企業揭露知識可以在確保相容性與互聯互通性的基礎下讓技術系統得以順利發展。過去研究大多著重探討企業揭露知識的動機，本研究則是採用組織學習的觀點來釐清企業在揭露知識的時候應該具備怎樣的學習策略。具體而言，我們把企業在通訊產業中3GPP(3rd Generation Partnership Project)標準制定組織中宣告標準必要專利的情況，視作為是企業針對特定技術規格書來揭露技術知識的行為。標準必要專利的宣告帶給了企業擁有技術實施權利的機會，但是同時間該標準必要專利的知識也會被其它企業所吸收與學習，而這也讓企業陷入創造價值與獲取價值的兩難局面。本研究將企業學習外部企業使用自身揭露知識的方式稱作為外向化學習，而企業對於自身揭露出來的知識之學習則稱之為內向化學習。相較於外向化學習，企業進行內向化學習更是屬於持續深化知識體系而有助於技術的持續發展。本研究的主要理論貢獻是把組織學習理論結合到知識揭露的研究領域。並且，不同於過去研究重視屬於外向化學習，本研究試圖架構出企業在揭露知識的時候需要進行內向化學習的方式。對此，本研究分析企業透過排他性專利對標準必要專利進行自我引用的情況，藉此進一步了解企業在標準制定組織中知識揭露與內向化學習的關係。我們的分析結果發現，當企業宣告出來的標準必要專利是具有較高的技術性價值與時效性價值，企業進行自我引用來進行內向化學習的可能性越高。另外，企業的吸收能力亦可以增加內向化學習的程度。

關鍵字：知識揭露、標準必要專利、標準制定組織、內向化學習、組織學習

Knowledge revealing can help firms to develop technology systems based on compatibility and interoperability. In the past, most studies discussed firms' motivation to reveal knowledge. In contrast, this study uses the organizational learning perspective to clarify what learning strategies firms should have when they reveal knowledge. Specifically, we regard the declaration of standard-essential patents (SEPs) in the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) standard-development organizations (SDOs) in the telecommunication industry as firms' knowledge revealing toward specific technical specifications. The declaration of SEPs allows firms to possess technological implementation rights. Still, at the same time, SEPs' knowledge will be assimilated and learned by other firms, which also puts firms in a dilemma between creating and capturing value. In this study, we name that firms learn how external firms learned their revealed knowledge as the outward-looking learning, while learning the value of revealed knowledge as the inward-looking learning. Compared to outward-looking learning, inward-looking learning is to deepening the existing knowledge system and developing technology continuously. Our main theoretical contribution is to integrate organizational learning theory into the research field of knowledge revealing. Moreover, different from previous studies that focused on outward-looking learning, this research provides insightful meaning when firms attempt to reveal their knowledge. In this regard, this study analyzes how firms cited their SEPs through proprietary patents in the SDOs. Our analysis found that when the technical value and timing value of SEPs is high, firms are likely to use self-citation as inward-looking learning. Besides, firms' absorptive capacity can also increase the degree of inward-looking learning.

1.INTRODUCTION
Previous studies indicate that Knowledge is a core resource and need to be managed.
But in the open innovation ,like open source pointed out that Selective revealing can create the value of the product. The Selective revealing is means that firm conditionally disclose knowledge to external firms or organizations.
However, although companies retain ownership of knowledge while revealing, it is still difficult for companies to observe how other companies use knowledge after revealing the knowledge. Past research believes that companies need to establish effective governance mechanisms for complementors and observe how external firms use the revealed knowledge to carry out innovation activities. But the focal firm tend to think that the knowledge of the external firm is more valueable, and it is easy to overlook the value of the knowledge which revealed itself.
Because previous research only focus on firms should outward-looking learning to deal with the problem of knowledge spillover .And lack of discuss inward-looking learning.So we formulate our research question which is Discuss the firm how to learning from revealing knowledge in the process of declaration standard essential patents.And use inward-looking learning to manage knowledge

2 .LITERATURE REVIEW
In recent years, research has regarded firm patents as a representative form of knowledge revealing, and used quantitative analysis to discuss issues related to firm revealing of knowledge.But It has less discussion on how enterprises obtain value after revealing knowledge and how enterprises learn from the process of knowledge revealing.
