Conference PaperPDF Available

Intellectual property rights commercialization: impact on strategic competition

Authors:
  • The University of Newcastle, Australia. Bangladesh Institute of Management; Bangladesh

Abstract

The research intensive companies have been increasingly emphasizing on the commercialization of their innovations to adopt a central strategy for competitive advantage. During last two decades, many small and medium companies have shifted their focus to technological inventions leading to entrepreneurship and simultaneously they are commercializing their new technologies. Companies investing a huge sum in research for innovation, and when any innovation takes place and is verified attractive to the market, they find competitive edge. But if the competitors start jockeying to grab the innovation, the innovating company may find themselves in a very insecure position. To overcome the threat, the application of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) is one of the best solutions. IPRs protect a company's innovation from copying, manufacturing and selling without the permission of the owner. Thus, IPRs works a safeguard for the innovating people and companies. On the other hand, commercialization of IPRs refers to doing business with intellectual property, i.e. some inventions, which are protected under the IPRs, through some sorts of business operations, e.g. joint ventures. For example, the Mc Donald is permitting others in different countries to sell burger using their trademark (an intellectual property) in exchange of huge royalty. In strategic management, there are the four levels of strategies; functional, business, global and corporate. IPRs commercialization takes place at functional, business and global levels of the companies' strategies. Commercialized IPRs may provide the owner a competitive edge in functional operations (new method of production, that reduces cost and share it with few others), or in business level (sharing own IPRs, like trademark) or even in global strategies (to form strategic alliances with the new technology/innovation).
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
21
Intellectual property rights commercialization:
impact on strategic competition
Raju Mohammad Kamrul Alam
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
Mohammad Nazmi Newaz
Management Counsellor
Bangladesh Institute of Management (BIM), Bangladesh
Key Words
Intellectual property rights, commercialization, innovation, Strategic Competition and strategic
management.
Abstract
The research intensive companies have been increasingly emphasizing on the commercialization of
their innovations to adopt a central strategy for competitive advantage. During last two decades, many
small and medium companies have shifted their focus to technological inventions leading to
entrepreneurship and simultaneously they are commercializing their new technologies.
Companies investing a huge sum in research for innovation, and when any innovation takes place
and is verified attractive to the market, they find competitive edge. But if the competitors start jockeying
to grab the innovation, the innovating company may find themselves in a very insecure position. To
overcome the threat, the application of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) is one of the best solutions.
IPRs protect a company's innovation from copying, manufacturing and selling without the permission of
the owner. Thus, IPRs works a safeguard for the innovating people and companies. On the other hand,
commercialization of IPRs refers to doing business with intellectual property, i.e. some inventions, which
are protected under the IPRs, through some sorts of business operations, e.g. joint ventures. For example,
the Mc Donald is permitting others in different countries to sell burger using their trademark (an
intellectual property) in exchange of huge royalty.
In strategic management, there are the four levels of strategies; functional, business, global and
corporate. IPRs commercialization takes place at functional, business and global levels of the companies'
strategies. Commercialized IPRs may provide the owner a competitive edge in functional operations (new
method of production, that reduces cost and share it with few others), or in business level (sharing own
IPRs, like trademark) or even in global strategies (to form strategic alliances with the new
technology/innovation).
1. Introduction
The research intensive companies have been increasingly emphasizing on the
commercialization of their innovations to adopt a central strategy for competitive advantage
(Kasch and Dowling 2008). During last two decades, many small and medium companies have
shifted their focus to technological inventions leading to entrepreneurship and simultaneously
they are commercializing their new technologies (Gans and Stern 2003).
Companies investing a huge sum in research for innovation, and when any innovation
takes place and is verified attractive to the market, they find competitive edge. But if the
competitors start jockeying to grab the innovation, the innovating company may find
themselves in a very insecure position. To overcome the threat, the application of Intellectual
Property Rights (IPRs) is one of the best solutions. IPRs protect a company's innovation from
copying, manufacturing and selling without the permission of the owner (Fitzgerald and
Fitzgerald 2004). Thus, IPRs works a safeguard for the innovating people and companies. On
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
22
the other hand, commercialization of IPRs refers to doing business with intellectual property, i.e.
some inventions, which are protected under the IPRs, through some sorts of business
operations, e.g. joint ventures. For example, the Mc Donald is permitting others in different
countries to sell burger using their trademark (an intellectual property) in exchange of huge
royalty.
