Saideep Vollala

16 September 2016
5th Period
Source A
Citation: Jaffe, Adam B., and Josh Lerner. I nnovation and its discontents: How our broken
patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about

it. Princeton
University Press, 2011.
Source Verification: This is book that was written by Adam Jaffe, a reputable professor of
economics at Brandeis University and Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard University . Adams
specialization is innovation and how it drives economies.
How did you find this source: I found this book using Google Scholar and I then found a PDF
of the book online.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of patents and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
he whole premise of the book goes into
detail as to how the patent system functions as an entity in the greater economy of the country.
The book describes how the patent system, in recent years, has undergone many changes that
many times, hinder the progress of technological innovation. The first problem is how the patent
system is being used by certain corporations to harass their competitors and basically control
the technology for their own use. The second problem is that the patent system is being treated
as a toy by some people and many ridiculous patents have been applied for. The book goes into
how the patent system is being abused and discusses solutions.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
The growth in the shear magnitude of the patent phenomenon can be seen in figures
2.1 and 2.2. The weakening of examination standards and the increase in patent
applications has led to a dramatic increase in the number of patents granted in the U.S.
So suppose that your competitor has just gotten a patent that you think is bogus, but
which you are worried could be claimed to cover one of your products. You can ask for
re-examination, but if you do, your hands will be tied as to what evidence you can bring;
if you win the competitor can appeal, but if you lose you can't; and if you lose and end up
in litigation later, you will be barred from making any argument in the course of that
lawsuit that the judge decides you could have brought in the re-examination.

Saideep Vollala
16 September 2016
5th Period
Patents on inventions that are trivially obvious, such as the "Method for Swinging on a
Swing," "invented" by a five-year-old, and "User Operated Amusement Apparatus for
Kicking the User's Buttocks" ("invented" by a supposed grown-up);
Reflection:
This book had about 150 pages in it but the content in it was very dry and hence, it took
me a while to digest and comprehend the material that it contained. I estimate that it took
me around 3
hours to complete the book. It may seem like a lot of time, but there was a lot of
nomenclature that I wasnt sure and there were a good amount of graphs that I had to
analyze and comprehend.
Overall, this book built on top of what I learned from my other sources. However, the
difference between this source and the required research that I read was that this book
talked about solutions to fixing the patent system. Essentially, the book came down to a
few main points,about the increasing problems that are associated with the patent
system. The first one, also the most obvious one, is to increase patent quality. This
doesn't necessarily mean that bad patents dont approved, but that good inventors get
their documents on time. The second is that the entire system needs to be more budget
friendly. Currently, the system is not at all very cost-effective, with spending that goes
more than $1 billion dollars. Patent applicants spend hundreds and up to thousands
when dealing with attorneys. Clearly, the process needs to be more efficient and less
expensive.

Saideep Vollala
16 September 2016
5th Period

Source B
Citation: Save The Inventor. Inventing to Nowhere Documentary. Online video clip. YouTube.
Youtube, 16 December 2014. Web. 14 September 2016
Source Verification: This is a documentary that was published by an organization called Save
the American Inventor, whose purpose is to get Congress to follow through on reforms to the
patent system.
How did you find this source: I found this documentary on YouTube when I was searching for
patent related videos
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
he documentary describes an overview
of the patent system, it's history and how it has impacted the country as a whole. Specifically, it
goes over the problems of the patent system and talks about how many groups of people are
trying to influence Congress and create change. Just like many of the other sources that I have
evaluated, this documentary also discusses how the system is very inefficient and spends too
much money. It also talked about bureaucratic inefficiency and how the increase in the amount
of patent trolls is heavily decreasing the quality of patents.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
As in every industry, there are a small number of bad actors trying to abuse the patent
system, and we recognize that litigation abuse exists. But federal judiciary statistics
show patent litigation makes up just a tiny share of civil lawsuits in this country.
To certain companies all patent owners are threats, no matter how valuable their
patents might be. Some companies want to remove the barriers of patents in order to
reduce their overall costs and increase their corporate profits. This is particularly true in
the technology sector.
And a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study concluded in August 2013
that the vast majority of patent lawsuits are filed not by NPEs but by companies that
manufacture products derived from their patents. That same GAO study attributed
perceptions of a recent spike in patent lawsuits NOT to a new wave of lawsuits, but to
new rules that changed the way patent suits are filed and officially counted.
Reflection: This documentary was about an hour long and I had to pause a few times and
research about what they were saying because it can get pretty complex at certain times.