Moreover,in the process of knowledge revealing also mean knowledge spillover, companies need to have outward-looking learning and inward-looking learning to deal with the problem.
(1) outward-looking learning :identify the innovative ways of external companies which mean learning of exploring new knowledge combinations
(2) inward-looking learning identify the value of internal knowledge, which mean learning for the continuous deepening of valuable knowledge within the enterprise
According to the research of Rysman and Simcoe (2008) and Bekkers et al. (2017a) SEPs have a higher number of citations than proprietary patents .It means that the number of knowledge spillovers (B) will have more technical value than (A) .
The other reserach also mentioned that during the declaration period of SEPs, firms have a higher number of citations for their SEPs,so knowledge spillover (B) will have more JIT value than (A). .
Base on it we propose first Hypothesis :
The higher the technical and timeliness value of the standard-essential patent declared by the focal firms,the higher degree of inward-looking learning.

Kang and Motohashi (2015) also mentioned that during the declaration period of SEPs, firms have a higher number of citations for their SEPs. Based on it, technology development requires constant search and classification of a large amount of knowledge, so it can also be regarded as a process of organizational knowledge creation in the firm's internal organization then we formulate second Hypothesis :
The higher the absorptive capacity of the focal firms that declares standard-essential patents, the higher the degree of inward-looking learning.

3. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
We use the top 21 firms with the greatest number of declarations in the SDOs and 2 component suppliers from 1990-2016 as analysis objects. And we use SEP and proprietary patents to do our analyze
The model separate in two part respectively SEPs-Year and Firms-Year to establish the statistical model .We use logistic and probit regression in SEPs-Year model and fixed effect negative binominal regression in Firms-Year model to reduce endogenous impacts such as firm’s business models.
And next is Variables Operationalization,
In this research independent variable is inward-looking learning and it dimension is whether the citation is self-citation. And there are three variables, in hypothesis one technical value dimension is knowledge spillover of SEPs.T0 is Number of citation SEP receive by other in the same year.T1 is within one year.T2 is within two year.
And the other variable in hypothesis one is JIT value we use Elapsed time after SEPs declaration as its dimention.The operationalization is the difference from the average citation time of the year.
And Absorptive capacity has two indicators , respectively is R&D Expenses and Proprietary patent number. We use R&D expense and the number of Proprietary patent publish in one year before the citation occur to represent both of them.

4.Results
In the SEPs-Year model ,first we can see all control variables are positive significant. And the hypothesis are valid. We also recalculate the knowledge spillover of SEPs in the non-cumulative way to perform the sensitivity test of the model, and the overall model results have not changed.
In the Firms-Year model, we add the firm dummies into it to understand more about inward-looking in different firms. We can see the hypothesis are valid in Firm-Year model too. But in control variable’ become less significant or not significant. And the CNS become negative significant. We also recalculate the knowledge spillover of SEPs to perform the sensitivity test, and the overall model results have not changed.
5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
In this thesis, we provide some Academic contribution first is propose the benefits and drawbacks of knowledge revealing, and point that knowledge revealing also means knowledge spillover.Second,we define the outward-looking learning and inward-looking learning to explain the situation of learning by revealing, and these concepts will also complement and contribute to the discussion of organizing learning and search.
In addition, we provide some Practical contribution. First we analyzes the SEPs in the SSO, and proposes the concept of inward-looking learning to supplement the insufficiency of knowledge revealing in organizational learning
And further find that focal firms should have a high degree of absorptive capacity to be able to clearly know what knowledge is revealed as having "technology value" and “JIT value", and continue to strengthen this knowledge field in existing innovation activities.

6.Future research
Due to the difficulty of obtaining data, this research only conducted research on inward-looking learning. In the future, the part of outward-looking learning should be supplemented to make the overall research more complete. In addition, the part of the inward-looking learning (B) of the firm dummies after knowledge revealing is not significant. In other words, we should be further explored and studied through qualitative research and other methods in the future. In addition, future research should supplement the data to the fifth-generation communication technology, to compare the differences in inward learning between emerging manufacturers such as China and established companies.

