FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

A Real-time Evaluation of Intellectual Capital, Intellectual

Property and Intellectual Property Rights in Early-stage
On-line Enterprises

Geoff Gregson; Richard Harrison

Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, the University of Edinburgh Management School

Abstract
This paper examines how entrepreneurs create, develop and exploit their knowledge assets, in
particular, their intellectual capital (IC), intellectual property (IP) and intellectual property
rights (IPRs), in the knowledge economy. While the importance of knowledge assets for
competitive advantage is acknowledged, few studies have examined the development and
exploitation of knowledge assets in early-stage enterprises, given knowledge asset
characteristics, knowledge management mechanisms to identify and protect relevant assets
and internal and external factors. The research examines 16 early-stage enterprises (less than
5 years) active in the digital economy over a two-year period and measures knowledge,
business and external processes and consequences as they evolve, rather than as independent
indicators measured at one point in time. The integrated analysis of each case includes four
components; 1) creation, development and management of IC, IP and IPR; 2) outcomes - the
valuation, utilisation and adaptation of IC, IP and IPR; 3) micro-factors affecting outcomes,
that include enterprise strategy, business performance and complementary knowledge assets;
and 4) macro-factors affecting outcomes, that include assessment of relevant legal, business
and regulatory factors influencing IC, IP and IPR.

Introduction
The move towards a knowledge economy has been well documented in both academic and
practitioner literature and has become a facet of current management orthodoxy (OECD,
2001). Extensive research in a variety of academic disciplines has focused on different aspects
of production, appropriation, and transfer of knowledge. While some researchers have
concentrated on the learning process (Levinthal & March, 1993), others have emphasized the
creation of knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and the transfer and replication of
knowledge (Zander & Kogut, 1995).

Accordingly, the conceptualisation of knowledge as intellectual capital and the management

of knowledge are identified with creating competitive advantage in the knowledge economy
(Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Flood et al, 2002). Intellectual capital (IC) is identified with those
components of knowledge that can be created through human capital and whose value can be
identified and extracted (Harrison and Sullivan, 2000; WIPO, 2004). IC is also described as
intellectual material that has been formalised, captured, and leveraged to produce a higher-
valued asset (Stewart, 1997). IC may include not only traditional intangible assets, such as
brand names, trademarks and goodwill, but also ‘new’ intangibles, such as knowledge,
technology value and good customer relationships.

710
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

Figure 1 shows the relationship of knowledge components within an enterprise, and identifies
intellectual property (IP) as a sub-set of an enterprise’s intellectual assets (IA) used to extract
value in the marketplace. Knowledge management (KM) activities may be present within the
enterprise to organise value-creating activities and to capture and leverage IA. Wiig (1997)
suggests that KM is identified within advanced enterprises as a deliberate strategy to renew
and maximise the enterprise-wide value of IA.

Intellectual capital (IC)

Value creation Value extraction

Human capital Intellectual

(HC) assets (IA)

IP

Knowledge management (KM)

Figure 1. Key Components of Enterprise Knowledge (Source: Harrison and Sullivan (p. 35;
2000)

Knowledge is also identified as both a process and product among the untraded
interdependencies that “take the form of conventions, informal rules, and habits that
coordinate economic actors under conditions of uncertainty” (Storper, 1997: 5). In this
context, both the value creation and value extraction processes, as identified in Figure 1, will
be affected by untraded interdependencies existing within the enterprise and between the
enterprise and its external environment (Dosi 1988; Teese 1986, 1996; Teece et al 1997) that
may enable or constrain IA creation and use.

For example, untraded interdependencies to extract value from IP may be affected not only by
characteristics of IP but also by the efficiency of the legal mechanisms of protection (Teece
1986; 2000). Leading from Teece’s work, actor network theory (Callon 1987, 1992, Latour
1987) and Molina’s (1995, 1997, 1998) concept of sociotechnical constituencies suggest the
need to examine IP given sectoral conditions, the regional context and legal regulations that
determine opportunities and boundaries for the enterprise’s use of its IP (Molina and Gregson
2002).