Saideep Vollala
16 September 2016
5th Period
Overall, this documentary only built on top of what I had learned from previous sources. It is that
the patent system is broken and change needs to occur. The documentary specifically stressed
the harmful effects of patent trolls in the economy and what needs to be done to solve the
issue. After watching this documentary, I actually became less interested in patent law. The
documentary however, did go heavily into innovation in general and the history of how America
has become the beacon of innovation in the world. This topic intrigued me more than than the
actual law portion of patents. The documentary discussed innovation in general and how in the
21st century, the number of technology related patents have skyrocketed.

Saideep Vollala
16 September 2016
5th Period

Source C
Citation: Merrill, Stephen A., Richard C. Levin, and Mark B. Myers, eds. A patent system for the 21st
century. National Academies Press, 2004.

Source Verification: This is a book published by the National Research Council in Washington,
DC.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: This book highlights the seven main
criterion to establishing a good patent system. Essentially, all of the criterion boil down to the
fact that the inventor should be rewarded for the inventions and there should be reciprocity so
that patent systems reduce costs. The book also discusses some recommendations to improve
the function of the patent system. Some of the recommendations include to preserve the
open-minded-ed ness and flexibility of the system, and reduce the number of redundancies and
inconsistencies in the national systems.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
The United States, Europe, and Japan should further harmonize patent examination
procedures and standards to reduce redundancy in search and examination and
eventually achieve mutual recognition of results.
Among the factors that increase the cost and decrease the predictability of patent
infringement litigation are issues unique to U.S. patent jurisprudence that depend on the
assessment of a partys state of mind at the time of the alleged infringement or the time
of patent application.
Although significant international progress has been made on standardizing the length
of patent terms, establishing common rules for the publication of patent applications, and
reconciling other national differences, important differences in standards and procedures
remain among the U.S., European, and Japanese patent systems, ensuring a
burdensome redundancy that imposes high costs on users and hampers market
integration.

Saideep Vollala
16 September 2016
5th Period
Reflection: This book is about 190 pages and took me 4 hours to read. Some parts were kind
of confusing, like the nomenclature and wording so I had to research that online and learn from
it.
Overall, this book dived heavily into the actual problems of the patent system and looked at
some solutions. One of the main points about this book was that it went into what a good patent
system should be able to do and it went over seven different criterion that define a good system.
Another thing that the book heavily discussed was to remove redundancies in the system and
increase efficiency. So, for example, the book suggested to prioritize inventions by which is
more important and to increase the grace period. Another thing that the book discussed was the
importance of maintaining a flexible, unitary, and open-minded patent system to foster
innovation. Lastly, the book talks about how important innovation is to our economy and
provides many charts and references that will be very helpful to me in the future in order to get
data to backup my claims.

Source D
Citation: Kline, Stephen J., and Nathan Rosenberg. "An overview of innovation." T
he positive
sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth

14 (1986): 640.
Source Verification: This is a chapter of a book that was written by Stephen Kline and Nathan
Rosenberg, who are engineers and economics professors, respectively.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of patents and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his chapter of a larger, overall book,
talked about commercial innovation. It described commercial innovation as having two set of
forces that interact with each other. One one side, there is the market forces that tell us factors
such as incomes, GDP, and economies of scale of large country and nations. There are also the
factor of technological progress, as each era of time brings new possibilities of technological
improvements in practically every sector of the economy. Both of these forces interact together
to produce innovation as we see today. Additionally, the source talked about how we measure
innovation. It mentioned how innovation does not a solid or binary definition but can be defined
and measured in many different ways.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
A principal point of this chapter is that the transformation process is one that,
inescapably, intertwines technological and economic considerations. Another is that the
processes and systems used are complex and variable; that there is no single correct
formula, but rather a complex of different ideas and solutions that are needed for
effective innovation. A third is that these complexities make innovation hard to measure
effectively
Another aspect of innovation that makes it hard to measure is the effects of a rapidly
expanding industry on its suppliers. A rapidly expanding industry nearly always
generates an increased demand on other industries that produce intermediate
components and materials for it.
Linear Model - research, research leads to development, development to production,
and production to marketing