Keywords：knowledge revealing, standard essential patents, standard-development organizations, inward-looking learning, organizational learning

3GPP. (2017). 3rd generation partnership project; technical specification group services and system aspects; technical specification group working methods (release 14). Technical Report 21.900 v14.0.0.
Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355-375.
Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2005). Organizations and meta-organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(4), 429-449.
Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Garsten, C. (2000). Standardizing through organization. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 50-70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Novelli, E. (2013). The second face of appropriability: Generative appropriability and its determinants. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 248-269.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670.
Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270-291.
Allen, R. C. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 4(1), 1-24.
Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27-47.
Alnuaimi, T., & George, G. (2016). Appropriability and the retrieval of knowledge after spillovers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1263-1279.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic management journal, 14(1), 33-46.
Andreessen, M. (2007). The three kinds of platforms you meet on the internet. Pmarchive (blog).
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310-321.
Arrow, K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155-173.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The economic journal, 99(394), 116-131.
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in china. Journal of International Marketing, 15(2), 1-29.
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.
Balasubramanian, N., & Lieberman, M. B. (2010). Industry learning environments and the heterogeneity of firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4), 390–412.
Baldwin, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Henkel, J. (2011). The impact of modularity on intellectual property and value appropriation. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 12-040.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barreto, I., & Baden‐Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy‐based groups and performance consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1559-1581.
Bekkers, R. (2001). Mobile telecommunications standards: Gsm, umts, tetra, and ermes: Artech House.
Bekkers, R., Bongard, R., & Nuvolari, A. (2011). An empirical study on the determinants of essential patent claims in compatibility standards. Research Policy, 40(7), 1001-1015.
Bekkers, R., Catalini, C., Martinelli, A., Righi, C., & Simcoe, T. (2017a). Disclosure rules and declared essential patents. Retrieved from
Bekkers, R., Catalini, C., Martinelli, A., Righi, C., & Simcoe, T. (2017b). Disclosure rules and declared essential patents. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 23627.
Bekkers, R., Catalini, C., Martinelli, A., & Simcoe, T. (2012). Intellectual property disclosure in standards development. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings of the NBER conference on Standards, Patents & Innovation.
Bekkers, R., Duysters, G., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of gsm. Research Policy, 31(7), 1141-1161.
Bekkers, R., Iversen, E., & Blind, K. (2012). Emerging ways to address the reemerging conflict between patenting and technological standardization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(4), 901-931.
Bekkers, R., & Martinelli, A. (2012). Knowledge positions in high-tech markets: Trajectories, standards, strategies and true innovators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(7), 1192-1216.
Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B., & Smits, J. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standardization: The case of gsm. Telecommunications Policy, 26(3-4), 171-188.
Bekkers, R., & West, J. (2009). The limits to ipr standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in umts. Telecommunications Policy, 33(1-2), 80-97.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-707.
Berger, F., Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2012). Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards. Research Policy, 41(1), 216-225.
Bhattacharya, S., & Ritter, J. R. (1983). Innovation and communication: Signalling with partial disclosure. The Review of Economic Studies, 50(2), 331-346.
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. Devolving control. Management science, 56(10), 1849-1872.
Boudreau, K. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–1427.
Boudreau, K. J., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform rules: Multi-sided platforms as regulators. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 163-191). UK: Edward Elgar.
Bresser, R. K. (1988). Matching collective and competitive strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 375-385.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structure holes. The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&d cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169-1184.
Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824-844.
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. (2012). Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem! The case of enterprise software. MIS quarterly, 263-290.
Cennamo, C. (2018). Building the value of next-generation platforms: The paradox of diminishing returns. Journal of Management, 44(8), 3038-3069.
Cennamo, C., & Santaló, J. (2019). Generativity tension and value creation in platform ecosystems. Organization Science, 30(3), 617-641.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California management review, 45(3), 33-58.
Chiao, B., Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2007). The rules of standard‐setting organizations: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 38(4), 905-930.
Chintagunta, P. K., Jain, D. C., & Vilcassim, N. J. (1991). Investigating heterogeneity in brand preferences in logit models for panel data. Journal of marketing research, 28(4), 417-428.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence. Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.
Clarkson, G., & Toh, P. K. (2010). ‘Keep out’signs: The role of deterrence in the competition for resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1202-1225.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990a). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(1), 128-152.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990b). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128-152.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why us manufacturing firms patent (or not). Retrieved from
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1997). Corporate strategy: Resources and the scope of the firm.
Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The reverse transfer of knowledge
through mobility ties. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 159–181.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709.
David, P. A., & Greenstein, S. (1990). The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research. Economics of Innovation New Technology, 1(1-2), 3-41.
Davies, A. (1996). Innovation in large technical systems: The case of telecommunications. Industrial Corporate Change, 5(4), 1143-1180.
Davies, A. (1999). Innovation and competitiveness in complex product systems: The case of mobile phone systems. In. Bastos, M. I. & Mitter, S. (Eds.): Routledge.
Davies, A., & Brady, T. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29(7-8), 931-953.
Davis, G. F. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(4), 583-613.
De Carolis, D. M. (2003). Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of their relationship with firm performance. Journal of Management, 29(1), 27-50.
De Fraja, G. (1993). Strategic spillovers in patent races. international Journal of industrial Organization, 11(1), 139-146.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160.
Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96-105.
Farrell, J., & Katz, M. L. (2000). Innovation, rent extraction, and integration in systems markets. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 48(4), 413-432.
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1986). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation. The American economic review, 940-955.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management science, 47(1), 117-132.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019-1039.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8‐9), 909-928.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154-177.
Fontana, R., Nuvolari, A., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Economics of Innovation New Technology, 18(4), 311-336.
Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1993). Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 351-369.
Gassmann, O., & Bader, M. A. (2006). Intellectual property management in inter-firm r&d collaborations.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Goldsmith, A. (2005). Wireless communications: Cambridge university press.
Goodman, D. J., & Myers, R. A. (2005). 3g cellular standards and patents. Paper presented at the 2005 International conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing.
Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.
Greve, H. R. (1998). Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of market positions: What you see is what you do. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), 967-988.
Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for r&d spillovers. Scandinavian. Journal of Economics, 94, 29–47.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571-586.
Hagiu, A., & Halaburda, H. (2010). Responding to the wii? HBS Case 709-448, Harvard Business School, Boston.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 16-38.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The nber patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 8498.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action: RFF Press.
Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32(10), 1753-1769.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511-515.
Haunschild, P. R. (1993). Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 564-592.
Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 593-627.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
He, Z. L., Lim, K., & Wong, P. K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35(8), 1147-1165.
Heiman, B. A., & Nickerson, J. A. (2004). Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6‐7), 401-420.
Helfat, C. E. (1994). Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm r&d. Management science, 40(12), 1720-1747.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: Co‐evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 961-979.
Helper, S., MacDuffie, J., & Sabel, C. (1999). The boundaries of the firm as a design problem. Working Paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
Henderson, R. M., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope and spillovers: The determinants ofresearch productivity in the pharmaceutical industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 26(1), 32–59.
Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953-969.
Henkel, J., Baldwin, C. Y., & Shih, W. (2013). Ip modularity: Profiting from innovation by aligning product architecture with intellectual property. California management review, 55(4), 65-82.
Henkel, J., Schöberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 879-890.
Hippel, E. v., & Krogh, G. v. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209-223.
Hobday, M. (2001). The electronics industries of the asia–pacific: Exploiting international production networks for economic development. Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature, 15(1), 13-29.
Hoetker, G., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Death hurts, but it isn't fatal: The postexit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 446-467.
Holgersson, M., & Granstrand, O. (2017). Patenting motives, technology strategies, and open innovation. Management Decision, 55(6), 1265-1284.
Hsiao, C. (1986). Analysis of panel data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel data analysis—advantages and challenges. Test, 16(1), 1-22.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability: Harvard Business Press.
Imai, K., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1984). Managing the new product development process: How japanese companies learn and unlearn: Division of Research, Harvard Business School Boston, MA.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8), 1200-1221.
Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of r&d: Evidence from firms' patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984-1001.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2002). The meaning of patent citations:Report on the nber/case-western reserve survey of patentees. In A. B. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.), Patents, citations and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy (pp. 379–401). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
James, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. (2013). How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1123-1155.
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1992). Knowledge, control and organizational structure. In L. Werin & H. Wijkander (Eds.), Contract economics (pp. 251-274). Cambridge, MA.: Basil Blackwell.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, S. P., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Cambridge university press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). On the interpretation of intuitive probability: A reply to jonathan cohen.
