Thursday, February 14, 2008

Study: "Tough" IP Enforcement Not Only Keeps Competitors in Check, But Also Your Employees

"Don't let your employees do to you what you did to your former boss"

- Golden Rule attributed to Roger Borovoy, former GC at Intel

With all the talk about "spreading innovation", one topic that doesn't get much coverage is one of the most common ways in which knowledge gets diffused throughout industries - employee defections.

Back in 1987, a survey (Levin et al.) confirmed that hiring employees from rivals enabled companies to learn about external technologies more efficiently and, in turn, hastened the rate of imitation. In 1994, a survey (Bhide) of the "100 fastest-growing private companies" found that 71% of the entrepreneurial founders commercialized ideas they had encountered or discovered while working at other companies. More recently (Kerstetter, 2000), a study documents celebrated employee raids designed to gain access to competitors' technologies, claiming that technology companies often live by the adage: "If you have trouble with the competition, simply raid its talent."

Working from this backdrop, Rajshree Agarwal, Martin Ganco and Rosemarie Ziedonis looked at ways in which employers traditionally defended against "knowledge apillovers" to competitors. Finding that trade secrets and non-compete agreements provided limited protection, they turned to patents to see what effects they had on stemming the flow of information when employees leave.

What they found was that companies having reputations as being "tough" in IP enforcement have less knowledge spillover due to inventor mobility. The reputations were not gained by actively pursuing IP litigation against all, or even many, of its employees. Rather, a general reputation of agressively pursuing or defending IP litigation will be enough. Notes the report: "From the source firm's perspective . . . even if the costs outweigh the benefits of being litigious in a particular dispute, the deterrence of future knowledge spillovers can justify the inventment."

From the Abstract:

"Job hopping" by scientists and engineers is an important channel for knowledge diffusion. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of actions firms take to reduce the outward flow of know-how and talent from their own organizations. Building on theories of reputation-building and strategic deterrence, this study investigates the moderating effects of corporate reputations for "toughness" in the enforcement of patents. Drawing on a unique database of enforcement activity, inter-firm inventor mobility events, and patent citations in the U.S. semiconductor industry, we find that a firm's litigiousness significantly curtails the dissemination of knowledge anticipated from employee departures, particularly to firms that are relatively disadvantaged to fund or withstand a legal dispute (i.e., that are small, young, or private). The overall effects are similar in magnitude for California-based
firms relative to firms headquartered in other states. The study sheds new light on the strategic levers firms use to capture value from investments in human capital and R&D.

Read/download a copy of the study, titled "Reputations for Toughness in Patent Enforcement: Implications for Knowledge Spillovers via Inventor Mobility" (link)

2 Comentários:

Oopala said...


So it would appear that just a reputation of being an IP hardass will keep one's ex-employees in line. This seems to be in keeping with the practice of making an example out of someone who gets out of line to make sure a mutiny doesn't grow out of long suffering. Reminds me of the scene in "Mutiny On The Bounty" where a dead sailor is being rowed around the harbor to receive 30 lashes at each ship's mast due to some infraction. When asked if the dead sailor should be whipped, Captain Bly replies, "24 lashes, well laid on."

Anonymous said...

Nice example of another academic study announcing the screamingly blindingly obvious. What other correlation would anybody expect? Which irresponsible committee hands over the real money that shareholders have invested, to procure such findings?

Powered By Blogger


This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.