Time Justification: This source took me one hour to read and was about 20 pages long, and it
contained difficult concepts that needed to be broken down and understood

Source E
Citation: Von Hippel, Eric. "Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user
innovation." Journal fr Betriebswirtschaft 55.1 (2005): 63-78.
Source Verification: This is a book published by Eric Von Hippel, a professor of management
at MIT Sloan School of Management and Entrepreneurship
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his book talked about user innovation
and the democratization of innovation in society. To broadly describe what the means, the
Raspberry Pi tool is a great example, where a company created a product where the users are
able to use the given platform and innovate and create new things using the software and
hardware. The democratization of innovation is different - it means that individuals in society are
taking the concept of innovation into their own hands, instead of relying on the traditional closed
system where people had to wait for manufacturers to patent and produce products. A great
example of this would the sport of windsurfing, which people themselves discovered the sport
through the modification of existing technologies and equipment. They did not have to wait for
the big corporations to create the sport.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
The user-centered innovation process just illustrated is in sharp contrast to the
traditional model, in which products and services are developed by manufacturers in a
closed way, the manufacturers using patents, copyrights, and other protections to
prevent imitators from free riding on their innovation investments.
The user and manufacturer categorization of relationships between innovator and
innovation can be extended to specific functions, attributes, or features of products and
services. When this is done, it may turn out that different parties are associated with
different attributes of a particular product or service.
Empirical studies show that many usersfrom 10 percent to nearly 40
percentengage in developing or modifying products. About half of these studies do not

determine representative innovation frequencies; they were designed for other purposes.
Nonetheless, when taken together, the findings make it very clear that users are doing a
lot of product modification and product development in many fields.
Time Justification: This source took me 4 hours to read and was about 300 pages long, and it
contained difficult concepts that needed to be broken down and understood
Source F
Citation: Chesbrough, Henry W. "The era of open innovation." M
anaging innovation and
change 127.3 (2006): 34-41.
Source Verification: This is a book published by various authors in MIT Sloan School of
Management
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his book talked about many different
facets of innovation, specifically in the business and technology fields. One of the main topics
that it discussed is the concept of open innovation. Where closed innovation, internal R&D
conducted by companies by their own engineers and staff, open innovation admits that not
every single smart person will work for their company and instead, branch outside of their own
company and tap into the expertise of other bright people. Open innovation also admits that a
company does not have to originate the research in order to profit from it and that building an
effective business model is at times, better than reaching market quickly. The book also talked
about funding all of these various types of innovations. There are two organization - innovation
investors and benefactors, that basically focus on supplying fuel for innovation to happen.
Examples of these organizations include venture capital firms, private equity investors, and
angles. Most of the topics that were discussed related to information technology and the
high-tech industries because that is where the most of the innovation is currently taking place.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
There are four types of organizations that primarily generate innovation: innovation
explorers, merchants, architects and missionaries.
Innovation marketers often perform at least some of the functions of the other types of
organization, but their defining attribute is their keen ability to profitably market ideas,
both their own as well as others.Innovation one-stop centers provide comprehensive

products and services. They take the best ideas (from whatever source) and deliver
those offerings to their customers at competitive prices.
At the other extreme, some industries have been open innovators for some time now.
Consider Hollywood, which for decades has innovated through a network of partnerships
and alliances between production studios, directors, talent agencies, actors,
scriptwriters, independent producers and specialized subcontractors (such as the
suppliers of special effects). The mobility of this workforce is legendary: Every waitress is
a budding actress; every parking attendant has a screenplay he is working on.
Time Justification: This source took me 3 hours to read and was about 100 pages long, and it
contained difficult concepts that needed to be broken down and understood

