Abstract
Using patent citations as an indicator of knowledge flows, this paper examines the effects of firms’ global patent social networks on knowledge flows from business method software patents. Patent social networks are considered along several dimensions, including relative centrality, structural equivalence and brokerage roles. Identifying 19,385 software patents applications to the USPTO by 37 countries during 1995–2012, results show that firms positioned with a relative centrality or situated within the same structural equivalent cluster have more citations to their counterpart firms’ patents. Further, among the different brokerage roles, we find positive promotion to knowledge transfer when the citing and cited firms both serve the role of an itinerant as well as that of a gatekeeper/representative, while firms that act as gatekeeper/representative (alone) cite less patents from firms that do not enact this kind of a role. These unique insights provide a better understanding of channels of knowledge transmission and have implications for the pace of technological change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Business method software deals with a broad spectrum of data processing applications.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO Patent Statistics, Patent Counts by Class by Year Report (www.uspto.gov).
Although the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. versus CLS Bank International, decided on 19 June 2014, has had a significant impact in the field of “software patents”, particularly those covering financial and business-related processes, it is still observed that significant numbers of business method patents continue to be applied for in USPTO and in jurisdictions outside the U.S.
This is by no means an exhaustive list and scholars regularly examine new dimensions. For instance, an interesting work by Link and Ruhm (2013) considers the inter-generational dimension of patenting where patenting behavior is affected by the patenting behavior of fathers.
Patents containing “antigen”, “antigenic”, or “chromatography” in the description/specification were also excluded.
The search algorithm is summarized as the follows: “software” OR “methods” AND “program” AND NOT “chip” OR “semiconductor” OR “bus” OR “circuit” OR “circuitry” OR “device” OR “apparatus”. Further details are available upon request.
See Gould and Fernandez (1989).
There are a variety of software tools that have been developed for social network analysis. The most popular software packages include Pajek, UCINET 6, NetDraw, Gephi, E-Net, KeyPlayer 1, StOCNET and Automap. We employ Pajek in this study because it has efficient algorithms for analyzing large networks in addition to its powerful visualization function(s). See Apostolato (2013) for an overview of software applications for social network analysis.
PATSTAT, also known as the EPO Worldwide Patent Statistical Database, is a snapshot of the EPO master documentation database (DOCDB) with worldwide coverage, covering more than 20 tables with bibliographic data of about 70 million for the patents issued by most of the patent institutes in the world. See http://www.epo.org/searching/subscription/raw/product-14-24.html.
To save space, we only list top 30 firms with the highest values for betweenness centrality, itinerant and gatekeeper/representative, respectively. The values for the full sample are available upon request.
The correlation between RelBetwij, the relative centrality, and Itineri and Itinerj, the itinerant of citing firm and cited firm is rather high (additional details are available upon request); therefore, we conduct estimations separately from columns II to IV, and from columns V to VII to investigate the effects of relative centrality and brokerage, respectively.
Graf and Kruger (2011) note that gatekeepers might exert positive spillovers on the innovation network.
An exception is the case of Gateki × Gatekj, which is now significantly negative (column VII).
One should, however, keep in mind the intermediate good nature of business software. Thus, its overall value is related to the value of the finished product/service that it is tied to. For instance, in an endogenous growth model setup, Yamamoto (2003) notes the importance of transportation costs of the intermediate good, whereby high transportation costs inhibit growth. Software, however, does not suffer from such limitations as it can be relatively efficiently transmitted via the internet.
References
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.
Apostolato, I.-A. (2013). An overview of software applications for social network analysis. International Review of Social Research, 3, 71–77.
Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2002). The economics of science and Technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 155–203.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40, 81–93.
Bessen, J., & Hunt, R. M. (2007). An empirical look at software patents. Journal of Economics Management Strategy, 16, 157–189.
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
CHSRF. (2003). The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada’s Health System. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Report. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, December, http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_e.pdf.
Clarkson, G. (2005). Objective identification of patent thickets. University of Michigan Law School Working Paper 1–32.
Cohen, W. M. (2004). Patents and appropriation: Concerns and evidence. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 57–71.
Colazo, J. (2010). Collaboration structure and performance in new software development: Findings from the study of open source projects. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 735–758.
Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210.
