The interplay between standardization and technological change: A study on wireless technologies, technological trajectories, and essential patent claims
The interplay between standardization and technological change: A study on wireless technologies, technological trajectories, and essential patent claims
复制标题
标准化与技术变革之间的相互作用：无线技术、技术轨迹和必要专利权利要求的研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Arianna Martinelli
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rna Rudi Bekkers;Arianna Martinelli
在许多技术领域，标准化是实现参与者之间一致性的主要方法。特别是如果存在强大的网络效应和收益递增，市场往往最终会有一个单一的标准，在至少一个完整的技术世代中主导技术方向、活动和搜索引擎。虽然文献已经相当广泛地讨论了这样的决策过程，相对较少的注意力已经支付的方式，标准的影响，并受到影响的技术变革。本文以技术制度和轨迹（Dosi，1982）的概念以及（Hummon & Doreian，1989）提出的实证研究此类轨迹的方法为基础，旨在研究标准化与技术变革之间的相互作用。我们的结论是，经验得出的技术轨迹非常匹配的标准化活动和主要的技术挑战来自工程文献。此外，我们还观察到，Hummon & Doreian方法确实可以揭示技术不连续性。据我们所知，在使用这种技术的早期研究中，情况并非如此，并驳斥了这种方法对渐进的、连续的技术路径有（太）强烈偏见的担忧。最后，我们将最重要的技术轨迹中的专利集与标准机构的所谓基本专利权利要求集进行比较，并得出结论，没有显著的关系。这证实了先前的论点，即必要专利不一定是技术意义上的“重要”专利。
In many technology fields, standardization is the primary method of achieving alignment between actors. Especially if strong network effects and increasing returns are present, the market often ends up with a single standard that dominates the technical direction, activities and search heuristics, for at least one full technology generation. Although literature has addressed such decision processes quite extensively, relatively little attention has been paid to the way in which standards affect - and are affected by - technological change. Building upon the concepts of technological regimes and trajectories (Dosi, 1982), and on the methodology proposed by (Hummon & Doreian, 1989) to empirically investigate such trajectories, this papers aims to study the interplay between standardisation and technological change. We conclude that the empirically derived technological trajectories very well match the standardisation activities and the main technological challenges derived from the engineering literature. Moreover, we also observe that the Hummon & Doreian methodology can indeed reveal technological discontinuities. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been the case in earlier studies using this technology, and refutes concerns that this methodology has a (too) strong bias towards incremental, continuous technological paths. Finally, we compare the set of patents in the most important technological trajectories to the set of so-called essential patent claims at standards bodies, and conclude that there is no significant relationship. This confirms earlier arguments that essential patents are not necessarily ‘important’ patents in a technical sense.