Reflection
This portion of my track work basically focused on innovation, while the previous
research that I did mostly focused on the basics of patents and some patent law. A lot of
what I read in Source D and E dealt with the common problem of defining innovation.
Each author and economist and engineer had their own method of communicating what
innovation is and what role in plays in our society and economy. The first source claimed
that innovation could be expressed in a series of different types of models, including the
linear model and the chain-linked model, both of which try to explain how innovation
comes to be and the various relationships between the different fields of research,
potential markets, R&D, and businesses. While the linear model says that there is one
straight flow( R&D, development, production, marketing), the chain-linked model says
that the relationship is more of an intertwined web of different elements that connect
together. The other portion of the my track work research was based on two types of
innovation: open innovation and user innovation. Open innovation is related more
towards businesses, in which instead of a company conducting R&D in their own realms,
with their own engineers and scientists, a company looks outwards for talent and
realizes that a better business model may be more effective than doing the actual
research. Whereas traditional companies seeked to improve and build upon their own
patents and intellectual property, companies employing open innovation try to buy or
consume the intellectual property of other corporations that have some kind of relevance
to their business. Closed innovation, which is the old standard for innovation, claims that
in order to create a profitable business, the best R&D work has to be done inside the
business itself and that it must accumulate as much intellectual property as it can.
Companies like General Motors, Ford, and certain pharmaceutical companies are great
examples of this sort of innovation where R&D work was done in complete secrecy and
patents were filed in order to secure their intellectual property. The other type of
innovation that my sources discussed was on user innovation. User innovation is the
process by which people innovate for themselves instead of relying on manufacturers to
create products and patent them and then buy them. User innovation has led to some
really cool products and fields. For example, the sport of windsurfing was invented by the
people using existing technologies and inventions. People took the surfboard and found
a new use for it which they then converted to a sport. This type of innovation is becoming
more and more common, where in years past, people had to rely on companies like Ford
to create the products they need, people have now taken the needs into their own
hands. User innovation relies on the premise that people do not have to rely on
companies to produce the products and services they consume. Overall, the research
that I did covering the various types of innovation allowed me to understand where
patents and intellectual property comes into place. Patents are only a subset of a

broader field of study that encompasses everything from intellectual property, innovation,
entrepreneurship and technology.

Source G
Citation: Lazzarotti, Valentina, and Raffaella Manzini. "
management

13.04 (2009): 615-636.

." International journal of innovation

Source Verification: This is an article published by the Imperial College Press in the reputable
International Journal of Innovation Management.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his article discusses open innovation in
more depth than any of the other sources that I had previously researched.
The article
first attempts to openness of innovation in a certain company through several factors such as
the number/type of partners with which the company collaborates, briefly labelled as partner
variety; and the number/type of phases of the innovation process that the company opens to
external contributions, briefly labelled as innovation funnel openness. The article also
discusses the theoretical framework behind the types of innovation and suggests that open and
closed innovation are more like a continuum rather than a rigid dichotomy. This is referenced in
a book published by Chesbrough, the founder and mastermind behind open innovation. An
empirical study is also done in the article that attempts to find out the degree of open innovation
of a company through various questionnaires and interviews. They found that mostly medium
sized and small sized companies have open innovators while mostly small companies have a lot
of closed innovators.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
It does not seem that the sector of activity and the companys size are main drivers in
determining the open innovation model adopted: for each of the four models, we cannot
identify a prevalent size or sector of activity. Thus, the degree of openness seems to be
determined mainly by the individual strategic choice of a company, although this finding
must be considered with caution due to the limited sample size.
Open innovators are characterised by a high tension towards technological leadership
and internationalisation of activities, even R&D; technology and innovation represent
critical success factors and require excellent and diversified competencies; R&D and
innovation activities have a very high level of risk, both technical and commercial and the
level of R&D spending is quite high (as a percentage of sales).