De Prato, G., & Nepelski, D. (2014). Global technological collaboration network: Network analysis of international co-inventions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 358–375.
Elsasser, T. E. (1977). Patents impediment or expedient to technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1, 33–44.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality on social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
Friedkin, N. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Furukawa, Y. (2010). Intellectual property protection and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Economics Letters, 109, 99–101.
Goel, R. K. (1992). On vertical integration into R&D. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 32, 54–59.
Goel, R. K. (1999). Economic models of technological change. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Goel, R. K., & Brown, M. A. (1991). Commercializing government—Sponsored computer software. In J. A. Morell & M. Fleischer (Eds.), Advances in the implementation and impact of computer systems (Vol. 1, pp. 267–279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (2009). Determinants of software piracy: Economics, institutions, and technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 637–658.
Goel, R. K., & Saunoris, J. W. (2017). Dynamics of knowledge spillovers from patents to entrepreneurship: Evidence across entrepreneurship types. Contemporary Economic Policy, 35, 700–715.
Goel, R. K., Saunoris, J. W., & Zhang, X. (2016). Intranational and international knowledge flows: Effects on the formal and informal sectors. Contemporary Economic Policy, 34, 297–311.
Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.
Graf, H., & Kruger, J. J. (2011). The performance of gatekeepers in innovator networks. Industry and Innovation, 18, 69–88.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Hall, B. H. (2007). Patents and patent policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 568–587.
Hall, B. H. (2009). Business and financial method patents, innovation, and policy. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 56, 443–473.
Hall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2012). Recent research on the economics of patents. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 541–565.
Hall, B. H., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 375–423.
Hall, B. H., & MacGarvie, M. (2010). The private value of software patents. Research Policy, 39, 994–1009.
Hall, B. H., Thoma, G., & Torrisi, S. (2009). Financial patenting in Europe. European Management Review, 6, 45–63.
Hunt, R. M. (2010). Business method patents and U.S. financial services. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28, 322–352.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 105–136.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jankowski, J. E. (1999). Trends in academic research spending, alliances, and commercialization. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 55–68.
La Belle, M. M., & Schooner, H. M. (2014). Big banks and business method patents. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 16, 431–495.
Lerner, J. (2002). 150 Years of patent protection. American Economic Review, 92, 221–225.
Lerner, J. (2010). The litigation of financial innovations. Journal of Law and Economics, 53, 807–831.
Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the web environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1616–1628.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2013). Fathers’ patenting behavior and the propensity of offspring to patent: An intergenerational analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 332–340.
Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 158–171.
MacGarvie, M. (2006). Do firms learn from international trade? Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 46–60.
Maurseth, P. B., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Knowledge spillovers in Europe: A patent citations analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104, 531–545.
Minns, S. E. (2014). Innovation, firm strategy and patent litigation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia.
Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seaman, C., McQuaid, R., & Pearson, M. (2017). Social networking in family businesses in a local economy. Local Economy, 32, 451–466.
Slob, A. F. L., Rijnveld, M., Chapman, A. S., & Strosser, P. (2007). Challenges of linking scientific knowledge to river basin management policy: AquaTerra as a case study. Environmental Pollution, 148, 867–874.
Sternitzke, C., Bartkowski, A., & Schramm, R. (2008). Visualizing patent statistics by means of social network analysis tools. World Patent Information, 30, 115–131.
van Kammen, J., de Savigny, D., & Sewankambo, N. (2006). Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: The need for support structures. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84, 608–612.
Vonortas, N. S. (2013). Social networks in R&D program evaluation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 577–606.
Wagner, S. (2008). Business method patents in Europe and their strategic use—Evidence from franking device manufacturers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17, 173–194.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
Yamamoto, K. (2003). Agglomeration and growth with innovation in the intermediate goods sector. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33, 335–360.
Yang, H., Lin, Z. J., & Peng, M. W. (2011). Behind acquisitions of alliance partners: Exploratory learning and network embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1069–1080.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Al Link for numerous useful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, J., Goel, R.K. & Zhang, X. Knowledge flows from business method software patents: influence of firms’ global social networks. J Technol Transf 44, 1070–1096 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9645-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9645-1
Keywords
- Business method patents
- Relative centrality
- Structural equivalence
- Brokerage roles
- Joint patent application
- Patent citations
- Knowledge flows
- Social networks