International Commerce and Information Review (통상정보연구)

Korea Association for International Commerce and Information (한국통상정보학회)
권호 표지

A Study on the Relationship between Patenting Activity Factors and Company Performance of Korean IT Industry

국내 IT기업의 특허활동요인이 경영성과에 미치는 영향 연구

  • 김창봉 (중앙대학교 경영경제대학) ;
  • 박정호 (중앙대학교 일반대학원 무역학과)
  • Received : 2016.08.19
  • Accepted : 2016.09.10
  • Published : 2016.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently companies consider the patent activity as one of the critical factor for success in global economy even though one of the enterprise's competitiveness factor was productivity in past industry economy. Since there are so many patent dispute globally in IT industry, it is very important for companies to register and manage patents strategically. Therefore, this research analyze relationship between Financial result and 3 patent activity factors like productivity, effectiveness, and high-quality by investigating patent and financial data of 217 Korean IT enterprises. This paper get the following results after building research model and hypothesis based on resource-based theory and analysing the data sets using multiple regression model. First, effectiveness and high-quality of patents showed positive(+) effect on growth of total assets of IT enterprises. Second, three factors of patent activities do not have significant results with average increase rate of sales. Third, only high-quality of patents have positive(+) effect on average increase rate of net income. The differentiation factor of this research is that this paper categorized patent activity factors as quantitative and qualitative factors, and practically suggested strategic direction of patent activities of IT companies which face serious patent distribute globally.

과거 산업경제의 기업 경쟁력은 생산력에서 비롯되었다면, 최근에는 무형자산인 특허의 확보력이 기업의 글로벌경제 성공요인의 중요한 조건이 되고 있다. 특히 기술의 변화가 빠르고, 국제적 특허분쟁이 심한 IT산업에서는 국내외 특허의 전략적 확보 및 관리의 중요성이 대두되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 코스닥기업 중 하드웨어와 소프트웨어 217개 IT기업들의 특허활동을 양적인 요인인 생산성과 질적인 요인인 효율성 및 고급성으로 구분하고, 기업의 재무성과와의 영향관계를 검증하고 시사점을 도출하였다. 본 연구는 자원기반이론을 기반으로 선행연구를 실시하여 개념적 연구모형과 연구가설을 도출하고, 데이터 자료를 다중회귀모델로 실증 분석하여 다음과 같은 연구결과를 얻었다. 첫째, IT기업의 총자산 증가율에 대해 특허의 효율성과 고급성이 유의한 양(+)의 영향을 미쳤다. 둘째, IT기업의 평균매출 증가율에 대해서는 특허의 세 가지 활동요인 모두 유의한 결과를 가져오지 못했다. 셋째, IT기업의 평균 순이익 증가율에 대해서는 특허의 고급성만이 양(+)의 영향을 가져왔다. 본 연구의 선행연구와의 차별성으로 특허활동을 양적인 요인과 질적인 요인으로 구분하여 재무성과와의 영향관계에 대한 연구를 진행하였고, 실무적 기여도에서는 국제적 특허분쟁이 심각한 IT기업들의 특허활동에 대해 전략적인 방향성을 제시하였다는데 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국가지식재산위원회, 2012 국가지식재산위원회연차보고서, 2013.
  2. 김창모, "한.EU FTA의 지적재산권 보호와 특징", 통상정보연구, 제13권 제3호, 2011 pp.489-510.
  3. 김창봉, 구윤철, "한국 수출입 제조 기업의 국제표준인증 활용과 파트너십 프로세스에 대한 연구", 통상정보연구, 제18권 제2호, 2016, pp.131-150.
  4. Al-Aali, A. Y. and Teece, D. J., "Towards the (Strategic) Management of Intellectual Property: Retrospective and Prospective," California Management Review, Vol.55, No.4, 2013, pp.15-30. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2013.55.4.15
  5. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., and McAllister, P., "Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of Industrially Important Patents," Research Policy, Vol.20, No.3, 1991, pp.251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U
  6. Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., and Trunkey, R. D., "Valuable Patents," The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol.9, No.3, 2004, pp.273-277.
  7. Archibugi, D. and Pianta, M., "Measuring Technological Change Through Patents and Innovation Surveys," Technovation, Vol.16, No.9, 1996, pp.451-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(96)00031-4
  8. Arora, A. and Ceccagnoli, M., "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, Vol.52, No.2, 2006, pp.293-308. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0437
  9. Arthur, W. B., "The Structure of Invention," Research Policy, Vol.36, No.2, 2007, pp.274-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.005
  10. Arthur, W. B., The Nature of Technology: What It is and How It Evolves, Penguin Books, 2009.
  11. Artz, K. W., Norman, P. M., Hatfield, D. E., and Cardinal, L. B., "A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance," Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.27, No.5, 2010, pp.725-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00747.x
  12. Arundel, A. and Kabla, I., "What Percentage of Innovations are Patented? Empirical Estimates for European Firms," Research Policy, Vol.27, 1998, pp.127-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00033-X
  13. Blind, K., Cremers, K., and Mueller, E., "The Influence of Strategic Patenting on Companies' Patent Portfolios," Research Policy, Vol.38, No.2, 2009, pp.428-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.003
  14. Bloom, N. and Van Reenen, J., "Patents Real Options and Firm Performance," The Economic Journal, Vol.112, No.478, 2002, pp.97-116. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00022
  15. Bosworth, D. I., Warton, A. and Greenhalgh, C., "Intangible Assets and the Market Valuation of UK Companies: Evidence from Fixed Effects Models," Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, Working Paper, 2000.
  16. Christensen, C., The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business Review Press, 2013.
  17. Cockburn, I. M. and Griliches, Z., "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, Vol.78, No.2, 1988, pp.419-423.
  18. Cohen, W. Nelson,, P. and Walsh, J., Appropriability Conditions and Why Firms Patent and Why They Do Not in the American Manufacturing Sector, Carnegie Mellon University, Mimeo, 1997.
  19. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P., "Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not)." NBER Working Paper No.7552, Cambridge, MA., 2000.
  20. Cukier, K., "A Market of Ideas. A Survey of Patents and Technology," The Economist, October 22nd. Available at: economist.com/node/5014990, 2005.
  21. Di Minin, A. and Faems, D., "Building Appropriation Advantage: an Introduction to the Special Issue on Intellectual Property management," California Management Review, Vol.55, No4, 2013, pp.7-14. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2013.55.4.7
  22. Ernst, H., "Patenting Strategies in the German Mechanical Engineering Industry and Their Relationship to Company Performance," Technovation, Vol.15, No.4, 1995, pp.225-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(95)96605-S
  23. Ernst, H., "Patent Applications and Subsequent Changes of Performance: Evidence from Time-series Cross-section Analyses on the Firm Level," Research Policy Vol.30, No.14, 2001, pp.143-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00098-0
  24. Ernst, H., Conley, J. and Omland, N., "How to Create Commercial Value from Patents: the Role of Patent Management," R&D Management, Vol.46, No.S2, 2016, pp.677-690. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12210
  25. Greenberg, G., "Small Firms, Big Patents? Estimating Patent Value Using Data on Israeli Start-ups' Financing Rounds," European Management Review, Vol.10, 2013, pp.183-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12015
  26. Griliches, Z., R&D, Patents and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, 1984.
  27. Griliches, Z., "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.28, No.4, 1990, pp.1661-1707.
  28. Griliches, Z., Hall, H. and Pakes, A., "R&D, Patents, and Market Value Revisited: Is There a Second(Technological Opportunity) Factor?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol.1, 1991, pp.183-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599100000001
  29. Grupp, H., Foundations of the Economics of Innovation - Theory, Measurement and Practice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998.
  30. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., and Trajtenberg, M., "Market Value and Patent Citations," The Rand Journal of Economics, Vol.36, No.1, 2005, pp.16-38.
  31. Hall, B. H. and MacGarvie, M., "The Private Value of Software Patents," Research Policy, Vol.39, No.7, 2010, pp.994-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.007
  32. Hall, B. H., Thoma, G., and Torrisi, S., "The Market Value of Patents and R&D: Evidence from European Firms Patent Citations," NBER Working Paper No.13426, 2007.
  33. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M. and Vopel, K., "Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights," Research Policy, Vol.32, No.8, 2003, pp.1343-1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5
  34. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M. and Vopel, K. "Exploring the Tail of the Patent Value Distribution," Grandstrand, 2003, pp.279-310.
  35. Holgersson, M., "Patent Management in Entrepreneurial SMEs: a Literature Review and Empirical Study of Innovation Appropriation, Patent Propensity, and Motives," R&D Management, Vol.43, No.1, 2013, pp.21-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00700.x
  36. Knut, B. and Thumm, T., "Interrelation between Patenting and Standardization Strategies: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications," Research Policy, Vol.33, 2004, pp.1583-1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.08.007
  37. Lanjouw, J. O., "Patnet Protection in the Shadow of Infringement: Simulaiton Estimations of Patent Value," Review of Economic Studies, Vol.65, 1998, pp.671-710. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00064
  38. Lanjouw, J. O. and Schankerman, M., "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," The Journal of Law & Economics, Vol.47, No.1, 2004, pp.45-74. https://doi.org/10.1086/380476
  39. Lee, B., Cho, H. H., and Shin J., "The Relationship between Inbound Open Innovation Patents and Financial Performance: Evidence from Global Information Technology Companies," Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol.23, No.3, 2016, pp.289-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2015.1120497
  40. Lerner, J., "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," Rand Journal of Economics, Vol.25, No.2, 1994, pp.319-333. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555833
  41. Lichtenthaler, U., "The Evolution of Technology Licensing Management: Identifying Five Strategic Approaches," R&D Management, Vol.41, No.2, 2011, pp.173-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00635.x
  42. Narin, F., Noma, E., ad Perry, R., "Patents as Indicators of Corporate Technological Strength," Research Policy, Vol.16, 1987, pp.143-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X
  43. Pohlmann, T., Neuhäusler P. and Blind, K., "Standard Essential Patents to Boost Financial Returns," R&D Management, Vol.46, No.S2, 2016, pp.612-630. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12137
  44. Pohlmann, T. and Opitz, M., "Typology of the Patent Troll Business," R&D Management, Vol.43, No.2, 2013, pp.103-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12003
  45. Porter, M. E., Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustining Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press., 1985.
  46. Putnam, J., The Value of International Patent Protection, Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, 1996.
  47. Reitzig, M. P. and Puranam, P., "Value Appropriation as an Organizational Capability: the Case of IP Protection through Patents," Strategic Management Journal, Vol.30, No.7, 2009, pp.765-789. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.761
  48. Trajtenberg, M., "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," The Rand Journal of Economics, Vol.21, No.1, 1990, pp.172-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555502
  49. Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., and Jaffe, A., "University versus Corporate Patents: a Window on the Basicness of Invention," Econ. Innovation New Technology, Vol.5, No.1, 1997, pp.19-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599700000006
  50. Wagner, S. and Wakeman, S., "What do Patent-based Measures Tell Us about Product Commercialization? Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Research Policy, Vol.45, 2016, pp.1091-1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.006
  51. Wang, M. Y., Lo, H. C., and Liao, Y. Y., "Knowledge Flow Determinants of Patent Value: Evidence from Taiwan and South Korea Biotechnology Patents," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol.12, No.3, 2015, pp.1-18.
  52. Wisla, R., Sierotowicz, T., and Okon-Horodynska, E., "Patent Results of Men's and Women's R&D Activities in the Enterprise Sector in the EU," 6th Annual International Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Economics Research (QQE 2016), 2016. pp.25-33