Two models open and closed innovators are most diffused among the companies
investigated, even if they probably represent extreme solutions with extreme
advantages and limits. The two intermediate models may offer several advantages
while reducing the disadvantages.
Time Justification: This source took me 3 hours to read and was about 100 pages long, and it
contained difficult concepts that needed to be broken down and understood

Source H

Citation: Huizingh, Eelko KRE. "Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives."
Technovation 31.1 (2011): 2-9.
Source Verification: This is an article published by the University of Groningen, Faculty of
Economics and Business
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his article discusses future prospects in
open innovation. While previous articles talked about current trends and history, this article
discusses what will happen in the future. First, the article defines the classification of openness
in open innovation. The article also suggests, like previous ones, that open innovation is less a
dichotomy but rather, a continuum with varying degrees of openness. The paper also discusses
the two types of open innovation, inbound and outbound. Inbound open innovation refers to
internal use of external knowledge, while outbound open innovation refers to external
exploitation of internal knowledge.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
Inbound open innovation refers to internal use of external knowledge, while outbound
open innovation refers to external exploitation of internal knowledge. This relates to the
three knowledge processes of knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation that
can be performed either inside or outside a firms boundaries
Other models focus on the stages in open innovation. Fetterhoff and Voelkel (2006)
propose a model including the following five stages: (1) seeking opportunities, (2)
evaluating their market potential and inventiveness, (3) recruiting potential development
partners, (4) capturing value through commercialization, and (5) extending the innovation
offering
Open innovation is usually contrasted with closed innovation, supposedly its
predecessor, where companies generate their own innovation ideas, and then develop,
build, market, distribute, service, finance, and support them on their own (Chesbrough,
2003a, p. 20)
Time Justification: This source took me 3 hours to read and was about 100 pages long, and it
contained difficult concepts that needed to be broken down and understood

Source I
Citation: Morrison, Pamela D., John H. Roberts, and Eric Von Hippel. "Determinants of user
innovation and innovation sharing in a local market." M
anagement science 46.12 (2000):
1513-1527.
Source Verification: This is an article published in the M
anagement Sciences publication,
which is very reputable
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his article takes a case study done in
Australia to elaborate on user-centered innovation and observe what it means to be a lead
user. The experiment revolved around OPACs, or Online Public Access Systems for libraries.
The United States of America is key user of these systems in their public libraries, but Australia
also uses them as well. The premise was that the experimenters could track the work of local
users and see who innovates. The local users made many OPAC modifications which made a
profound effect on the larger system. This just goes to show how impactful user innovation can
be.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
Approximately 26% (26 out of 102 usable responses) of our respondents in our local
OPAC market reported that they had modified their OPACs one or more times after initial
installation. The total number of modifications reported was 39, with 19 users reporting
making 1 modification each, 3 reporting 2, 3 reporting 3, and 1 reporting making 5
modifications.
The next set of variables hypothesized as likely to distinguish innovating from
noninnovating users all relate to possible barriers to innovation (or the converse, drivers
of innovation). The first of these was existing in-house technical capability to innovate. In
the instance of OPACs, we collect data on this variable by asking users in our sample
whether or not they have the in-house capability to: (1) do major reprogramming to their
OPAC; (2) create minor add-on programs.
Empirical research on the determinants of user innovation has to this point found two
variables to be associated with the frequency of innovation by users: User expectations
regarding the likelihood of appropriating attractive amounts of profit from developing a

given innovation (Mansfield 1968, von Hippel 1988); and the stickiness of local
information held by users and manufacturers that would be drawn upon to develop that
innovation
Time Justification: This source took me 3 hours to read and was about 100 pages long, and it
contained difficult concepts that needed to be broken down and understood