Kang, B., & Bekkers, R. (2013). Just-in-time inventions and the development of standards: How firms use opportunistic strategies to obtain standard-essential patents (seps). Paper presented at the 2013 8th International Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT).
Kang, B., & Motohashi, K. (2015). Essential intellectual property rights and inventors’ involvement in standardization. Research Policy, 44(2), 483-492.
Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the ios and android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 531-551.
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 274-296.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of political economy, 94(4), 822-841.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193-210.
Kim, C., Song, J., & Nerkar, A. (2012). Learning and innovation: Exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1189-1194.
Kim, N., & Atuahene‐Gima, K. (2010). Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 519-536.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm: Combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
Lakhani, K. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. Handbook of Economic Organization.
Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works. Research Policy, 32(6), 923-943.
Langlois, R., & Robertson, P. L. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, 24(4), 543-562.
Lanzolla, G., Pesce, D., & Tucci, C. L. (2021). The digital transformation of search and recombination in the innovation function: Tensions and an integrative framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 90-113.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among uk manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867-878.
Layne-Farrar, A. (2011). Innovative or indefensible? An empirical assessment of patenting within standard setting. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, 9(2), 1-18.
Layne‐Farrar, A., Llobet, G., & Padilla, J. (2014). Payments and participation: The incentives to join cooperative standard setting efforts. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 23(1), 24-49.
Lee, C. Y., & Huang, Y. C. (2012). Knowledge stock, ambidextrous learning, and firm performance. Management Decision, 50(6), 1096-1116.
Leiponen, A. E. (2008). Competing through cooperation: The organization of standard setting in wireless telecommunications. Management Science, 54(11), 1904-1919.
Lemley, M. A. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations. Calif. L. Rev., 90, 1889.
Lerner, J., Tirole, J., & Strojwas, M. (2003). Cooperative marketing agreements between competitors: Evidence from patent pools (0898-2937). Retrieved from
Levinthal, D. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management science, 43(7), 934–950.
Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. London: Boston.
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418-438.
Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 155-174.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Martin, D. L., & Meyer, C. D. (2006). Patent counting, a misleading index of patent value: A critique of goodman & myers and its uses. Available at SSRN 949439.
Matos, F., Vairinhos, V., Selig, P. M., & Edvinsson, L. (2019). Intellectual capital management as a driver of sustainability: Springer.
Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. External knowledge: Explaining the preference for outsiders. Management science, 49(4), 497-513.
Mock, D. (2005). The qualcomm equation: How a fledgling telecom company forged a new path to big profits and market dominance: AMACOM/American Management Association.
Montfort, N., & Bogost, I. (2009). Racing the beam: The atari video computer system. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Mortara, L., & Minshall, T. (2011). How do large multinational companies implement open innovation? Technovation, 31(10-11), 586-597.
Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy, 8(2), 102-153.
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77-91.
Mueller, E., Syme, L., & Haeussler, C. (2020). Absorbing partner knowledge in r&d collaborations–the influence of founders on potential and realized absorptive capacity. R&D Management, 50(2), 255-276.
Nagle, F. (2018). Learning by contributing: Gaining competitive advantage through contribution to crowdsourced public goods. Organization Science, 29(4), 569-587.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA.: Havard University Press.
Nocke, V., Peitz, M., & Stahl, K. (2007). Platform ownership. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6), 1130-1160.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187-206.
Olson, M. (1967). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pacheco‐de‐Almeida, G., & Zemsky, P. B. (2012). Some like it free: Innovators' strategic use of disclosure to slow down competition. Strategic Management Journal, 33(7), 773-793.
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2018). Innovation, openness, and platform control. Management Science, 64(7), 3015-3032.
Partha, D., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521.
Peteraf, M. A., & Bergen, M. E. (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: A market‐based and resource‐based framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1027-1041.
Petersen, T., & Koput, K. W. (1991). Density dependence in organizational mortality: Legitimacy or unobserved heterogeneity? American Sociological Review, 399-409.
Piller, F., & Fredberg, T. (2009). The paradox of strong and weak ties. Retrieved from
Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307-318.