In strategic management, there are the four levels of strategies; functional, business,
global and corporate (Hill, Jones and Schilling 2015). IPRs commercialization takes place at
functional, business and global levels of the companies' strategies. Commercialized IPRs may
provide the owner a competitive edge in functional operations (new method of production, that
reduces cost and share it with few others), or in business level (sharing own IPRs, like
trademark) or even in global strategies (to form strategic alliances with the new
technology/innovation).
True IPRs commercialization opens a new door of trading all over the world. At this
point, the competition emerges and urge for a shift in the strategic competition. After clarifying
related issues, the research will focus on how IPRs Commercialization affects Strategic
Competition through different studies and company cases.
2. A Brief Survey of Literature
Intellectual Property (IP) refers to any legal rights, resulting from intellect works in the
area of industrial, scientific, literary and artistic (WIPO 2004). It enables to do business with
creativity, with security. Countries have laws to safeguard the innovation to ensure moral and
economic rights to the creators and for encouraging the fair trade for the social and economic
development (WIPO 2004). The IPRs encompasses following areas of inventions (WIPO 2004); 1)
Literary, artistic and scientific works, 2) Performances of performing artists, phonograms and
broadcasts, 3) Inventions in all fields of human endeavor, 4) Scientific discoveries, 5) Industrial
designs, 6) Trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations, and 7)
Protection against unfair competition and all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in
the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields.
The IPRs laws, presently, became some sort of competitive tools. Strategic or competitive
advantage is the position over the rivals in generating revenue in a higher degree (Hill, Jones
and Schilling 2015). Such advantage can be achieved through superior efficiency, quality,
innovation, and customer responsiveness (Hill, Jones and Schilling 2015). Accordingly,
innovation is the way to achieve such advantage and it allows them to stay one step ahead of
their rivals. According to the competitive forces model (Hill, Jones and Schilling 2015),
developed by Michael E. Porter, a major force, 'the intensity of rivalry among established
companies within an industry' can easily be settled down with the innovations, protected by
IPRs.
The IPRs may become more powerful weapon, when it is being commercialized.
Commercialization of IPRs is a technique for bringing the IP to the market so that IP can be
exploited more efficiently in terms of maximizing business profit as well as growth (European
IPR Helpdesk 2013). Whether IPRs commercialization is financially successful or unsuccessful, it
actually depends on the effective choice of commercialization tools, which are based on the
organization's business objectives, the form of IP and the economic resources at its disposal
(European IPR Helpdesk 2013). For the successful IPRs commercialization, some says that IPRs
should be commercialized at the stage of research (McGinness 2003).
When commercializing the IPRs, it is crucial to focus the mode. IPRs commercialization
modes ultimately depend on transfer of IP to another/other company/companies or permitting
another to utilize (manufacture, copy or sell); in simplest term, granting a license (ACIPA 2006).
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
23
In most cases, it is found that license goes to a third party. It occurs when someone invents
something and allows/sells that IP to another entity for further development or exploitation.
Then right goes to the second party. It can use that IP for its own and/or can grant another
(here, third party) through licensing in terms of maximizing profit and/or expanding the
venture all over the world.
Thus, IPRs commercialization highly affects competition. Though IPRs and competition
policy are two separate systems of law and each has its own goals and methods of achieving, but
often there is a considerable overlap in their goals (Anderman 2007). Since both the systems aim
in facilitating inventions and economic development, it is natural in overlapping their goals.
One of the major specialties of natural competition policy is 'protecting the entrants' against
preventative use of incumbent market power (Gans and Lars Persson 2013). Such policy to favor
the entrants over the incumbents may be very crucial in this sense that the entrants may be the
future incumbents (Gans and Persson 2013). This competition policy, directly clashes with the
strategic competition, because in strategic competitive forces model, where the new entrants (a
competitive forces) (Hill, Jones and Schilling 2015) are considered as threats and so to be tackled
and set out of the market by the existing rivals. Strategic competition is revolutionary, where the
natural competition is evolutionary (Henderson 1980). Competitive shifts take place within a
very short period, while in natural competition it is time consuming, even for generations.
Individual productivity, innovation or IPRs commercialization, may bring revolution in the
business and industries, which is relatively a new phenomenon in business (Henderson 1980).
With the advancement of IPRs commercialization, there should be a great impact on strategic
competition.
3. Data and Methodology
The research has been carried out from the secondary data. Different scholarly articles
are the main source of data. Qualitative method for data analysis has been used. Different
research publications and company/case studies have been extensively examined and explained
to draw the conclusion.
