進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-0506201816091300
論文名稱(中文) 企業在弱專有性機制下的知識管理:以通信產業的標準化為例
論文名稱(英文) The Knowledge Management in A Weak Regime of Appropriability: The Case Study of Telecommunication Standardization
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 106
學期 2
出版年 107
研究生(中文) 林奕廷
研究生(英文) Yi-Ting Lin
電子信箱 sandiago2452@gmail.com
學號 R46051117
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 47頁
口試委員 指導教授-許經明
口試委員-張元杰
口試委員-林清河
中文關鍵字 專有性機制  標準必要專利  排他性專利  通信產業  國際標準化 
英文關鍵字 appropriability  SEPs (Standard Essential Patents)  proprietary patents  telecommunication industry  international standardization 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在許多ICT(Information Communication Technologies)產業中,產品技術是遵照國際標準化所訂定的技術規格來持續開發與演進。但在國際標準化的制度環境下,企業必須要公開自己的知識與其它企業進行合作來共同創造產品的技術標準。另外一方面,企業也要為了能在產品市場上與其它企業競爭,必須強化保護自己在產品技術上的知識產權(intellectual property rights)。換句話說,企業在技術開發的過程必須考慮到如何有效基於技術標準化環境與產品市場競爭環境下的不同專有性機制(appropriability regime)來進行知識產權的管理。然而,過去文獻僅限於探討單一專有性機制隨著產業生命週期的演進而變化,對於不同專有性機制間的知識產權並沒有進一步的探討。故本研究主要釐清在通訊產業中,企業能夠如何活用國際標準化環境下弱專有性機制(weak appropriability regime)的知識產權,進一步創造出在產品市場環境下強專有性機制(tight appropriability regime)的知識產權。本研究藉由分析企業的專利引用關係發現到1) 企業在弱專有性機制環境下公開的技術知識越多,其越容易被其他企業利用於建立在強專有性機制下的知識產權; 2) 企業活用在弱專有性機制環境下公開的自己或別人的技術知識,來建立在強專有性機制下的知識產權。綜合1)與2)的研究發現,本研究主張企業既然無法防止弱專有性機制環境下公開知識所造成外溢的負面效果,就必須要更為有效地創造出在強專有性機制下的知識產權。
英文摘要 In many ICT (Information Communication Technologies) industries, firms develop innovative product technologies according to the technologies specifications under international standardization. However, under international standardization, firms are required to disclose their knowledge in order to collaborate with another firms to co-create product’s technological standards. On the other hand, in order to compete with other firms on the product market, firms have to increase and protect their intellectual property rights in product technologies. In other words, firms have to consider ways to manage their intellectual property rights in the different regimes of appropriability of standardized technologies and product market in the process of technology development. However, previous studies only discussed about the changes of a single regime of appropriability along with the evolution of the industry life cycle. Intellectual property rights in different regimes of appropriability weren't explored. Therefore, this study uses international standardization of telecommunication industry as the analysis objective, which is aimed to explain how firms use intellectual property rights in the weak regime of appropriability under international standardization to create intellectual property rights that are in the tight regime of appropriability in the product market. By analyzing the backward citations of firms’ proprietary patents citing from SEPs, we found that 1) the greater the quantity of technology knowledge in the weak regime of appropriability that firms have declared, the easier it is for other firms to assimilate and build up intellectual property rights under the tight regime of appropriability, 2) firms assimilate their or others’ intellectual property right which have been declared in the weak regime of appropriability to build up the intellectual property rights in the tight regime of appropriability. According to 1) and 2), this study argues that firms have to build up intellectual property rights in the tight regime of appropriability since firms can’t prevent knowledge spillover in the weak regime of appropriability.
論文目次 摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGE IV
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
III. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK 11
IV. DATA AND MEHODOLOGY 14
V. ANALYSIS RESULTS 19
VI. DISCUSSION 27
VII. CONCLUSION 33
REFERENCE 35
參考文獻 Alcacer, J., & Oxley, J. (2014). Learning by supplying. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 204-223.
Ambrosio, Johanna, ”POSIX is propelled by AT & T’s Unix restrictions,”Government Com- puter News, March 13, 1987, 65.
Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7), 1352-1361.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609-626). Princeton University Press.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). MIT press.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, markets and innovation, 19-44.
Baldwin, C., Woodard, J., & Gawer, A. (2009). Platforms, markets and innovation. The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View, 19-44.
Bar, T., & Leiponen, A. (2008). Collaboration and networking in cooperative standard setting. In 25th DRUID Celebration Conference, Copenhagen June (pp. 17-20).
Bekkers, R. (2001). Mobile Telecommunications Standards: Gsm, Umts, Tetra, and Ermes. Artech House.
Bekkers, R. N. A., & West, J. (2006). The effect of strategic patenting on cumulative innovation in UMTS standardization.
Bekkers, R., & Liotard, I. (1999). European standards for mobile communications: The tense relationship between standards and intellectual property rights. European Intellectual Property Review, 3, 110-126.
