企业的知识披露策略对产学研合作的影响研究
|
摘要
在产学合作过程中,合作双方目标属性的不同使得知识披露策略的选择上有所差异,追求独占的企业和追求开放的高校如何寻求一个平衡是本文的关注点。本文采用负二项分布模型和泊松分布模型研究企业的四种不同知识披露策略对产学研合作的影响。以专利策略为参照组,研究发现论文策略和专利-论文组合策略更能促进产学研合作的广度和深度的提升,而专利策略比保密策略则更能促进产学研合作深度的提升。同时还发现,在同一类型的知识披露策略下,研发强度越大的企业,产学研合作的广度越大,但产学研合作的深度越小,而处于同一研发强度水平的企业,选择趋于开放的知识披露策略比选择趋于独占的知识披露策略更有助于提升产学研合作的广度和深度。因此,本文对于企业在产学研合作过程中权衡独占和开放的关系有一定的理论和实践指导意义。
In the process of university-industry collaboration, the difference of target attribute makes the choice of knowledge disclosure strategies different. The focus of this paper is how to seek a balance between the pursuit of appropriability of enterprises and the pursuit of openness of universities. This paper studies the influence of four different knowledge disclosure strategies on the university-industry collaboration based on the models of negative binomial regression and Poisson regression. Taking the patent strategy as the reference group, this paper finds that paper strategy and patent-paper strategy can promote the breadth and depth of university-industry collaboration better, while patent strategy is better than secrecy strategy to promote the depth of university-industry collaboration. What's more, it finds under the same types of knowledge disclosure strategies, the greater the strength of R&D intensity, the greater the breadth of university-industry collaboration, but the smaller the depth of university-industry collaboration. In the same levels of R&D intensity, the open knowledge disclosure strategies are better than appropriability knowledge disclosure strategies to promote the breadth and depth of university-industry collaboration. Therefore, this paper has a certain theoretical and practical significance for the balance between appropriability and openness in the process of university-industry collaboration.
In the process of university-industry collaboration, the difference of target attribute makes the choice of knowledge disclosure strategies different. The focus of this paper is how to seek a balance between the pursuit of appropriability of enterprises and the pursuit of openness of universities. This paper studies the influence of four different knowledge disclosure strategies on the university-industry collaboration based on the models of negative binomial regression and Poisson regression. Taking the patent strategy as the reference group, this paper finds that paper strategy and patent-paper strategy can promote the breadth and depth of university-industry collaboration better, while patent strategy is better than secrecy strategy to promote the depth of university-industry collaboration. What's more, it finds under the same types of knowledge disclosure strategies, the greater the strength of R&D intensity, the greater the breadth of university-industry collaboration, but the smaller the depth of university-industry collaboration. In the same levels of R&D intensity, the open knowledge disclosure strategies are better than appropriability knowledge disclosure strategies to promote the breadth and depth of university-industry collaboration. Therefore, this paper has a certain theoretical and practical significance for the balance between appropriability and openness in the process of university-industry collaboration.
引文
[1] Gans J S,Murray F E,Stern S.Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge:Intellectual property and academic publication [J].Research Policy,2017,46(4):820-835.
[2] Rosenberg N.Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) [J].Research Policy,1990,19(2):165-174.
[3] Murray F,Stern S.Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2007,63(4):648-687.
[4] Stern S.Do scientists pay to be scientists?[J].Management Science,2004,50(6):835-853.
[5] Magerman T,Looy B V,Debackere K.Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint?An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology[J].Research Policy,2015,44(9):1702-1713.
[6] Laursen K,Salter A J.The paradox of openness:Appropriability,external search and collaboration[J].Research Policy,2014,43(5):867-878.
[7] Bruneel J,D’Este P,Salter A.Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration[J].Research Policy,2010,39(7):858-868.
[8] Simeth M,Raffo J D.What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?[J].Research Policy,2013,42(9):1531-1543.
[9] Iorio R,Labory S,Rentocchini F.The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities:An analysis of Italian academic scientists[J].Research Policy,2017,46(2):497-509.
[10] Perkmann M,Tartari V,Mckelvey M,et al.Academic engagement and commercialisation:A review of the literature on university-industry relations[J].Research Policy,2013,42(2):423-442.
[11] Laursen K,Salter A.Open for innovation:The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K.manufacturing firms[J].Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2):131-150.
[12] Arora A,Athreye S,Huang C.The paradox of openness revisited:Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators [J].Research Policy,2016,45(7):1352-1361.
[13] Chesbrough H W.Open business models:How to thrive in the new innovation landscape[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,17(4):406-408.
[14] Heller M A,Eisenberg R S.Can patents deter innovation?The anticommons in biomedical research.[J].Science,1998,280(5364):698-701.
[15] Bart Van Looy,Callaert J,Debackere K.Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers:Conflicting,reinforcing or merely co-existing?[J].Research Policy,2006,35(4):596-608.
[16] Thom? J,Bizer K.To protect or not to protect?Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector[J].Research Policy,2013,42(1):35-49.
[17] Leiponen A,Byma J.If you cannot block,you better run:Small firms,cooperative innovation,and appropriation strategies[J].Research Policy,2009,38(9):1478-1488.
[18] Carayol N.Objectives,agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations:Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle[J].Research Policy,2003,32(6):887-908.
[19] Gallié E P,Legros D.The use of intellectual property rights by French firms[J].Research Policy,2012,(4):780-794.
[2] Rosenberg N.Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) [J].Research Policy,1990,19(2):165-174.
[3] Murray F,Stern S.Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2007,63(4):648-687.
[4] Stern S.Do scientists pay to be scientists?[J].Management Science,2004,50(6):835-853.
[5] Magerman T,Looy B V,Debackere K.Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint?An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology[J].Research Policy,2015,44(9):1702-1713.
[6] Laursen K,Salter A J.The paradox of openness:Appropriability,external search and collaboration[J].Research Policy,2014,43(5):867-878.
[7] Bruneel J,D’Este P,Salter A.Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration[J].Research Policy,2010,39(7):858-868.
[8] Simeth M,Raffo J D.What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?[J].Research Policy,2013,42(9):1531-1543.
[9] Iorio R,Labory S,Rentocchini F.The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities:An analysis of Italian academic scientists[J].Research Policy,2017,46(2):497-509.
[10] Perkmann M,Tartari V,Mckelvey M,et al.Academic engagement and commercialisation:A review of the literature on university-industry relations[J].Research Policy,2013,42(2):423-442.
[11] Laursen K,Salter A.Open for innovation:The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K.manufacturing firms[J].Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2):131-150.
[12] Arora A,Athreye S,Huang C.The paradox of openness revisited:Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators [J].Research Policy,2016,45(7):1352-1361.
[13] Chesbrough H W.Open business models:How to thrive in the new innovation landscape[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,17(4):406-408.
[14] Heller M A,Eisenberg R S.Can patents deter innovation?The anticommons in biomedical research.[J].Science,1998,280(5364):698-701.
[15] Bart Van Looy,Callaert J,Debackere K.Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers:Conflicting,reinforcing or merely co-existing?[J].Research Policy,2006,35(4):596-608.
[16] Thom? J,Bizer K.To protect or not to protect?Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector[J].Research Policy,2013,42(1):35-49.
[17] Leiponen A,Byma J.If you cannot block,you better run:Small firms,cooperative innovation,and appropriation strategies[J].Research Policy,2009,38(9):1478-1488.
[18] Carayol N.Objectives,agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations:Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle[J].Research Policy,2003,32(6):887-908.
[19] Gallié E P,Legros D.The use of intellectual property rights by French firms[J].Research Policy,2012,(4):780-794.