The relationship between IC, IP and IPR, particularly in the early stages of new enterprise
development, is not well understood. One question is the extent to which different models of
innovation, resource acquisition and enterprise growth explain how IC, IP and IPR evolve in
the critical early stages of new enterprises (e.g. Penrose 1959; Churchill and Lewis 1983;
Mount et al 1993; Bhide 2000). Autio (2000) identifies an absence of studies examining
optimal IP strategies for technology-based new firms.
Previous studies within the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Intellectual
Property Research Programme (1996-99) suggest that IPR is of little relevance to small
businesses and their ongoing innovation except in specific sectors (Blackburn, 2003). For

711
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

example, Tang (2003) identifies that getting products rapidly to consumers, rather than
concerns over IPR, are most important for the on-line publishing sector. The traditional
economic perspective identifies IPR as the reward for entrepreneurial judgement and risk,
providing the knowledge creator and innovator with monopoly power and guaranteeing first-
advantage (Casson 1990), allowing entrepreneurs to control the introduction of new
knowledge to potential consumers and secure profits (Howells et al, 1998). The legal
perspective for protecting IP is that innovations are hard to produce but easier to copy
(Chidamber and Kon, 1994). A key recommendation from the ESRC IP Research Programme
is that further research be undertaken on how enterprises evaluate their intellectual assets and
how they assess whether or not these assets should be covered by IPRs.

It is argued that the Internet and e-commerce is affecting knowledge creation for new
enterprises entering the digital economy and changing business, legal and economic
justifications for IP and IPR (Lessig 2002; Fowler 2001). Indeed, over the last decade, leading
socio-legal academics have voiced concern that existing theories and public policies are
falling behind a dynamic and evolving business reality of the digital economy (Arrow 1999;
Dam 1993). Accelerated innovation and commercialisation of digital information goods
challenge an economic, social and legal system previously developed for industrial rather than
knowledge-based exploitation of IP. The Internet is the centre of academic debate over the
IPR ‘appropriability problem’ of balancing economic returns and legal protection with public
disclosure to stimulate further invention. Lessig’s (2002) assertion that ‘law learns to
regulate’ identifies the problem of increasing exclusivity to knowledge afforded IPRs that
Lessig and others argue is incompatible with founding values of digital communication and
the Internet.

Research questions
Three related questions have been identified in the literature for further study. The first
question is how processes of IC, IP and IPR are created, developed and managed by new
enterprises active in the digital economy (doing business through the internet), in particular,
the underlying processes and decision-making activities to generate knowledge assets and the
relationship between IC, IP and IPR as the enterprise evolves. This includes examining the
incentives to invent, disclose, commercialise, design-around and invest in knowledge assets
and the impact of knowledge management activities on how early-stage enterprises protect,
exploit and manage their IP (Teece 2000).

The second question relates to understanding the IC outcomes for enterprises doing business
in the digital economy and the extent to which IP and IPR is a strategic objective as the
enterprise commences operations and develops over time. This includes examining pre-
commercial expectations and perceptions of IC, IP and IPR value over time as the enterprise
develops and the level of economic returns attributed to IC. Analysis of a number of
enterprises could identify the types of knowledge assets, enterprises and sectors most
vulnerable to ‘information disclosure exposure’ that comes with a web-based presence.
Analysis would identify how IP and IPR are used (e.g. to prevent imitation, as indication of
value to potential investors, as a signal to competitors, as a first-mover strategy) and how
enterprises combine technologies to enhance IP appropriability. This level of analysis would

712
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

also reveal other internal competencies of the enterprise that complement or constrain use and
value of IC (Teece, 2000; Tang, 2003).

The third question identifies the need to consider external factors that affect IC, IP and IPR
creation, development and usage by early-stage enterprise. Few studies have examined the
costs and benefits of IP protection given varying legal and regulatory and sectoral conditions,
particularly in the context of on-line enterprises (Davis, 2002). This includes examining the
relationship between incentives, levels of protection and levels of public disclosure of IPRs,
and the level of knowledge transmission actually gained from public disclosure as required in
IPR application processes. This level of analysis would clarify how new enterprises protect
their digital information (e.g. content and underlying algorithm) such as patent criteria of
technical effect, novelty and inventive step (WIPO, 2004) and how IP usage by early-stage
enterprises may be incongruent with existing laws and legal practices (Blackburn, 2003).

Research design
The research critically evaluates IC, IP and IPR in new enterprises involved in the digital
economy using a social systems research design to accommodate the three integrated research
questions. These knowledge assets are conceptualised as ongoing collective efforts involving
actions and processes focused towards the pursuit of economic outcomes (Nelson, 1982).
Actions and processes involve actors that may include the inventor, management team, IP
lawyer, investor and a combination of public and private commercial support agents.
Economic outcomes in this context are seen to evolve “through the accretion of numerous
institutional, resource and proprietary events that co-produce each other over an extend
period” (Van de Ven, 1993: 212). Since these events occur within a given a business,
sectoral, regulatory and policy framework, a social systems approach provides a highly
relevant research design, given that the research aspires to understand the factors that
contribute to IC, IP and IPR creation and development as well as their market use, given a
particular business context.

The research identifies the case study as most appropriate for a social systems research
approach. Yin (1989: 14) states that the case study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon
within its real life context, and that it is most relevant when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and when multiple sources of evidence can
be used in support of research questions”. Given the need to understand IC and knowledge
management processes of the enterprise, case studies allow research to go beyond evidence-
collection to illustrate or explain the decisions and motivations that underlie observed
processes (Sarantakos, 1993) and to identify and understand those detailed interactive
processes crucial to understanding a complex business context (Bryman, 1988; Remenyi et al,
1998). Case study analysis is also expected to lead to the identification of relevant legal,
business and sectoral factors to qualify the external factors influencing management and
extraction mechanisms and value outcomes.

A participant observer approach will be undertaken to gain access to knowledge, perceptions

and other insights as the enterprise and its intellectual assets evolve over time. This approach
will explore the often ‘tacit’ component of knowledge that resides in those people directly or

713
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

indirectly involved with the knowledge assets generated within each enterprise (Vincenti,
1990).

A total of 16 case studies of early-stage enterprises (less than 5 years) active in the digital
economy and possessing identifiable IP will be undertaken over a two-year period. As
mentioned above, IC, IP and IPR are conceptualised as a combination of knowledge and
people skills, physical and financial resources and external factors and the interactions
between these elements. Within each case, characteristics of the enterprise are examined
(origins and initial company profile, pre-commercial and start-up processes, evolution of IC
into IP and IPR, enterprise strategy and performance) that reveals IC, IP and IPR management
mechanisms within each enterprise. A ‘process continuum tool’ identifies, tracks and
examines IC, IP and IPR value creation and value extraction mechanisms within the
enterprise and how they change over time. Within each case, value outcomes are identified
and measured to determine how both the enterprise and the market values IC, IP and IPR over
time. The integrated analysis described above makes explicit processes, outcomes and
changes to IC, IP and IPR within each case.

The research will also develop an ‘expert panel’ of leading academics and practitioners with
assistance from the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) Research Centre for
Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law at Edinburgh University. The expert
panel will comprise a maximum of 24 (minimum of 18) experts that are identified by the
research project’s team as leaders in the fields of business, e-commerce and law.

