CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 70Open Source Software InnovationsDigital Platforms and EconomicsService and Product Innovation

Horizontal Innovation Networks - by and for Users

Open access
von Hippel, Eric·2002·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.328900
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Innovation development, production, distribution and consumption networks can be built up horizontally – with actors consisting only of innovation users (more precisely, “user/self-manufacturers”). Some open source software projects are examples of such networks, and examples can be found in the case of physical products as well. In this paper we discuss three conditions under which user innovation networks can function entirely independently of manufacturers. We then explore related empirical evidence and conclude that conditions favorable to horizontal user innovation networks are often present in the economy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.328900

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Commercial firms are less likely to participate in open source development where competition among them is significant.

    “Commercial firms are less likely to participate in open source development where competition among them is significant (von Hippel, 2002, Harhoff et al., 2003).”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as von Hippel, 2002

    The “Sources of benefit from free revealing” section says that stronger competition among innovation users increases the competitive advantage lost by revealing an innovation. This supports a disincentive to share, but the paper does not establish that commercial firms are less likely to participate in open-source development where competition among them is significant. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • If first mover advantages are strong, companies may race to reveal code in order to preempt alternatives and gain a permanent advantage.

    “If first mover advantages are strong, companies may even race to reveal code in order to preempt alternatives and gain a permanent advantage (von Hippel, 2002, Harhoff et al., 2003, Varian and Shapiro, 2003, West and Gallagher, 2004).”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as von Hippel, 2002

  • A virtue of enjoyment as an incentive is that free riding does not destroy it, at least in principle.

    “A virtue of enjoyment as an incentive is that free riding does not destroy it, at least in principle (von Hippel, 2002).”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as von Hippel, 2002

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Allen, Robert C. "Collective Invention." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 4, no.1 (March 1983):1-24.
  2. Ekeh, P. P. (1974). Social Exchange Theory: the Two Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Enos, John Lawrence. Petroleum Progress and Profits: A History of Process Innovation. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1962.
  4. Freeman, C. "Chemical Process Plant: Innovation and the World Market." National Institute Economic Review 45 (August 1968):2957.
  5. Herstatt, Cornelius, and Eric von Hippel (1992), "From Experience: Developing New Product Concepts Via the Lead User Method: A Case Study in a "Low Tech" Field", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1992;9: 213-221.
  6. Hollander, Samuel. The Sources of Increased Efficiency: A Study of Du Pont Rayon Plants. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965.
  7. Knight, Kenneth E. "A Study of Technological Innovation: The Evolution of Digital Computers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, PA., 1963.
  8. Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Chapter 7, Communities in Cyberspace, M. A. Smith and P. Kollock eds. London, Routledge.
  9. Lerner and Tirole (2002), "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, forthcoming.
  10. Levin, Richard C., Alvin K. Klevorick, Richard Nelson and Sidney G. Winter (1987), "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development", Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 3, pp. 783-831.
  11. Lionetta, William G., Jr. "Sources of Innovation Within the Pultrusion Industry." Unpublished S.M. thesis, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1977.
  12. Mansfield, E. (1985). "How Rapidly Does New Industrial Technology Leak Out?," Journal of Industrial Economics. Vol. 34, pp. 217-223.
  13. Mishina, K. (1989), Essays on Technological Evolution, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University.
  14. Ogawa, Susumu (1997), "Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation? Evidence from the Japanese convenience-store industry" Research Policy Vol. 26, pp. 777-790.
  15. Olson, Mancur (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  16. Raymond, Eric S. (1999), The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, (Cambridge: O'Reilly)
  17. Rosenberg, Nathan "Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840-1910," Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge, 1976, chapter 1; also see "Uncertainty and Technological Change," in Landau, Taylor and Wright, The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Stanford 1996, esp. pp. 345-47.
  18. Schmookler, Jacob. Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.
  19. Shaw, Brian (1985) "The Role of the Interaction between the User and the Manufacturer in Medical Equipment Innovation." R&D Management, Vol. 15, no.4 (October), pp. 283-92.
  20. Taylor, C. T. and Z.A. Silberston (1973) The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of the British Experience Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. von Hippel, Eric (1977) "The Dominant Role of the User in Semiconductor and Electronic Subassembly Process Innovation," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-24, no. 2 (May):60-71.
  22. von Hippel, Eric (1988) The Sources of Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press).
  23. VanderWerf, Pieter A. "Product tying and innovation in U.S. wire preparation equipment," Research Policy 19 (1990): 83-96.
  24. Wilson, R.W. "The Sale of Technology Through Licensing." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., l975.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
von Hippel, E.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.328900
OpenAlex
W1958356850
Cited by
70
References
2
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
Keywords
user innovation, open source software, innovation networks

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