostering cooperation among potential competitors is at least
as important for competitive advantage. Consider the options facing a technology entrepreneur.
Though brimming with ideas, start-up innovators usually have
limited experience and capabilities in the markets where
their innovations are appropriate. Their challenge is translating
promising technology into economic returns: the problem is
not invention but commercialization. Developing a value chain from scratch allows the innovator
to enter the product market and compete with more established
players. When Sun Microsystems initially entered the workstation
market, established firms such as Digital and Apollo discounted
them, giving Sun the time to translate its vision into a
concrete set of technological, organizational and market-positioning
choices.
Alternatively,
strategic cooperation with more established players— whether
through licensing, an alliance or outright acquisition
— allows the innovation to be embedded into
an already functioning value chain at a lower cost. Much
biotechnology innovation is commercialized in this fashion,
with firms leveraging the capabilities of established pharmaceutical
companies in bringing their ideas to the marketplace.
When
should a technology entrepreneur compete with established
firms in the product market versus pursuing cooperation with
established firms via the "market for ideas"? The strength
and effectiveness of IPR is crucial. When IPR such as patents
are enforceable, start-up innovators are able to contract
with partners capable of bringing the technology to market
most effectively. While the start-up must maintain the threat
of entry, most small firms do not have the resources or capabilities
to realize the full potential of their ideas. However, when
IPR are weak or absent, entrepreneurs must also face the
threat of expropriation: the disclosures required to negotiate
a deal undermine the innovator's bargaining power. Potential
partners can exploit the disclosed technology even in the
absence of an agreement, undermining the entrepreneur's competitive
potential. So,
even if cooperation makes sense for overall value creation,
a weak IP environment can steer a firm towards stealth, secrecy
and inefficient independent entry. In a study of more than
100 start-up innovators conducted with Joshua Gans and David
Hsu, we find that the probability of cooperation between
start-up innovators and established firms is reduced by more
than 50 percent when IPR are not available.1
Explicitly considering how competing in the product market
compares with cooperating through the market for ideas holds
important implications for industry dynamics and strategic
management. To the extent that a weak IP environment increases
the relative returns to competition over cooperation,
the potential for disruptive technologies to overturn established
firms is higher when IPR are weaker. Conversely, in industry
segments such as biotechnology where IPR are strong, even
radical innovation may be commercialized through cooperative
contracting, limiting the impact of innovation on market
structure.
Three
lessons stand out. First, a proactive approach to intellectual
property management yields more than simply
legal or financial benefits. Strong IPR expands the range
of available strategic options, and allows even a small firm
to leverage the capabilities and resources of industry leaders.
Second, the benefits of cooperation must be balanced with
the potential for expropriation. A reputation for nonexpropriation
may be as important as commercialization capabilities per
se. Finally, as Professor Conley rightly
emphasizes,
the management of IPR must be proactive for firms whose competitive
advantage is built on "ideas." Rather than treating IPR as
an independent legal matter, the development and execution
of firm strategy cannot be disentangled from the effective
management of intellectual property.
1 See
Joshua Gans, David Hsu, and Scott Stern, "When Does Start-Up
Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?" RAND
Journal of Economics, 2002, pp. 571-586, and
Joshua Gans and Scott Stern, "The Product Market and
the Market for Ideas," Research Policy, 2003,
pp. 333-350. In addition to his academic role at the Kellogg School,
Scott Stern is a faculty research fellow at the National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Read
what Professor James Conley says about putting this theory
into practice
|