4. Analysis and Findings
IPRs COMMERCIALIZATION AND SHIFTS IN STRATEGIC COMPETITION
Many companies is recent period are changing their primary locus towards IPRs and the
statistics on the late 1990s points that the total market capitalization was represented by
intangible assets (i.e. patents, copyrights and trademarks) in case of almost 75, out of 100
Fortune Companies (Reitzig 2004). So, IP is a big issue to get strategic attention for competitive
environment. Therefore, IP management can no longer be left to technology or legal
departments alone (Reitzig 2004); there should be an integrative strategic approach for
exploiting it. Companies are investing lots in inventing new products or services that would
allow them monopoly under the umbrella of IPRs. Thus, the IPRs laws are adding new
dimension in the era of strategic competition. This competition became more interesting and
intensive when companies started commercialization of IP within themselves or with others.
The Coca Cola is one of the major companies adopting IPRs as a strategic advantage. The
Coca-Cola Company owns the copyright of the design of bottles, it has a registered trademark
that distinguishes it from others, it owns a patent on a method of making “barrier coated plastic
containers”, and the company enjoying the trade secret for making the product (Lawyer of
Zvulony and Company 2010). This is the way, how the Coca-Cola is enjoying competitive
advantage through IPRs commercialization by its own as well as by commercializing with
others through licensing, franchising etc.
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
24
Since innovation is not so easily observed; rather it is very much limited. So, the
companies even try to procure the IP from others. It occurs frequently, because sometimes there
are some innovations which are very costly to exploit. In that case the IP is sold or permitted to
copy to other organizations. IPRs commercialization usually takes place through knowledge
transfers (European IPR Helpdesk 2013). These transfers may take place through licensing,
franchising, joint venture and spin-off, and material transfer agreements. It is assumed here that
knowledge transfer includes, even covers more than, technology transfer (European IPR
Helpdesk 2013). To be effective in IPRs commercialization, there should be effective technology
transfer. For successful technology transfer, the receiving unit has to routinely reproduce the
transferred products, services, process or method in accordance with a specification set by the
sender (Jain and Sumita Nainan 2012). One thing should be kept in mind that the
commercialization must be considered and finalized before starting technology transfer, or at
least during the R&D process of an idea or innovation (McGinness 2003).
The IPRs commercialization process is continuous and ongoing, and even it takes place
before investing time and money in an idea, without being sure about the sustainability of it
(Jain and Sumita Nainan 2012). Studies find that less than 5% of all patented innovations are
proven successful in business implications (Jain and Sumita Nainan 2012).
Therefore, it becomes very clear that only big companies can go for commercialization of IPRs,
because they have strong financial backup and enriched R&D. Thus, through the IPRs
Commercialization, the big companies are becoming threats for the small and medium
enterprises in the strategic competitive arena.
Focusing on the 3M (known as innovating company), it is found that it deliberately
fought to foster innovation within the company by adopting strategies for commercializing
technology in the changing environment (Conceição et al 2002). Since innovation is not sufficient
to attain competitive edge, it demands for proper commercialization. With this ideology, 3M has
been continuing through 45 individual units (Conceição et al 2002) and during the R&D of each
unit, if any innovation is traced, 3M starts commercialization of IPRs. While pointing at the
Electronic Market Center (EMC), established in 1997 (Conceição et al 2002), to assist 3M position
in the electronic market by driving a one company (Conceição et al 2002), acceleration in
technological commercialization (Conceição et al 2002) is found. The EMC approach of 3M
amplifies its innovation leadership by changing organizational structure and strategy
(Conceição et al 2002). Such organizational strategy is more fruitful when there is effective
commercialization of IPRs and enhanced networks and connections among existing units
(Conceição et al 2002).
During the early 1980s, the SUN Microsystem (Gans and Stern 2003) directly entered into
the workstation market through IPRs commercialization strategy. It was mostly discounted by
the established companies of that period, such as Digital, IBM and Apollo Systems, allowing
SUN the scope to implement its technological vision 'the network is the computer' (Gans and
Stern 2003). Through such intellectual property rights commercialization, SUN emerged as a
leading computer hardware company through creating a unique value chain for the customers
(Gans and Stern 2003).