Reflection
For these track hours, I decided upon doing individual research. This part of my research took
the previous topics of user-centered innovation and open innovation and greatly expanded upon
it. The previous articles that I read did not really go into much depth of the stated topics of
innovation. The articles that I read for this portion of track work provided a lot of empirical data.
For example, for the article about user innovation, there was an experiment conducted through
OPACs, or online public access systems. OPACs are typically used in large database
softwares for governments. In this case, they are used for public library systems. The
experiment took surveys from a bunch of people and analyzed the modifications they made to
the OPAC. Another part of my research focused on open innovation. Open innovation is the
process by which companies begin to look outward for research talent, instead of relying on
their own research and development sectors. It was originally coined by a researcher by the
name of Chesbrough who worked at the University of California, Berkeley Haas Business
School. This type of innovation has become heavily popular in recent decades, specifically in
the software industry. Companies who employ open innovation tactics rely on a highly effective
business model rather than creating proprietary knowledge. Companies that use open
innovation also try to get as much intellectual property as they can without spending or using up
too many resources. The way they do this is through hosting competitions and incubators where
scientists, engineers and other people can receive grants and prize money and potentially join a
company if they do so desire. This way, companies like Samsung are able to extract as much
intellectual property as they can but not spend a lot of money. There are disadvantages to using
open innovation. For example, it can become increasingly difficult for a company to secure its
intellectual property when so many people have access to it. Additionally, there is an element of

regulation and control that needs to be addressed by the companies so that the innovation can
be controlled and sustained.

Source G
Citation: Chesbrough, Henry William. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, 2006.
Source Verification: This is a book published by Henry Chesbrough, the premier expert on
open innovation. He is the person who pioneered the name and started the entire trend.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his book is the premier source on open
innovation. It was written Chesbrough, who is the person who first termed the phenomenon. To
summarize the book, it is divided into multiple sections that attempt to compare closed
innovation, which is when a company uses it's own internal resources to help develop a product
or service. Open Innovation is when a company looks outward for talent. The book revolves
around multiple case studies of different companies, including IBM, which is the technology
company that holds more patents than any other, and Xerox, the company who pioneered the
computer mouse that we take for granted. The book also devotes an entire chapter to the
transition taken by IBM from closed innovation principles and open innovation principles. For
example, in 1954, IBM opened its first research center in collaboration with Columbia University
so that the two parties would be able to discuss and collaborate to accelerate the process of
innovation. Later, during WW2 and after, IBM was an integral part of the technological
revolution.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
A third indicator of this diffusion is reflected in U.S. government statistics of R&D by size
of enterprise within the United States. From 1981 through 1999, the share of industrial
R&D has increased greatly for companies with less than one thousand employees (table
3-2). Although large-company R&D remains an important source of R&D spending, its
share of overall industrial R&D spending has fallen to 41 percent.
Of the 153,492 patents issued by the USPTO in 1999, these top twenty companies
received 17,842 patents in that year, only 11.6 percent of all awarded patents. On a
related issue, the number of patents held by individuals and small firms has risen from
about 5 percent in 1970 to more than 20 percent in 1992.

The universities are full of professors with deep expertise. Better yet, these professors
are surrounded by graduate students, who apprentice themselves to these professors.
While the science that they do is excellent, many professors and their graduate students
are clearly eager to apply that science to business problems. The norms of science and
engineering have changed as well: There arent many Henry Rowlands in university
science departments anymore.
Time Justification: This book was about 300 pages but I had to take notes and look up terms
that I did not understand.

Reflection
For these track hours, I read a book that discussed open innovation in full depth. It was
written by the founder of the name and concept. The book revolved around 2 things: (1) a case
study of the IBM corporation as it transitioned its R&D efforts from closed innovation principles
to open innovation principles and discusses the results and aftermath (2) a comparison of the
business models of various companies, including Intel , that used open innovation principles to
secure it's intellectual property. IBM is a tech company that has more patents and intellectual
property than any other company in the world.
In particular, there was a graphic that caught my attention towards the end of the book. It
displayed the relationship between protected knowledge, protectable knowledge, and ideas and
knowledge, with protected knowledge in the center. The book discusses how, not too long ago,
patents and intellectual property became treated as revenue-generating assets that could
directly increase a companys market value. This specific frame of thinking mostly in the 1990s.
During this time and years after, companies began to take their IP that they never used and
started using it to generate profits. In addition, this trend resulted in the emergence of patent
trolls, legal entities and corporations whose sole purpose is to apply for as many patents as they
can and sue other companies for allegedly stealing their ideas. Since the 1999s, patent trolls
have become billion dollar groups with massive influence on the economy.
Through the years, the actual percentage of resources placed in R&D of companies with
more than 25 thousand employees has significantly decreased (it went from 70.7% in 1981 to
just 41.3% in 1999) which signals a major shift in the way that companies even look at the
research process. No longer are they investing all of their money into research in their own
company and just hoping that something useful comes to fruition.

