Menu Expand

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style

Thomä, J. Kleinunternehmen und der Schutz von Innovationen – benachteiligt oder einfach anders?. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 57(3–4), 219-238. https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.57.3-4.219
Thomä, Jörg "Kleinunternehmen und der Schutz von Innovationen – benachteiligt oder einfach anders?" ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 57.3–4, 2009, 219-238. https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.57.3-4.219
Thomä, Jörg (2009): Kleinunternehmen und der Schutz von Innovationen – benachteiligt oder einfach anders?, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, vol. 57, iss. 3–4, 219-238, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.57.3-4.219

Format

Kleinunternehmen und der Schutz von Innovationen – benachteiligt oder einfach anders?

Thomä, Jörg

ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Vol. 57 (2009), Iss. 3–4 : pp. 219–238

2 Citations (CrossRef)

Additional Information

Article Details

Pricing

Author Details

Jörg Thomä, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh Göttingen), Käte-Hamburger-Weg 1, DE-37073 Göttingen.

Cited By

  1. Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries

    Block, Jörn H. | Fisch, Christian O. | Hahn, Alexander | Sandner, Philipp G.

    Research Policy, Vol. 44 (2015), Iss. 10 P.1915

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.007 [Citations: 109]
  2. Why Do Small, Innovative Firms File Trademarks?

    Hahn, Alexander | Hock, Stephan | Block, Jorn H. | Sandner, Philipp G.

    SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. (2013), Iss.

    https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2317515 [Citations: 0]

References

  1. Abel, R. (2006): Innovationen in Kleinunternehmen: Wahrnehmung, Wirklichkeit und Wege. In: Abel, R./Bass, H. H./Ernst-Siebert, R. (Hrsg.): Kleine und mittelgroße Unternehmen im globalen Innovationswettbewerb. München/Mering: Rainer Hampp, 63 – 87.  Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1962): Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. In: Nelson, R. R. (Hrsg.): The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 609 – 625.  Google Scholar
  3. Arundel, A. (2001): The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. In: Research Policy, 30 (4), 611 – 624.  Google Scholar
  4. Aschhoff, B./Blind, K./Ebersberger, B./Fraaß, B./Rammer, C./Schmidt, T. (2007): Schwerpunktbericht zur Innovationserhebung 2005. Bericht an das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). ZEW-Dokumentation Nr. 07 – 03.  Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, J./Gellatly, G. (2003): Innovation Strategies and Performance in Small Firms. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn, R. A. (2003): Small firms, innovation and intellectual property management: the context and a research agenda. In: Blackburn, R. A. (Hrsg.): Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms. London/New York: Routledge, 4 – 15.  Google Scholar
  7. Blind, K./Cuntz, A./Köhler, F./Radauer, A. (2009): Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung geistigen Eigentums und dessen Schutzes mit Fokus auf den Mittelstand. Eine Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie. Berlin.  Google Scholar
  8. Bosworth, D./Webster, E. (2006): An economic perspective. In: Bosworth, D./Webster, E. (Hrsg.): The Management of Intellectual Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 85 – 107.  Google Scholar
  9. Burr, W./Stephan, M./Soppe, B./Weisheit, S. (2007): Patentmanagement – Strategischer Einsatz und ökonomische Bewertung von technologischen Schutzrechten. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.  Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988): Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.  Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, W. M./Nelson, R. R./Walsh, J. P. (2000): Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not). In: NBERWorking Papers Series, 7552.  Google Scholar
  12. David, P. A. (2004): Can „Open Science“ be Protected from the Evolving Regime of IPR Protections? In: Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160, 1 – 26.  Google Scholar
  13. Dosi, G./Malerba, F./Ramello, G. B./Silva, F. (2006a): Information, appropriability, and the generation of innovative knowledge four decades after Arrow and Nelson: an introduction. In: Industrial and Corporate Change, 15 (6), 891 – 901.  Google Scholar
  14. Dosi, G./Marengo, L./Pasquali, C. (2006b): How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation. In: Research Policy, 35 (8), 1110 – 1121.  Google Scholar
  15. Europäische Kommission, (2004): Innovation in Europe: Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communitites.  Google Scholar
  16. González-Álvarez, N./Nieto-Antolín, M. (2007): Appropriability of innovation results: An empirical study in Spanish manufacturing firms. In: Technovation, 27 (5), 280 – 295.  Google Scholar
  17. Greenhalgh, C./Rogers, M. (2007): The Value of Intellectual Property Rights to Firms and Society. In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23 (4), 541 – 567.  Google Scholar
  18. Hall, M./Oppenheim, C./Sheen, M. (2003): Barriers to the use of patent information in SMEs. In: Blackburn, R. A. (Hrsg.): Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms. London/New York: Routledge, 144 – 160.  Google Scholar
  19. Hanel, P. (2008): The use of intellectual property rights and innovation by manufacturing firms in Canada. In: Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17 (3), 285 – 309.  Google Scholar
  20. Harabi, N. (1995): Appropriability of Technical Innovations. An Empirical Analysis. In: Research Policy, 24 (6), 981 – 992.  Google Scholar
  21. Hurmelinna, P./Kyläheiko, K./Jauhiainen, T. (2007): The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. In: Technovation, 27 (3), 133 – 144.  Google Scholar
  22. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009): The availability, strength and efficiency of appropriability mechanisms – protecting investments in knowledge creation. In: International Journal of Technology Management, 45 (3), 282 – 290.  Google Scholar
  23. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P./Puumalainen, K. (2007): Nature and dynamics of appropriability: strategies for appropriating returns on innovation. In: R&D Management, 37 (2), 95 – 112.  Google Scholar
  24. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P./Sainio, L.-M./Jauhiainen, T. (2008): Appropriability regime for radical and incremental innovations. In: R&D Management, 38 (3), 278 – 289.  Google Scholar
  25. Iversen, E. (2003): Norwegian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Intellectual Property Rights System: Exploration and Analysis. Eine Studie im Auftrag der World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Oslo.  Google Scholar
  26. Jaumotte, F./Pain, N. (2005): From Innovation Development to Implementation: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey. In: OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 458.  Google Scholar
  27. Kitching, J./Blackburn, R. A. (2003): Innovation, intellectual property and informality: evidence from a study of small enterprises and some implications for policy. In: Blackburn, R. A. (Hrsg.): Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms. London/New York: Routledge, 16 – 34.  Google Scholar
  28. Klose, J./Zimmermann, V. (2008): Wie schützen kleine und mittlere Unternehmen ihre Innovationen? Die Bedeutung rechtlicher und strategischer Schutzinstrumente im Vergleich. In: KfW-Research, WirtschaftsObserver online, 39.  Google Scholar
  29. Lahner, J. (2004): Innovationsprozesse im Handwerk. Duderstadt: Mecke Druck.  Google Scholar
  30. Lahner, J. (2008): Innovative Kleinunternehmen – systematisch unterschätzt oder nur übersehen? In: RegioPol – Zeitschrift für Regionalwirtschaft, 2, 53–61.  Google Scholar
  31. Lanjouw, J. O./Schankerman, M. (2004): Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped? In: The Journal of Law & Economics, 47 (1), 45 – 74.  Google Scholar
  32. Larsson, A. (2004): Innovationsergebnisse und -hemmnisse. In: Statistik kurz gefasst 1/2004. Eine Schriftenreihe der Europäischen Kommission. Luxemburg.  Google Scholar
  33. Laursen, K./Salter, A. (2005):My Precious. The Role of Appropriability Strategies in Shaping Innovative Performance. In: DRUIDWorking Paper No. 05 – 02.  Google Scholar
  34. Leiponen, A./Byma, J. (2009): If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. In: Research Policy, 38 (9), 1478 – 1488.  Google Scholar
  35. Levin, R. C./Klevorick, A. K./Nelson, R. R./Winter, S. G. (1987): Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development. In: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783 – 831.  Google Scholar
  36. Macdonald, S. (2003): Bearing the Burden: Small Firms and the Patent System. In: Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), 2003 (1), http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2003_1/macdonald  Google Scholar
  37. Malerba, F. (2002): Sectoral systems of innovation and production. In: Research Policy, 31 (2), 247 – 264.  Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, J.-A. (2001): Innovationsmanagement in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen, Jahrbuch der KMU-Forschung (hrsg. von Jörn-Axel Meyer). München: Vahlen.  Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, R. R. (1959): The simple economics of basic scientific research. In: The Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), 297 – 306.  Google Scholar
  40. Nelson, R. R. (2006): Reflections of David Teece’s „Profiting from technological innovation . . .“. In: Research Policy, 35 (8), 1107 – 1109.  Google Scholar
  41. Nooteboom, B. (1994): Innovation and Diffusion in Small Firms: Theory and Evidence. In: Small Business Economics, 6 (5), 327 – 347.  Google Scholar
  42. Radauer, A./Streicher, J./Ohler, F. (2007): Benchmarking National and Regional Support Services for SMEs in the Field of Intellectual and Industrial Property. Eine Studie im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission. Wien.  Google Scholar
  43. Rothwell, R. (1983): Innovation and firm size: a case for dynamic complementarity; or, is small really so beautiful? In: Journal of General Management, 8(3), 5 – 25.  Google Scholar
  44. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942): Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, Originaltitel: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 8. unveränderte Auflage (2005). Tübingen: Francke.  Google Scholar
  45. Scotchmer, S. (2004): Innovation and Incentives. Cambridge: MIT Press.  Google Scholar
  46. Teece, D. J. (1986): Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In: Research Policy, 1986 (15), 285 – 305.  Google Scholar
  47. Teece, D. J. (2002): Managing Intellectual Capital. Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  48. WIPO (2003): Intellectual Property (IP) Rights and Innovation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Genf.  Google Scholar

Abstract

On average SMEs utilize intellectual property rights (IPRs) to a much lesser extent than large enterprises do. As a common explanation it is argued, that this is due to disadvantages associated with their smaller company size. Against this background several policy actions to support SMEs in using the IPR-System are in charge. Nevertheless, this paper asks if the effects of firm size are really the only driving force on IPR-usage in SMEs. Especially the appropriability of innovations in small enterprises seems to be based on special features, which also have an influence on the magnitude of IPR-usage. It is shown that these findings may have important implications for future research on this topic, which is of relevance for policies to support the appropriability conditions in SMEs.