Coca Cola, 3M and SUN are private, multinational companies. Now, the attention is
being shifted to the governments. The Canadian government launched the Contracting-Out
Policy in 1972 to increase the commercialization of government-funded research results
(Supapol and Swierczek 1994). As a consequence of it, huge government-funded researches had
been contracted out to private sector companies and many researches were commercialized
(Supapol and Swierczek 1994).
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
25
According to the description of the Thomas Schelling's masterpiece book `The Strategy of
Conflict’, strategic move by someone is to influence other’s decision to get favor from the other’s
decision and very essence of the game of strategy is the interdependency among the rivals or
competitors (Schelling 1980). This 1960’s idea of Schelling is getting stronger appeal in this era
of corporate competition, especially in the context of strategic competition. For strategic
completion, any corporate to get a better result of its business activities has to respond quickly to
its rival firm’s activity and form strategic relations within or across the industry.
Commercialization of IPRs, or even defensive patenting i.e., restricting other from further
innovation, is now a frequently used weapon in the corporate war in the multinational market.
At the level of top global corporate who are mainly commercializing the new innovation, the
nature of competition is predominantly strategic competition and commercialization is
increasingly becoming the center of such competition where the borders of the industries are
even changing their length and breath.
The changing face of computer industry, cell phone industry and information technology
industry can be taken as an example. The steam of innovation and the strategic competition
among the firms makes the boundary among the industries obscured and to get advantage in
the strategic competition, Microsoft acquired handset business of the Nokia. Microsoft did not
only take control over the Nokia’s handset business by $5b but it also paid another $2b to get
the associate patent licensing for 10 year (Ovide 2013). So, more than a quarter of the total deal
went after licensing of the IPR, not for the transfer of the ownership of IPRs. The increasing
number of IPR litigation among the top corporate in the Information technology industry as well
as other industry also gives a clear indication of the impact of the IPR commercialization on the
strategic competition which extended the features of the competition from market war to legal
battle.
5. Discussion and Summary
Applications of IPRs have introduced a new dimension and opened an opportunity in
the business arena, especially in strategic competition. It seems that IP works as the trigger in the
competitiveness. From the literature and analysis, a close relationship between IPRs
commercialization and strategic competition, has been found. IPRs laws secure the companies
with their innovations in different terms, e.g. patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret etc.,
though for a limited period of time, but the companies enjoy monopoly to some extent. They
may get the pleasure of setting the rivals out of the market. Day by day, they develop or
differentiate their products or services and register under the IPRs. For example, Coke Zero or
Diet Coke, a differentiated product of original Coca Cola, enjoying extra favor in low-sugar
drink industry along with the image and goodwill of Coca Cola.
In strategic competitive environment, IPRs commercialization has a great influence.
When the companies commercialize their IP, they become capable of doing business by
exploring the innovation either by them or through others in forms of licensing or franchising
etc. It enables them in growth of the venture and of course in profits. Commercialization of IPRs
also makes the companies available over the whole world through strategic alliances or joint
ventures. Thus, the companies create monopolistic market and competition over the world
instead of monopoly in a comparatively smaller market. For example, once upon a time IBM
was the market leader in computer industry with their innovation and brand image. Then IBM
started to build strategic partnership with different small and medium organizations all over the
world to spread their business and created a monopolistic market through commercializing
their IPs. Therefore, it can be said that the major impact of IPRs commercialization on strategic
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
26
competition is the changing nature of competition; i.e. creating oligopoly instead of monopoly,
covering more and more area with the similar products or services.
Simultaneously, it is seen that commercialization of IPRs is highly cost intensive.
According to the stated discussion, the innovation, whether successful or unsuccessful, should
be commercialized during the R&D stage to get the maximum benefit from it. Therefore, no
doubt that it is risky also, because sometimes the innovation becomes useless. Considering the
cost and risk involved in IPRs commercialization, only companies with strong financial
capability and enriched high-tech R&D can enjoy the benefits commercialization. Even some
innovations occur in small enterprises, or even at personal levels, lack of sufficient finance and
R&D, those may not be commercialized. It these cases, big companies procure innovations and
make lots of money from it through proper commercialization. Thus, IPRs commercialization is
becoming a weapon of the giants, also a threat to the small and medium enterprises. On the
other hand, it must be admitted that because of commercialization of IP, innovations are coming
at our doors with various comfort that making our life easier and convenient. It is concluding by
stating that such commercialization and competition must be encouraged for social and
economic developments, and some provisions are required to create room for small and
medium entrepreneurs to exploit own innovations, instead of just selling.
