Dear Tobias Pehrsson, The appropriability regime basically is to protect knowledge and return on investment made for innovation by a firm. While a theory of firm is purely an economic activity derived from economics which main objective is to profit maximization. If u go through the Global competitive index 2014-15(GCI) report on all countries in the world, innovation is a decisive factor. The top countries in the world are innovative in product and process that has geared up their profit as well.  Appropriability regime and theory of a firm must have strong link to each other.

you might as well want to investigate the appropriability regime with the resource-based theory (RBV) and/or dynamic capabilities view (DCs) that valued internal resources as the source of competitive advantage with the valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitute (VRIN) characteristics. this is where the appropriability regime may be related.

Dear Mubarak Hussain Haider, Thank you for taking part of my question. I agree that innovation is an decisive factor, and that the appropriability have a role in this. However, sometimes the appropriability of an innovation is weak (and thus not strong). The question is then - in such a condition, is the theory of the firm essential or can the firm still protect the innovation in some other way? For example, building strategy together with a partner might be a good option, because the strategy can protect the innovation. But then - will the partner (read: market) "steal" the innovation, or will the partner work in harmony with the innovator? That is essentially my question. 

Dear Mohamad Faizal Ahmad Zaidi, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that RBV and DC are good options for investigating this phenomenon further. 

Dear Tobias, regarding the follow-up question (The question is then - in such a condition, is the theory of the firm essential or can the firm still protect the innovation in some other way?), you might find some interesting insights in the work of Teece (1980), Tripsas (1997) and more recently Gans & Stern  (2003) on appropriation and complementary assets.

Dear Julie, Thank you! What is the title of these papers?

Here it is!

Teece, D. J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 1(3), 223-247.

Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(s 1), 119-142.

Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research policy, 32(2), 333-350.

Dear Tobias,

i have similar opinion with Julie. The dynamic capabilities view (DC) that i mentioned before was also authored by Teece. He is among the well-known author in this topic. i recommend you to look further into his works.

Thanks Julie! 

Dear Mohamad, Thank you, I am familiar with Teece. 

HI Tobias, I hope your research on appropriation regimes is going well. Colleagues above give good insights. Attached is a conference paper that I wrote with colleagues recently on the issue of appropriation regimes and the relationship with firm performance. It explores the conceptual foundations of appropriation regimes. Using a survey design we offer empirical evidence on which clusters of regime are associated with firm performance in service firm contexts.

An excellent review of the literature on appropriation regimes is:

JAMES, S., LEIBLEIN, M. & LU, L. 2013. How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of Management, 36(5): 1123-1155.  

Dear Peter, Many thanks for your comments. Both yours and James seems to be interesting and I will read them carefully. 

Tobias,

Appropriability may be managed through ambidextrous organisational modalities.  The attached typology could help.

In ambidextrous organisations, the explorative part of the firm (i.e. NPD, forward-looking, strategic) is distinguished from the exploitative (tactical / efficiency-oriented) arm of the firm. This may be internally organised or externally organized through joint venture arrangements.  A firm that is primarily explorative ie an R&D entity, may operationalise / commercialise its intellectual property assets internally, through a new tactical BU,  or through an external arrangement with an efficiency-driven firm.

In either case, that strategy of the firm that seeks out returns on its value innovations from uncontested spaces will yield the richest rewards. (Kim & Mauborgne 2005)

Silburn

Dear Silburn, Thank you for your input!

This is an interesting input to the view on strategy in the framework. Would you say that the appropriability regime influence the explorative and exploitative arm of the organization? 

Among Teece's works, another one that is an essential contribution to this debate is:

Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285-305.

Dear Xavier Martin,

Many thanks for your valuable input.