CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 198Digital Platforms and EconomicsIntellectual Property and PatentsIntellectual Property Law

Appropriability Mechanisms and the Platform Partnership Decision: Evidence from Enterprise Software

Huang, Peng, Ceccagnoli, Marco, Forman, Chris, Wu, D. J.·2013·Management Science
DOI 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1618
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examine whether ownership of intellectual property rights (IPR) or downstream capabilities is effective in encouraging entry into markets complementary to a proprietary platform by preventing the platform owner from expropriating rents from start-ups. We study this question in the context of the software industry, an environment where evidence of the efficacy of IPR as a mechanism to appropriate the returns from innovation has been mixed. Entry, in our context, is measured by an independent software vendor's (ISV's) decision to become certified by a platform owner and produce applications compatible with the platform. We find that ISVs with a greater stock of formal IPR (such as patents and copyrights), and those with stronger downstream capabilities (as measured by trademarks and consulting services) are more likely to join the platform, suggesting that these mechanisms are effective in protecting ISVs from the threat of expropriation. We also find that the effects of IPR on the likelihood of partnership are greater when an ISV has weak downstream capabilities or when the threat of imitation is greater, such as when the markets served by the ISV are growing quickly. This paper was accepted by Gérard P. Cachon, information systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1618

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Property rights play an important role in complementors' decisions to partner with the focal platform owner and to join the ecosystem.

    “Together with ownership and the distribution of decision rights, property rights play an important role in complementors' decisions to partner with the focal platform owner and to join the ecosystem (Huang et al., 2013).”

    From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., & Wu, D. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30308
ORCID
Venue
Management Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2013-01
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
102-121
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
DOI
10.1287/mnsc.1120.1618
OpenAlex
W2125338226
Cited by
198
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
FWCI
25.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Management Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Intellectual Property and Patents
  • Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Law
Keywords
appropriability mechanisms, intellectual property, independent software vendors, proprietary platforms, certification, patents, trademarks, imitation, enterprise software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review