The market behaviors of the patent transaction
•
0 recomendaciones•26 vistas
1. The document analyzes the network features of patent transaction markets using the TFT-LCD industry as an example. 2. It identifies four major types of players in patent markets based on network centrality and constraint measures: technological capacity keepers, technological development allocators, intellectual assets disposers, and intellectual assets coordinators. 3. The patent transaction network evolves over three phases: an initial random market, a super small-world dominant design market, and a stable small-world mature market with emerging niche players.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a The market behaviors of the patent transaction
Similar a The market behaviors of the patent transaction (20)
Más de Lawrenzo H.C. Huang
Más de Lawrenzo H.C. Huang (20)
Último
Último (20)
The market behaviors of the patent transaction
- 1. Paper ID: 19R0074 Hung-Chun Huang Ph.D. National Chi Nan University, TAIWAN Hung-Chun Huang, Hsin-Yu Shih, Tsung-Han Ke, Department of International Business Studies, National Chi Nan University, Taiwan
- 2. Shrestha (2010) Practicing Entities(PEs) Non-practicing entities (NPEs) Hytönen et al. (2012) Patenting and Manufacturing Companies (PMC) Manufacturing Companies (MC) Patenting Companies (PC) Pénin (2012) Technological firms Patent trolls Patent Brokers Patent Value Assessment Patent Monetization Firms University Research Lab. Research Ins. Banks R&D company Joint Capital Transaction Market
- 3. Based on the network features of patent transaction market… Who are the major players in patent transaction markets? To classify the major players in patent transaction markets.
- 4. Network (industry) Constraint Market (transaction) Status Actors Status signal theory Firms tend to transact with those firms possessing a higher number of transaction partners. Podolny, J. M. 1993, 2010 Structure Holes theory The market players with relatively low network constraints tend to extend more wide market range as well as to contact a variety of transaction groups. Burt, R. S. 2004, 2015 Typology?
- 5. TFT-LCD technology & FPD industry Pre-dominant design Dominant design Post-dominant design DSM- LCD TN VS. STN TFT-LCD around 1987 to 1996 around 1997 to 2005 around 1976 to 1986 Pre-dominant design Dominant design Post-dominant design Patent Granted 1976 - 2012 Huang, Shih, Ke, & Liu (2012)
- 6. Core-periphery analysis Small world analysis the extent of cluster configuration Whole Network Centrality Betweenness measures the extent to which a particular node lies between the various other nodes in a set of nodes. Structure Holes Constraint measures the extent to which a particular node is constrained by the others. Core Actor’s Ego Network Whole market analysis Core actors analysis Social network analysis
- 7. Core-periphery analysis Periods I. 1978-1989 II. 1990-2001 III. 2002-2012 Network Scale N 60 273 411 Core Numbers (%) 4 (7%) 6(2%) 22(5%) Periphery Numbers(%) 56(93%) 267(98%) 389(95%) Interactive Density 0.00 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.250 0.833 0.110 0.006 0.003 0.002
- 8. I II III 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2012 QSmall-World =0 No Small World Initial market Dominant design market Super Small World QSmall-World =732.083 Mature market Small World QSmall-World =38.999
- 9. Results and Findings Core actors analysis
- 10. TFT-LCD technology & FPD industry Pre-dominant design Dominant design Post-dominant design DSM- LCD TN VS. STN TFT-LCD around 1987 to 1996 around 1997 to 2005 around 1976 to 1986 Pre-dominant design Dominant design Post-dominant design Patent Granted 1976 - 2012 Huang, Shih, Ke, & Liu (2012)
- 11. Patent transaction network Core/periphery analysis 2000-2012 LCD patent transaction
- 12. Centrality Betweenness measures the extent to which a particular node lies between the various other nodes in a set of nodes. Structure Holes Constraint measures the extent to which a particular node is constrained by the others. Core actors analysis Social network analysis Core/periphery group
- 13. Core actors (22)
- 14. Core actors analysis Name (Country, PE/NPE) Betweenness (C be) Constraint (SH con) Type 1 Toppoly (TW, PE) 209 0.964 Hannstar Display (TW, PE) 43 0.942 AUO (TW, PE) 690 0.737 NEDO (JP, NPE) 0 0.712 TPO Displays (TW, PE) 253 0.660 U.S. Philips (US, PE) 0 1.167 Matsushita (JP, PE) 341 1.112 Fujitsu (JP, PE) 128 0.884 Chunghwa Picture (TW, PE) 68 0.697 IR (US, PE) 72 0.620 Type 2 Samsung (KR, PE) 1,367 0.972 Chimei (TW, PE) 1,452 0.604 NEC (JP, PE) 1,875 0.876 Hitachi (JP, PE) 1,685 0.859 Type 3 Sanyo (JP, PE) 61 0.313 IPG (UK, NPE) 76 0.304 IBM (US, PE) 0 0.274 Type 4 Kyocera co. (JP, PE) 935 0.427 ITRI (TW, NPE) 1,557 0.463 Seiko (JP, PE) 1,171 0.375 Royal Philips (NL, PE) 1,075 0.369 Sumitomo (JP, PE) 997 0.145
- 15. Core actors analysis S amsung NEC Hitachi Chimei U.S. Philips Matsushita Toppoly Hannstar Fujitsu AUO ITRI Seiko Royal Philips IPG Sumitomo NEDO Chunghwa TPO (TW, PE) IR Kyocera Sanyo IBM Constraint Betweenness I. II. IV. High Low Low High III.
- 16. Typology Intellectual assets coordinator high market status / low industrial constraint Technological capacity keeper low market status / high industrial constraint Technological development allocator high market status / high industrial constraint Intellectual assets disposer low market status / low industrial constraint
- 17. Typology Type I: Technological capacity keeper – low market status / high industrial constraint – They focus on managing technological capacity formation or extension. Type II: Technological development allocator – high market status / high industrial constraint – They are critical hub nodes in the industry and possess the crucial patents for developing the technology. Type III: Intellectual assets disposer – low market status / low industrial constraint – They trade patents in order to dispose of their intellectual assets. Type IV: Intellectual assets coordinator – high market status / low industrial constraint – They occupy the most advantageous position in the transaction market. They possess not only certain crucial patents for developing the technology but also the patents that could have cross-technology applications.
- 19. 1. Initial market – Random walk; No small world effect 2. Dominant design market – Super small world effect 3. Mature market – Small world effect; Niche markets emerging Three phases of market development
- 20. 1. A highly structuralized market; with a few core firms holding the majority of patent transactions. 2. The patent transaction market in the mature period exhibits as a stable small-world structure. In the mature market Mature market SWN QSmall-World =38.999 0.006 0.004 0.110 0.002
- 21. 1. Technological capacity keepers 2. Technological development allocators 3. Intellectual assets disposers 4. Intellectual assets coordinators The network features of patent transaction markets
- 22. Hung-Chun Huang Ph.D. National Chi Nan University, TAIWAN A example of TFT-LCD industry View publication stats View publication stats