References
ACIPA, Intellectual Property and the Commercialisation of Research and Development: A Guide for
Horticulture Industries, (ACIPA 2006) <http://acipa.edu.au/pdfs/intellectual-property-
for-commercialisation-of-research-and-development.pdf>
Anderman Steven D. (Ed), the interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy,
(Cambridge University Press, 2007)
Conceição Pedro, Hamill Dennis and Pinheiro Pedro, 'Innovative science and technology
commercialization strategies at 3M: a case study' (2002) 19(1) Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management 25-38
European IPR Helpdesk, Fact Sheet - Commercialising Intellectual Property: Joint Ventures,
(European Commission, 2013)
<https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Commercialising_I
ntellectual_Property_Joint_Ventures_0.pdf>
Fitzgerald A and Fitzgerald B, Intellectual Property: In Principle, (Thomson Law Book Co,
Sydney, 2004)
Gans Joshua S. and Persson Lars, 'Entrepreneurial commercialization choices and the interaction
between IPR and competition policy' (2013) Industrial and Corporate Change 22(1) 131–151
Gans Joshua S. and Stern Scott, 'the product market and the market for "ideas":
commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs' (2003) 32 (2) Research Policy
333-350
Henderson Bruce D., 'Strategic and Natural Competition', (1980) BCG perspective (Boston
Consulting Group, Inc.)
<https://www.bcgperspectives.com/Images/BCG_Strategic_and_Natural_Competition
_tcm80-13223.pdf>
Hill Charles W. L., Jones Gareth R. and Schilling Melissa A., Strategic Management: Theory,
(Cengage Learning, Canada, 11th Ed, 2015)
Jain Sameer and Nainan Sumita, 'Technology Transfer, Marketing and Commercialization'
(2012) 1(2) International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology 7-10
Kasch Silja and Dowling Michael, 'Commercialization strategies of young biotechnology firms:
An empirical analysis of the U.S. industry' (2008) 37 Research Policy 1765–1777
The Business and Management Review, Volume 8 Number 3 November 2016
7th International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 7-8 November 2016, London, UK
27
Lawyer of Zvulony and Company, 'Understanding Intellectual Property Law through Coca
Cola' (2010) Intellectual Property Law <http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/intellectual-
property-law/understanding-intellectual-property-law/>
McGinness Paul, Intellectual Property Commercialization: a business manager's companion,
(LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2003)
Ovide Shira, ‘Microsoft in $7.17 Billion Deal for Nokia Cellphone Business’, Wall Street Journal. 3
September 2013;
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/ SB10001424127887324432404579051931273019224>
Reitzig Markus, 'Strategic Management of Intellectual Property', (2004, spring) MIT Sloan
Management Review 35-40
Schelling Thomas C., the Strategy of Conflict, (Harvard University Press, England, 1980)
Supapol Atipol Bhanich and Swierczek Fredric William, 'the role of intellectual property rights
in stimulating commercialization in ASEAN: lessons fron CANADA' (1994) 14(3)
Technovation 181-195
WIPO, Intellectual Property Handbook, (WIPO Publication, Switzerland, 2nd Ed, 2004)
Conference Paper
Industry4.0 focuses on growing trend of innovation and interconnectedness. These factors entail to a dire need to protect innovative products and procedures from being easily imitated, weakening an enterprise’s competitive advantage. Hence Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) can serve to protect the uniqueness of an invention, which can then be commercialized to foster to the knowledge and technology transfers for a common cause. The purpose of this paper is to provide inventors, researchers and enterprises a guideline on the importance of IPR and also discussed about commercialization procedures involved for the same. Using the U.S. Chamber International IP Index ranking, some countries have been highlighted in light of their legislations and ease to commercialize IP assets including the extent of local barriers and contingency on sharing IP with local entities or imposition of restrictions on licensing activities. Keywords: {Intellectual property;Technological innovation;Commercialization;Patents;Licenses;Companies;Intellectual Property Rights;Commercialization;Globalization;Innovation;Technology Transfer}, URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8776856&isnumber=8776675
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines the interaction between intellectual property protection and competition policy on the choice of entrepreneurs with respect to commercialization as well as the rate of innovation. We find that stronger intellectual property protection makes it more likely that entrepreneurs will commercialize by cooperating with incumbents rather than competing with them. Consequently, we demonstrate that competition policy has a clearer role in promoting a higher rate of innovation in that event. Hence, we identify one reason why the strength of the two policies may be complements from the perspective of increasing the rate of entrepreneurial innovation.