Polidoro Jr, F., & Theeke, M. (2012). Getting competition down to a science: The effects of technological competition on firms' scientific publications. Organization Science, 23(4), 1135-1153.
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224-240.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Ravasi, D., & Turati, C. (2005). Exploring entrepreneurial learning: A comparative study of technology development projects. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 137-164.
Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2010). Large-scale open innovation: Open source vs. Patent pools. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3), 477-496.
Reger, R. K., & Huff, A. S. (1993). Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 103-123.
Rivkin, J. (2000). Imitation of complex strategies. Management science, 46(6), 824–844.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287-306.
Rumelt, R. (1987). Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 137-159). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. (1991). Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 5-29.
Ruscher, J. B., & Fiske, S. T. (1990). Interpersonal competition can cause individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 832.
Rysman, M., & Simcoe, T. (2007). Network operators' requirements and the structure of telecommunications standards. International Journal of IT Standards Standardization Research, 5(1), 103-117.
Rysman, M., & Simcoe, T. (2008). Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-setting organizations. Management science, 54(11), 1920-1934.
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 135-159.
Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312-334.
Schilling, M. A. (2002). Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 387-398.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 1-21.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). The art of standards wars. California management review, 41(2), 8-32.
Shiu, J.-M. (2017). The scope of support of toolkits in the smartphone industry. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 16(2), 55-65.
Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), 20-38.
Simcoe, T. (2004). Delays and de jure standards: What caused the slowdown in internet standards development.
Singh, J., & Agrawal, A. (2011). Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management science, 57(1), 129-150.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81-112.
Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994-1017.
Sowe, S. K., & Stamelos, I. (2008). Understanding knowledge sharing activities in free/open source software projects: An empirical study. Journal of Systems Software, 81(3), 431-446.
Spencer, J. W. (2003). Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovationsystem: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 217–233.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45-62.
Steinbock, D. (2002). Wireless horizon: Amacom.
Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 21-38.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131-1146.
Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367-1387.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tiemessen, I., Lane, H. W., Crossan, M., & Inkpen, A. C. (1997). Knowledge management in international joint ventures. In P. W. Beamish & J. P. Killing (Eds.), Cooperative strategies: North american perspective (pp. 370-399). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
Tiwana, A. (2015). Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Information Systems Research, 26(2), 266-281.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. (2010). Research commentary—platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675-687.
Toh, P. K., & Miller, C. D. (2017). Pawn to save a chariot, or drawbridge into the fort? Firms’ disclosure during standard setting and complementary technologies within ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11), 2213–2236.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). Economic analysis of product innovation: The case of ct scanners. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38, 8-30.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305.
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of s&p 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221-231.
Uston, K. (1982). Ken uston’s guide to buying and beating the home video games. New York: Signet.
Van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10, 551-568.
Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). The interorganizational context of open innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 205-219). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vanhaverbeke, W. P. M., Cloodt, M. M. A. H., & van de Vrande, V. J. A. (2008). Connecting absorptive capacity and open innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https ://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1091265.
Von Burg, U. (2001). The triumph of ethernet: Technological communities and the battle for the lan standard: Stanford University Press.
Von Burg, U., & Kenney, M. (2000). Venture capital and the birth of the local area networking industry. Research Policy, 29(9), 1135-1155.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.
Von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management science, 48(7), 821-833.
Von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. J. (1995). How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24(1), 1-12.
Wadhwa, A., Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Sarkar, M. (2017). The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural r&d on innovative performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 873-893.
Wang, C., Chin, T., & Lin, J.-H. (2020). Openness and firm innovation performance: The moderating effect of ambidextrous knowledge search strategy. Journal of knowledge management, 24(2), 301-323.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215.
Wei, Z., Yi, Y., & Guo, H. (2014). Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 832-847.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259-1285.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831.
West, J., & Dedrick, J. (2000). Innovation and control in standards architectures: The rise and fall of japan's pc-98. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 197-216.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies (Vol. 2630). New York.
Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 63-93.
Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 371-389.
Yang, H., & Steensma, H. K. (2014). When do firms rely on their knowledge spillover recipients for guidance in exploring unfamiliar knowledge? Research Policy, 43(9), 1496-1507.
Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333-362.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity - a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 147-150.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726-743.
Zucker, L. G. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from? Organizations as actors in social systems. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment. Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger.