This chapter analyzes the literature on IP and innovation management in the period 1986– 2018. Its primary goal is to review the development of IP and innovation studies and provide a quick reference for researchers interested in technology and innovation management, strategy or entrepreneurship.

This article tests whether product and process innovations increase employment in three European countries—France, Germany, and The Netherlands—and in the People’s Republic of China on the basis of the same underlying theoretical framework and comparable harmonized micro data. The data pertain to the period 2002–2004 and cover the manufacturing and services industries in the three European countries, and to the period 1999–2006 and only the manufacturing industries in China. Process innovation does not play a significant role, whereas non-innovation-related efficiency improvements in the production of unchanged products tend to reduce employment. In contrast, product innovation stimulates employment, the compensation effect via increased demand dominating the displacement effect. The net effect of product innovation and the net growth in total employment are comparable in the two regions.

The book systematically investigates the management transformation of Huawei, unveiling the details of the transformation and presenting the spectacular history of the transformation.

As Peng, Ahlstrom, Carraher, and Shi (2017) rightly noted, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection in a country is not static. It evolves over time. Peng et al. (this issue) revealed through their historical analysis that during the 19th century, the US was not a leading IPR advocate but a leading IPR violator. It was only when indigenous inventors, authors, and organizations of the US emerged and demanded protection of their IPR in foreign countries in the late 19th century that the US passed the International Copyright Act (the Chace Act) in 1891 to extend IPR protection to foreign works. The US case illustrated that a country's IPR system as an institution evolves as its economy and society develop. If we examine this evolution over a relatively long time span, the change can be quite dramatic. Therefore, when reviewing a country's IPR system, an important question to be asked is in which direction the country's IPR system evolves.

We revisit the “paradox of openness” in the literature which consists of two conflicting views on the link between patenting and open innovation—the spillover prevention and the organizational openness views. We use the data from the Survey of Innovation and Patent Use and the Community Innovation Survey (CIS6) in the UK to assess the empirical support for the distinct predictions of these theories. We argue that both patenting and external sourcing (openness) are jointly-determined decisions made by firms. Their relationship is contingent upon whether the firms are technically superior to their rivals and lead in the market or not. Leading firms are more vulnerable to unintended knowledge spillovers during collaboration as compared to followers, and consequently, the increase in patenting due to openness is higher for leaders than for followers. We develop a simple framework that allows us to formally derive the empirical implications of this hypothesis and test it by estimating whether the reduced form relationship between patenting and collaboration is stronger for leaders than for followers.

We estimate the value of Chinese invention and utility model patents that were applied for during two periods, 1987-1989 and 1986-1998, respectively. We find that patents applied for by foreign entities invariably have higher value than do those applied for by domestic entities, and the gap is significant. The total value of invention and utility model patents in the 1987 cohort together represent about 4% of China's 1987 R&D budget.