Article
ASEAN (South East Asian) countries are seeking a model to enhance technology development through commercialization. The Canadian contracting-out initiative has successfully shifted research performance out of government to the private sector, and has increased commercialization. Canadian experience suggests that contract research is more likely to realize commercial application when: (1) intellectual property rights are vested with the contractor; (2) the contracting firm is large; and (3) the contracting firm has in the past received many patents for innovations produced in-house. The likelihood is smaller when: (1) the project employs resources which would otherwise have been idle; (2) the contractor is foreign owned; and (3) the first is relatively older. Firms with a relatively larger proportion of government-funded research are also less likely to apply the results commercially.
Article
Large, successful firms, even with a history of innovation, may create organizational mechanisms that hamper innovation and customer response. This paper will describe how 3M purposefully fights this tendency by attempting to foster innovation within the company through the development of efficient strategies to commercialize technology in rapidly changing environments. The paper will describe 3M’s general policies and its entrepreneurial culture, which are largely well publicized in the popular literature. But the focus will be on on-going strategies to accelerate the commercialization of technology in its electronic business. Specifically, the case of the Electronic Markets Center (EMC), a 3M Electronic and Communications Group unit created in 1997 to leverage the broad range of 3M’s electronic products and technologies will be described and analyzed. Fifteen business units were organized around one single entity to more effectively ensure an overall coordinated strategy for 3M in the electronics market that could change the growth rate of 3M’s sales to the electronic industry from 9% per year to 24% per year. The paper will focus on two critical components of the EMC: (1) what were the strategies behind the design of EMC; (2) how did EMC developed processes to manage the interdependence of the technical and business understanding of industry segments and the relations with key accounts. The paper concludes with lessons learned from the 3M experience thus far, and with recommendations on how to fight some of the barriers to innovation and technology commercialization in large firms.
Article
We studied the commercialization strategies of young biotechnology companies in the United States building on previous studies by assuming that commercialization also includes intermediate forms like hierarchical or bilateral cooperation. Our hypotheses are derived from the Resource-Based View, Transaction Cost Economics, and Property Rights Theory. The results show that the propensity to integrate is related to the appropriability regime, direct capabilities, financial resources, and synergies between the products. Our results show that the Resource-Based View and Property Rights Theory contribute a great deal to explaining commercialization strategies, whereas Transaction Cost Economics explains less.
Article
This paper presents a synthetic framework identifying the central drivers of start-up commercialization strategy and the implications of these drivers for industrial dynamics. We link strategy to the commercialization environment - the microeconomic and strategic conditions facing a firm that is translating an "idea" into a value proposition for customers. The framework addresses why technology entrepreneurs in some environments undermine established firms, while others cooperate with incumbents and reinforce existing market power. Our analysis suggests that competitive interaction between start-up innovators and established firms depends on the presence or absence of a "market for ideas." By focusing on the operating requirements, efficiency, and institutions associated with markets for ideas, this framework holds several implications for the management of high-technology entrepreneurial firms.
Intellectual Property and the Commercialisation of Research and Development: A Guide for Horticulture Industries
ACIPA, Intellectual Property and the Commercialisation of Research and Development: A Guide for Horticulture Industries, (ACIPA 2006) <http://acipa.edu.au/pdfs/intellectual-propertyfor-commercialisation-of-research-and-development.pdf>
  • European
  • Helpdesk
European IPR Helpdesk, Fact Sheet-Commercialising Intellectual Property: Joint Ventures, (European Commission, 2013) <https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Commercialising_I ntellectual_Property_Joint_Ventures_0.pdf>
Strategic and Natural Competition', (1980) BCG perspective
  • Henderson Bruce
Henderson Bruce D., 'Strategic and Natural Competition', (1980) BCG perspective (Boston Consulting Group, Inc.) <https://www.bcgperspectives.com/Images/BCG_Strategic_and_Natural_Competition _tcm80-13223.pdf>
  • Hill Charles
  • W L Jones Gareth
  • R Schilling Melissa
Hill Charles W. L., Jones Gareth R. and Schilling Melissa A., Strategic Management: Theory, (Cengage Learning, Canada, 11th Ed, 2015)
Technology Transfer, Marketing and Commercialization
  • Jain Sameer
  • Nainan Sumita
Jain Sameer and Nainan Sumita, 'Technology Transfer, Marketing and Commercialization' (2012) 1(2) International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology 7-10