网上技术市场类型差异下的行业选择特征

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 网上技术市场对于构建互联互通的全国技术交易网络具有重要意义。从知识特征引起的知识转移障碍视角，研究我国政府和社会资本支持建立的网上技术市场的技术来源行业特征。结合专利交易类型和网上技术市场运营企业特点，提出了行业知识转移障碍与网上技术市场类型选择的理论假设。通过筛选典型的网上技术市场，获取国民经济73个行业大类的挂牌交易专利和影响因素变量，并进行负二项回归分析。研究结果表明，不同类型网上技术市场的技术来源存在差异，知识转移障碍显著影响行业组织对网上技术市场的类型偏好。社会资本支持建立的网上市场更吸引知识模糊性较高的行业，而政府支持建立的网上市场更吸引知识专属性较高的行业。研究结论对我国技术转移服务体系建设具有实践意义。

关键词: 产业结构关联, 专利密集度, 专利运营, 知识产权交易, 技术转移

Abstract: The online technology marketplaces is of great significance for the construction of an interconnected national technology trading network. From the perspective of knowledge transfer barriers caused by knowledge characteristics, it studied the industries characteristics of technology source of online technology marketplaces supported by Chinese government and social capital in this paper. It focused on the industry level factors related to technology marketplace and knowledge transfer, and studied how the above factors affect the possibility of industrial inventions entering different types of online marketplace. It attempted to prove that different types of online marketplaces have different preferences for industry selection, so as to make up the research gap of the attraction of online technology marketplace types to technology traders.
Based on the analysis framework of Dushnitsky and Klueter, it selected representative online platform enterprises according to certain principles, classified and counted their listed patents, and analyzed the influence of industry characteristic factors on the number of listed patents. Based on the types of patent transactions and the characteristics of online platform enterprises, it put forward the theoretical hypotheses of the barriers of knowledge transfer and the choice of online technology marketplace types. Two hypotheses were as follows: in the online technology marketplace of private enterprises, the industry knowledge fuzziness was obvious, which show that the industry knowledge fuzziness was positively related to the number of listed patents in the industry; in the online technology marketplace of state-owned enterprises, the industry knowledge was obvious, which show that the industry knowledge specificity was positively related to the number of listed patents in the industry.
In the process of screening a typical online technology marketplaces, the first step was to use Baidu search engine, to conduct a combined search according to three groups of key search terms, to obtain a preliminary online marketplaces list and news reports of relevant marketplaces, and then preliminarily screen out some marketplaces that have not attracted media attention. The second step, according to the online marketplace activity and the requirements of the bilateral marketplace, was to exclude the platforms that have less listing and only serve the single type of institutions such as universities and governments. The third step, according to the classification requirements of the online marketplace for patents, it excluded the marketplaces that do not provide technology classification search, simple and broad classification standards, and/or search functions cannot be used. The fourth step, according to the operation status of the online marketplace, it excluded the stopped operation and newly established platforms. Finally, the determined online technology marketplace included two state-owned enterprise platforms and two private enterprise platforms. The steps to determine the industry classification were as follows: first, based on the national economic industry classification standard issued by the National Bureau of statistics of China, 96 categories of the industry were selected. The second step was to classify all the listed patents into the national economy industry category based on industry categories of the above four online technology marketplaces. In this study, the number of patents listed in the online marketplaces of different industries was the dependent variable; in terms of the selection of independent variables, the industrial linkage degree was taken as the proxy variable of industry knowledge fuzziness, and the industrial invention patent intensity was taken as the proxy variable of industry knowledge specificity. The negative binomial regression model was used for estimation, and the analysis software was stata14.1.
In the regression model of the number of patents listed in the online marketplace of private enterprise, although the regression coefficient of industry patent density is positive, the correlation is no longer significant, but the industrial linkage degree still maintains high significance, and the significance level of influence coefficient and sensitivity coefficient are 5% and 1%, respectively. In view of the operation flexibility and service diversification of private enterprise platform, it is more attractive for industries with high knowledge fuzziness to participate in its marketplace. In the regression model of the number of patents listed in the online marketplace of state-owned enterprises, the coefficient of industry patent intensity is positive and significant at the level of 5%; while the influence coefficient of industrial linkage degree becomes not significant, and the significance level of sensitivity coefficient also drops. It shows that in view of the marketplace stability, standardization and other characteristics of the online marketplace of state-owned enterprises, more industries with high requirements for knowledge specificity will be attracted to participate in its marketplace. The above results verify the two theoretical hypotheses. The results show that different types of online technology marketplace have different technology sources, and the barriers of knowledge transfer significantly affect the type preference of industry organizations to online technology marketplaces. The online marketplaces established with the support of social capital is better at reducing the knowledge fuzziness of the industry, while the online marketplace established with the support of the government is more attractive to industries with higher knowledge specificity. The theoretical significance of this study is as follows: firstly, from the perspective of knowledge transfer, it is proved that the technology sources of China′s online technology trading platforms have the characteristics of industry selection; secondly, under the national conditions of China, the online technology marketplace dominated by government and social capital has been formed, and the research proves that there are different industry selection preferences in the two different types of online marketplaces. This study appropriately responds to the call of theoretical research, and can increase the understanding of current technology trading platform enterprises in China. In China′s online technology marketplaces, especially in the initial stage of online technology transaction display and online contact between potential buyers and sellers, different types of platform enterprises play important and different roles. Significant differences in operation mode, personnel structure and service content of platform enterprises will lead to differences in platform technology sources, which also reflects the preferences of different technology owners for platform enterprises.

Key words: industrial linkage, patent intensity, patent operation, intellectual property transaction, technology transfer

朱雪忠, 胡锴. 网上技术市场类型差异下的行业选择特征[J]. 科研管理, 2021, 42(1): 146-155.