Bekkers, R., & West, J. (2009). The limits to IPR standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in UMTS. Telecommunications Policy, 33(1), 80-97.
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., Verspagen, B., & Smits, J. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standardization: the case of GSM. Telecommunications policy, 26(3), 171-188.
Berger, F., Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2012). Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards. Research Policy, 41(1), 216-225.
Besen, S. M., & Farrell, J. (1994). Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 117-131.
Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2004). Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy, 33(10), 1583-1598.
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849-1872.
Boudreau, K., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform rules: Regulation of an ecosystem by a private actor. Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar.
Bradner, Scott, ”The Internet Engineering Task Force,”in Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly, 1999, pp. 47- 52.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68-82.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business Press
Chesbrough, H., and M. Bogers. 2014. “Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation.” In New Frontiers in Open Innovation, edited by H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2014). New frontiers in open innovation. Oup Oxford.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not) (No. w7552). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Coombs, R., Harvey, M., & Tether, B. S. (2003). Analysing distributed processes of provision and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(6), 1125-1155.
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 1. Economics of innovation and new technology, 1(1-2), 3-41.
Davis, S. J., & Murphy, K. M. (2000). A competitive perspective on internet explorer. The American Economic Review, 90(2), 184-187.
Dosi, G., Marengo, L., & Pasquali, C. (2006). How much should society fuel the greed of innovators?: On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), 1110-1121.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
Economides, N. (1989). Desirability of compatibility in the absence of network externalities. The American Economic Review, 1165-1181.
Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2008). Opening platforms: how, when and why?.
Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Eaton, B., Herzhoff, J., & Sorensen, C. (2011). Mobile platforms as convergent systems–analysing control points and tussles with emergent socio-technical discourses (pp. 97-112). InTech—Open Access Company.
Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Herzhoff, J., Sørensen, C., & Eaton, B. D. (2011, October). Mobile digital infrastructure innovation towards a tussle and control framework. In ECIS (p. 147).
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233-242.
European Commission (2014), Patents and Standards: A Modern Framework for IPR-based Standardization, European Union.
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 70-83.
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1992). Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces. The journal of industrial economics, 9-35.
Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Dynamic competition with switching costs. The RAND Journal of Economics, 123-137.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8‐9), 909-928.
Funk, J. L. (2001). Global competition between and within standards: the case of mobile phones. Springer
Funk, J. L. (2002). Committee-and Market-Based Competition in the Mobile Infrastructure Market. In Global Competition Between and Within Standards (pp. 93-144). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Funk, J. L. (2009). The co-evolution of technology and methods of standard setting: the case of the mobile phone industry. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(1), 73.
Gabel, H. L. (1987). Open standards in the European computer industry: the case of X/OPEN. Product Standardization and Competitive Strategy. Elsevier Science, New York, 91-123.
Garrard, G. A. (1998). Cellular communications: Worldwide market development. Artech House on Demand.
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.
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196-214..
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation (pp. 29-30). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goodman, D. J., & Myers, R. A. (2005, June). 3G cellular standards and patents. In Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing, 2005 International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 415-420). IEEE.
Granstrand, O. (1999). The economics and management of intellectual property. Books.
Grindley, Peter, Standards, strategy, and policy: cases and stories, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hall, B. H., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2013). The importance (or not) of patents to UK firms. Oxford Economic Papers, 65(3), 603-629.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of economics, 16-38.
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective Action Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative science quarterly, 716-749.
He, Z. L., Lim, K., & Wong, P. K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35(8), 1147-1165.
Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953-969.
Henningsson, S., Hedman, J., & Andersson, B. (2013, June). Shaping Information Infrastructure Evolution: Governmental Claims of Architectural Control Points. In ECEG2013-13th European Conference on eGovernment: ECEG 2013 (p. 240). Academic Conferences Limited.
Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825-838.
Hippel, E. (1988). VON (1988) The Sources of Innovation. New York.
Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., & Wu, D. J. (2013). Appropriability mechanisms and the platform partnership decision: Evidence from enterprise software. Management Science, 59(1), 102-121.
Hung, K. P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33(10), 368-380.
Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, P., & Puumalainen, K. (2007). Nature and dynamics of appropriability: strategies for appropriating returns on innovation. R&d Management, 37(2), 95-112.
Imai, K., & Shiu, J. M. (2011). Value chain creation and reorganization: the growth path of China’s mobile phone handset industry. In The Dynamics of Local Learning in Global Value Chains (pp. 43-67). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
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.
Jafie, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: Evidence from a Survey of Inventors. NBER/Sloan, 21.
Joglekar, N. (2005, July). A Behavioral View of Core-Periphery Dynamics in Social Networks. In Conference Proceedings, The 23 rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society.
Kang, B., & Motohashi, K. (2015). Essential intellectual property rights and inventors’ involvement in standardization. Research Policy, 44(2), 483-492.
Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: past ideas in their prime?. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 995-1010.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The 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.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. The journal of economic perspectives, 8(2), 93-115.
Kim, C., Song, J., & Nerkar, A. (2012). Learning and innovation: Exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1189-1194.
Langlois, R. N. (2006). The secret life of mundane transaction costs. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1389-1410.
Laursen, K. (2012). Keep searching and you’ll find: what do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1181-1220.
Laursen, K. (2014). Organizing Innovation I: Internal Organization.
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.
Levin, N., Leonelli, S., Weckowska, D., Castle, D., & Dupré, J. (2016). How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice. Bulletin of science, technology & society, 36(2), 128-141.
Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3), 783-831.
Lohr, S. (2010). In a partnership of unequals, a start-up suffers. The New York Times.
Malkin, Gary, ”The Tao of IETF: A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force,” RFC 1539, Information Sciences Institute, Los Angeles, August 1993.
Martin, D. L. & Meyer, D. C. (2006). Patent counting, a misleading index of patent value: A critique of Goodman & Myers and its uses, SSRN working paper, 16-25.
Matutes, C., & Regibeau, P. (1988). " Mix and match": product compatibility without network externalities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 221-234.
Miozzo, M., Desyllas, P., Lee, H. F., & Miles, I. (2016). Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy, 45(7), 1337-1351.
Morris, C. R., & Ferguson, C. H. (1993). How architecture wins technology wars. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 86-96.
Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & leadership, 25(6), 28-33.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard Univers Press.
Olson, M. (1965). Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard economic studies. v. 124). Harvard University Press.
Penin, J. (2005). Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look. Research Policy, 34(5), 641-656.
Rein, L. (1997). Microsoft pushes Java aside. Wired JVeivs (www. wired. com/news/news/technology/story/7324. html).
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.
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic management journal, 369-386.
Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 267-284.
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.
Schmoch, U., & Schnöring, T. (1994). Technological strategies of telecommunications equipment manufacturers: A patent analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 18(5), 397-413.
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 387-394.
Shintaku, J., Ogawa, K., & Yoshimoto, T. (2006). Architecture-based approaches to international standardization and evolution of business models. 東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター, ディスカッションペーパ MMRC-96.
Shiu, J. M., & Yasumoto, M. (2015). Investigating firms’ knowledge management in the standardization: The analysis of technology specification: declared essential patent networks on telecommunication industry (Vol. 465). MMRC Discussion Paper Series.
Shiu, J. M., & Yasumoto, M. (2017). Investigating Knowledge Spillovers under Standardization: The Examination of the Patent-Citation Networks in the Mobile Telecommunication Industry. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 18(2), 81.
Simcoe, T. S., Graham, S. J., & Feldman, M. P. (2009). Competing on standards? Entrepreneurship, intellectual property, and platform technologies. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(3), 775-816.
Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756-770.
Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. (2003). Learning–by–Hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer?. Management science, 49(4), 351-365.
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 45(1), 81-112.
Stefan, I. (2017). Exploring Tensions between Appropriability and Openness to Collaboration in Innovation (Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 21-38.
Sun Microsystems. (1999). Java: The first 800 days (java.sun.com/events/jibe/timeline.html): Accessed April 16.
Taft, Darryl K., ”NBS workshop aims to ensure Posix portability,”Government Computer News, Nov. 20, 1987, 71.
Tatsumoto, H., Ogawa, K., & Fujimoto, T. (2009). Platforms and the international division of labor: A case study on Intel’s platform business in the PC industry (pp. 345-369). Platform, Markets and Innovation. London, UK: Edward Elgar.
Tee, R., & Woodard, C. J. (2013). Architectural control and value migration in layered ecosystems: The case of open-source cloud management platforms.
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.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary—Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748-759.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675-687.
Tushman, M. & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.
Tushman, M. & Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technological change: Toward a sociology of technological evolution, In Cummings, L and Staw B. (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 311-347, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
TUSHMAN, M. L., & MURMANN, J. P. (1998, August). Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organization Outcomes. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1998, No. 1, pp. A1-A33). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639-656.
Vanhaverbeke, W., Gilsing, V., Beerkens, B., & Duysters, G. (2009). The Role of Alliance Network Redundancy in the Creation of Core and Non‐core Technologies. Journal of management studies, 46(2), 215-244.
Veer, T., Lorenz, A., & Blind, K. (2016). How open is too open? The mitigating role of appropriation mechanisms in R&D cooperation settings. R&D Management, 46(S3), 1113-1128.
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. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT press.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215.
Weng, C., & Daim, T. U. (2012). Structural differentiation and its implications—Core/periphery structure of the technological network. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 327-342.
West, J. (2003). How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259-1285.
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.
West, J., & Dedrick, J. (2001). Open source standardization: the rise of Linux in the network era. Philosophy & Technology, 14(2), 88.
West, J., & Wood, D. (2014). Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbian platform. In Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems (pp. 27-67). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2018-06-25起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2018-06-25起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw