سود ناشی از نوآوری و انقلاب مالکیت معنوی

This paper reviews the contribution of Teece's article [Teece, D., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15, 285–305.]. It then re-examines the core concept of appropriability in the light of recent developments in the business environment. Whereas twenty years ago the appropriability regime of an industry was exogenous and given, today they are often the product of conscious strategies of firms. And as open source software and other industries show, advantageous appropriability regimes are not always “tight” or characterized by strong intellectual property protections. The strategies adopted by firms that have successfully profited from their innovative activities cast into new light old questions about the impact of intellectual property protection on the rate and direction of innovation.

Twenty years ago, David Teece published his highly influential article entitled “Profiting from Innovation.” Since that time, this paper has drawn extensive attention in the literature. It is one of the most cited papers in the field of innovation, and it has been the most cited paper in “Research Policy” over this time period. The attention and praise aimed at this article is well deserved. “Profiting from Innovation” (PFI) has had a profound influence on the field of innovation and strategy. In short, this paper initiated a process of convergence between two fields that had essentially (and surprisingly) lived apart: innovation and strategic management. Many of the ideas presented in PFI continue to shape the way scholars, and increasingly practitioners, think about the role of intellectual property in strategy. In this essay, I have two objectives. First, I want to summarize what I see as the main contributions of PFI to the fields of strategy and innovation and how these ideas have shaped the intellectual dialogue on the topic. Second, I want to re-examine some of the core concepts presented in PFI – particularly the concept of “appropriability regimes” – in light of recent changes in the nature of intellectual property. In PFI, the appropriability regime was exogenous. The challenge of strategy was to develop appropriate vertical integration and complementary asset positions given the extant appropriability regime. Increasingly, appropriability regimes are not givens but are the product of conscious strategies of firms. And, surprisingly, an advantageous appropriability regime is not always “tight” or characterized by strong intellectual property protections. Phenomena such as open source software and forms of deliberate intellectual property sharing are increasingly being utilized by for-profit enterprises as a rent seeking strategy. Such strategies cast into new light old questions about the impact of intellectual property protection on the rate and direction of innovation.

To conclude briefly, twenty years after its publication, PFI has continued to have a profound impact on the innovation field, and its relevance today in a world of global competition, open source, and other forces is greater than ever. Understanding the source and evolution of appropriability regimes has been a topic of interest in legal scholarly communities, but to date has not been the subject of deep research in strategic management. Many interesting questions remain to be explored. For instance, how much can firms proactively shape an appropriability regime in their favor (either by weakening or strengthening it)? What are the mechanisms firms can use to shape an appropriability regime? What are the alternative institutional arrangements? As intellectual property continues to play a central role in the health and growth of firms, these questions will continue to be of as much importance over the next twenty years as they have been over the past twenty.