Zhu Xuezhong, Hu Kai. Industry selection characteristics under different types of online technology marketplace[J]. Science Research Management, 2021, 42(1): 146-155.

参考文献

[1] Arora A, Gambardella A. Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2010, 19(3):775-803.

[2] Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A. Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2000, 10(2):419-451.

[3] 谢阳群, 魏建良. 国外网上技术市场运行模式研究[J]. 商业研究, 2007, 3(2):1-6.

Xie Yangqun, Wei Jianliang. Foreign modes of online technology transfer center[J]. Commercial Research, 2007, 3(2):1-6.

[4] Dushnitsky G, Klueter T. Is there an ebay for ideas? Insights from online knowledge marketplaces[J]. European Management Review, 2011, 8(1):17-32.

[5] Agrawal A, Cockburn I, Zhang L. Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(7):976-986.

[6] Graff G, Zilberman D. Towards an intellectual property clearinghouse for agricultural biotechnology. In: Agricultural biodiversity and biotechnology in economic development[M] Edited by Cooper J, Lipper L M, Zilberman D. Boston: Springer,2005,387-404.

[7] 方厚政, 刘鹏. 专利拍卖成交率影响因素的实证研究——以中国技术交易所为例[J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(12):1835-1840.

Fang Houzheng, Liu Peng. An empirical study on sale rates of patent auctions: The case of China technology exchange[J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2013, 31(12):1835-1840.

[8] Fosfuri A. The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 27(12): 1141-1158.

[9] Nishimura J, Okada Y. R&D portfolios and pharmaceutical licensing[J]. Research Policy, 2014, 43(7): 1250-1263.

[10] Zahra S A, Keil T, Maula M. New ventures' inward licensing: Examining the effects of industry and strategy characteristics[J]. European Management Review, 2005, 2(3):154-166.

[11] Hagiu A, Yoffie D B. The new patent intermediaries: Platforms, defensive aggregators, and super-aggregators[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2013, 27(1):45-65.

[12] Dushnitsky G, Klueter T. Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology?[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(3):651-666.

[13] Dushnitsky G, Klueter T. Linking technologies to applications-insights from online markets for technology[J]. Resource Redeployment and Corporate Strategy, 2016,35:285-317.

[14] Gans J S, Stern S. Is there a market for ideas?[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2010, 19(3):805-837.

[15] Garicano L, Kaplan S N. The effects of business-to-business e-commerce on transaction costs[J]. Journal of Industrial Economics, 2001, 49(4):463-485.

[16] Bresman H, Birkinshaw J, Nobel R. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1999, 30(3):439-463.

[17] 周贵川, 张澜, 王涛. 公私合作技术创新网络中相互信任对知识转移的作用机理研究[J]. 管理世界, 2018, 34(5):176-177.

Zhou Guichuan, Zhang Lan, Wang Tao. Research on the Mechanism of Mutual Trust on Knowledge Transfer in Public-Private Cooperative Technological Innovation Networks[J]. Management World, 2018, 34(5):176-177.

[18] 向阳, 曹勇. 企业创新网络知识治理与知识转移:基于战略性新兴产业的实证研究[J]. 管理评论, 2015, 27(9):48-58.

Xiang Yang, Cao Yong. Knowledge governance and knowledge transfer among firm innovation networks: An empirical study from chinese strategic emerging industries[J]. Management Review, 2015, 27(9):48-58.

[19] 丁秀好, 黄瑞华. 合作创新中媒介丰度对知识模糊性和知识转移绩效关系的调节作用研究[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2008, 20(5):9-13.

Ding Xiuhao, Huang Ruihua. Moderating Effect of Media Richness on Relationship Between Knowledge Ambiguity and Knowledge Transfer Performance in R＆D Collaboration[J]. R & D Management, 2008, 20(5):9-13.

[20] Simonin B L. An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2004, 35(5):407-427.

[21] Klevorick A K, Levin R C, Nelson R R, et al. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities[J]. Research Policy, 1995, 24(2):185-205.

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

[23] Gregoire D A, Shepherd D A. Technology-market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(4):753-785.

[24] Danneels E. The process of technological competence leveraging[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28(5):511-533.

[25] Giarratana M S, Mariani M. The relationship between knowledge sourcing and fear of imitation[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2014, 35(8):1144-1163.

[26] Anton J J, Yao D A. markets for partially-contractible knowledge: Bootstrapping versus bundling[J]. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2011, 3(2):745-754.

[27] 余长林. 知识产权保护与中国出口比较优势[J]. 管理世界, 2016, 32(6):51-66.

Yu Changlin. Intellectual property protection and the comparative advantage of China’s export[J]. Management World, 2016, 32(6):51-66.

[28] 余典范, 干春晖, 郑若谷. 中国产业结构的关联特征分析——基于投入产出结构分解技术的实证研究[J]. 中国工业经济, 2011, 1(11):5-15.

Yu Dianfan, Gan Chunhui, Zheng Ruogu. Industrial linkages in China——An empirical research based on structural decomposition technique of input-output model[J]. China Industrial Economics, 2011, 1(11):5-15.

[29] 王岳平, 葛岳静. 我国产业结构的投入产出关联特征分析[J]. 管理世界, 2007,1(2):61-68.

Wang Yueping, Ge Yuejing. Analysis of the input-output linkage characteristics of China's industrial structure[J]. Management World, 2007,1(2):61-68.

[30] 姜南. 专利密集型产业创新效率体系评估研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2014, 32(7):1003-1011.

Jiang Nan. Performance evaluation of innovation efficiency system of patent － intensive industries[J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2014, 32(7):1003-1011.