AJIBM  Vol.5 No.8 , August 2015
The Innovation Study of Japan and US Semiconductor Companies
—Internal Invention and Non-Internal Invention
Abstract: The negotiations with other firms (opponents) such as licensing are likely to take action as a routine-work of certain actions. It will make decisions in some paradoxical situation not only patent infringement lawsuit, but also cross-licensing negotiations in strategic business. It should be noted that inventions were regarded as only performance of R&D (Research & Development), which called them inventions for technological strategy. However, there exist inventions resulting from other factors, which are exactly defined as inventions for patent strategy; we shall call them inventions for patent strategy. So then, we picked out for several US and Japanese semiconductor manufacturers, and so our analysis separated out the number of inventions motivated by technological strategy within the whole set of inventions. Unlike other types of property, IP (intellectual property) assets lack clear property lines and every type of intellectual property you can own comes with connections to other valuable innovations. These ownership rights are also exactly changing. They are embedded in a dynamic technology context, one in which new innovations and new advances are constantly added. One of the best ways to examine that context is observing the legal property provided by patent citations, the references to the prior IP on which the patented inventions build. Patent citations are very important because they make the relationships among technologies and related property rights. The objective is to show that firms make inventions not only on technological factors, but also on patent strategy. Simple analysis method is proposed to identify how many non-internal inventions are filed for patents.
Cite this paper: Inuzuka, M. (2015) The Innovation Study of Japan and US Semiconductor Companies
—Internal Invention and Non-Internal Invention. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 5, 557-564. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2015.58055.

[1]   Wernerfelt, B. (1995) A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171-174.

[2]   Barney, J.B. (2002) Gaining & Sustaining Competitive Advantage. 2nd Edition, Pearson Education, 415-445.

[3]   Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 113-134.

[4]   Allen, T.J. (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, 5-20.

[5]   Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B. and Trajtenber, M. (2001) The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lesson, Insights and Methodological Tools. NBER Working Paper Series, 8498.

[6]   Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B. and Trajtenber, M. (2005) Market Value and Patent Citation. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16-38.

[7]   Takashi, N. and Kishi, N. (2008) Licensing Strategy and Non-Internal Invention. Hitotsubashi Business Review, Toyokeizai Inc., 78-89. (In Japanese)

[8]   Takahashi, N. (2006) Licensing Business and Rewards to Engineers. Communications of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 51, 487-492. (In Japanese)

[9]   Albert, M.B., Avery, D., Narin, F. and McAllister, P. (1991) Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of Industrial Important Patents. Research Policy, 20, 251-259.

[10]   Ogawa, K. (2008) Formation Mechanism of the Platform in the Japanese Electronics Industry. Akamon Management Review, 7, 83-127. (In Japanese)

[11]   Wakumoto, Y. and Nakano, K. (2005) License as a Business Strategy. Akamon Management Review, 1, 1-44. (In Japanese)

[12]   Podolny, J.M. and Stuart, T.E. (1995) A Role-Based Ecology of Technological Change. The American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1224-1260.