After reading this book, Ive gotten a better understanding and grip on the subject of
innovation. Ive seen how my previous timed writings about patents and intellectual property tie
all together.

Source H
Citation: Chesbrough, Henry W., and Melissa M. Appleyard. "Open innovation and strategy."
California management review 50.1 (2007): 57-76.
Source Verification: This is an article published by Henry Chesbrough, the premier expert on
open innovation. He is the person who pioneered the name and started the entire trend.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his source further discusses open
innovation. One of the topics that it discusses is how open coordination can create technology
ecosystems. In laymans terms, this means that entire industries can undergo the decision to
open up a certain sector of their industry. For example, in the case of IBM, a computer
technology company, they open up their PC architecture, which led a whole bunch of clones of
different computers. That, also combined with Microsofts Windows OS and Intels processors,
created a set of standard and de facto in the PC industry. Another example of this is how the
ecosystem created by IBM, Microsoft, and Intel spurred the ecosystem of file-sharing internet
vendors, like Wikipedia, YouTube, and MySpace. The most important thing to take away from
this, however, is thinking about who are the actual people that are profiting from creating
ecosystems. In this case, it is the big tech companies.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:

By pooling intellect in a system architecture, open invention and open coordination can
produce superior products and services relative to those produced by a smaller number
of minds huddled together in a single company. The strategic issue becomes how to
capture and then sustain the created value without alienating the individuals,
communities, or ecosystem members responsible for the continued development of the
good, service, or standard
A critical element to coordinating the value created through open invention is some
underlying architecture that connects the different pieces of knowledge together. This
systems-level knowledge may reside in a single company (e.g., IBM in PCs), a collection
of firms (e.g., Intel and Microsoft in PCs), a consortium (e.g., SEMATECH in
semiconductor equipment), or a nonprofit body (e.g., the Linux Foundation).
Time Justification: This research paper was about 75 pages and took me 3 hours to read and
digest the content.

Source I
Citation: Gassmann, Oliver, Ellen Enkel, and Henry Chesbrough. "The future of open
innovation." R&d Management 40.3 (2010): 213-221.
Source Verification: This is a book published by Henry Chesbrough, the premier expert on
open innovation. He is the person who pioneered the name and started the entire trend.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his research paper is specifically
devoted to discussing the future of open innovation and the direction it has to go in. The source
is divided into multiple perspectives that attempt to explain the future of innovation in
companies from different perspectives. One of which is the cultural perspective, which says that
people will have to learn to value the competence and know-how of ideas outside of their own
company and Chesbrough predicts that companies will have a problem with this in the future.
Another example of the perspective is the structural perspective which basically says that
theres gonna be a much stronger trend towards R&D outsourcing. Using techniques of open
innovation, business can actually undergo cost reduction and increase specialization of their
products.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
Although this is valid, it will be complemented by an attractive secondary market in
which new players enter. A 2006 case made a difference: Research in Motion had to pay
US$612.5 million to the small firm NTP for violating a patent an email push function
used for the Blackberry. High turnovers attract new players, which trade and realize
profits from arbitrage
Enkel and Gassmann explore the phenomenon of cross-industry innovation. While most
studies on open innovation focus on traditional sources within the same value chain, like
customers, suppliers, competitors or cooperation partners, these authors study
innovation created by using sources outside the own industry.
there is as yet no holistic model of open innovation that includes the innovation
processes determinants and industry specifics, as well as the limits to opening it up. The
field of open innovation is still at an early stage

Time Justification: This research paper was about 50 pages and took me about 2 hours to
read because I had to take notes and look up terms that I did not understand.

Source J
Citation: Chesbrough, Henry. "Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers." L
ong
range planning 43.2 (2010): 354-363.
Source Verification: This is a research paper published by Henry Chesbrough, the premier
expert on open innovation. He is the person who pioneered the name and started the entire
trend.
How did you find this source: I found this on Google Scholar.
Intended Audience: Looking at the word choices of the publication, the most likely audience is
people who are already familiar with the topic of innovation and people of academia and
professors.
What arguments/topics does this source discuss?: T
his research paper talks about
business model innovations. Essentially, the source discusses how, even if one were to come
up with a unique and useful technology, only a solid business model would be able to showcase
the potential it can have. Specifically, the paper goes into a case study with Xerox, which is a
highly integral company that played a part in inventing the optical mouse that we use everyday
in our desktops and laptops. Xerox had discovered a unique technology with their optical mouse
but were unable to make any money off of it because of the fact that they had a very weak
business model. Then came Apple, as they were able to see the potential of the technology in
their computers. Apple used the technology that Xerox created to invent the mouse for the
computer and associated it with their Macs. This is just one example that the source discusses
that attempt to show how a business model is extremely important to a company.
Minimum 3 quotes, paraphrases, summaries of source text that seem likely to be helpful
in future writing:
3Coms business model did not emerge fully formed - in fact, it was the product of
extensive experimentation. This example shows how business model innovation is not a
matter of superior foresight ex ante e rather, it requires significant trial and error, and
quite a bit of adaptation ex post.
Xerox literally did not know what to do with these technologies, which became orphans
within the company. While the research was solid, and was publicized quite effectively,
the sales and marketing executives at Xerox could see no clear way to profit from them
Ethernet turned out to be far more valuable as an independent product and standard for
local area networking than as an internal Xerox component for copier wiring harnesses.
Instead of designing, manufacturing, and marketing entire computer systems (as Xerox

did) 3Com limited its business to designing add-in boards to provide networking
capabilities to IBM compatible personal computers and shared laser printers
Time Justification: This paper was about 100 pages and took me about 3 hours to read
because I had to take notes and look up terms that I did not understand.

Reflection
For the last set of track hours, I decided to continue my independent research. All three
of the sources that I collected were research papers written by Henry Chesbrough, the most
prominent figure that researches innovation. He is a professor that works at the University of
California, Berkeley and has devoted much time and devotion in his research of open
innovation. The first source that I read was really about how open innovation can contribute to
ecosystems of knowledge and technology. Specifically in the case of technology, the source
looked into how open coordination works. Essentially, an entire industry decides to open up
and enable users to innovate and create. For example, MySpace and Wikipedia were
brainchildren of open coordination in which people from across the industry coordinated
together to bring information to the public. My second source talked about the future of open
innovation. Since it was written by Chesbrough, he was able to give the best analysis into the
future. Chesbrough essentially divided his paper into several different perspectives in which he
explains the possible problems and opportunities in open innovation. One of his perspectives
is of the "cultural perspective and in this perspective, Chesbrough claims that employees in
companies will have to acknowledge and recognize that talent and knowledge can come from
outside their own company. They will have to learn to value the competence and know-how of
people. Chesbrough also predicts from a structural perspective which basically says that
theres gonna be a lot more emphasis towards the outsourcing of R&D. The third source is a
research paper that discusses how business models can sometimes be as if not more than,
effective than creating a proprietary technology. The paper revolves around a case study of
Xerox in which they developed the optical mouse but did not create a viable business model to
surround it and take advantage of the technology. Along came Apple and successfully paired it
with their Macintosh computers and revolutionized the PC industry. After completing my last set

of track work, I feel that I am more confident with my knowledge on innovation and intellectual
property. The sources that I read and analyzed this time around reaffirmed my knowledge. For
my final research paper, I think these sources will be particularly effective when I am talking
about the case studies and examples in the second section.