Figure 2 summarises the five elements of the research that drives the data collection process.
Each element is further described below

R1) IPR PROCESSES: creation, 2) IPR OUTCOMES:

development & management LEVELS utilisation, valuation &
OF IC, IP, adaptation
IPR
ANALYSIS
3) ENTERPRISE ANALYSIS: 4) EXTERNAL ANALYSIS:
enterprise strategy, performance legal, regulatory & business
& IC-IP-IPR assets impacts

5) EXPERT PANEL:
business and legal expertise
gathering& dissemination

Figure 2. Research Design: Integrated Levels of Analysis

714
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

IPR Process Continuum (element 1): IC, IP, IPR characteristics for each case study will be
examined using a process continuum to examine creation, development and management
within the enterprise.

IPR Outcome Analysis (element 2): This element examines IC, IP and IPR utilisation,
valuation and ongoing adaptation for the enterprise over time.

Enterprise Analysis (element 3): Characteristics of the enterprise are examined (origins and
initial company profile, pre-commercial and start-up processes, evolution of IC, IP and IPR
and their relationships, enterprise strategy and performance) that inform elements 1&2 and
reveals how knowledge assets are managed within the enterprise.

External Analysis (element 4): This examines the evolution of business, legal and regulatory
environments and effects on the enterprise and IC, IP and IPR. Case study data are
complemented by use of secondary data, legal, business and practitioner documents/reports
and insights and feedback from expert panel.

Expert Panel (element 5): Each expert will be contacted each month to respond to particular
questions posed by the research team regarding insights arising during the research and new
issues of relevance to the project and to offer feedback. The expert panel complements the
empirical research and provides a credible, relevant and up-to-date regulatory, theoretical and
conceptual knowledge resource.

Case Study Selection and Research Phases

The first phase of the research focuses on the defining, describing and examining knowledge
assets in early-stage enterprises and their use in digital commerce. This includes a
comprehensive review of current research on IC, IP and IPR, current business practice on the
Internet, and identification of candidates for the expert panel.

The second phase of the research is the selection of case studies, collection of data and case
analysis. Cases will be selected in cooperation with the study’s industrial partner -Technology
Transfer and Innovation Ltd (TTI) using their database of over 1,000 companies. The case
sample will include 8 early-stage enterprises (less than 5 years) with IC/IP generated for
dedicated e-commerce and 8 early-stage enterprises with IC/IP generated off-line but adopted
for e-commerce.

• Case selection criteria include the following:

o Early-stage enterprise based in UK;
o Commitment by senior management, accessibility over life of project;
o Appropriate IC (identifiable IP used by enterprise as a ‘key competitive asset’
(potential for copyright, patent, or trademark protection);
o Cross-section of business sectors within sample (computer software, electronic
publishing, financial services, others);
o Balance of cases with dedicated IC – IC adapted for on-line use;
o 2-3 cases ‘in reserve’ to counter potential early drop-outs or closures.

715
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

Data will be collected through a regular schedule of monthly meetings with key actors of the
knowledge asset ‘constituency’ for each case during the project. Case study data are
complemented by use of relevant documents and reports.

Semi-structured interviews each month will extract evolving knowledge within the enterprise
from people who may assume more than one of the roles below:
• Knowledge creator(s) and contributors;
• Company owner(s), entrepreneur(s), CEO, Managing Director(s);
• Legal staff and/or legal service provider(s);
• Technical staff working with IP;
• End-customers or intermediate customers;
• Collaborative partners (e.g. joint IP ownership, shared IP);
• Competitors.

The third phase of the research is the integrated analysis of cases following the same five
elements of the research design (see Figure 2). It is acknowledged that any ability to
generalize from case studies depends upon the adequacy of the underlying theory and related
knowledge and qualified by relevant contextual conditions (Mitchell 1983). However, given
the sample size, data derived from the 16 case studies will provide multiple sources of
evidence to offer a broader spectrum of analysis and higher construct validity.

The fourth and final phase of the research will provide detailed analysis of research findings,
the formulation of implications, conclusions and recommendations and the writing and
presentation of final report(s). Research will be disseminated in various formats to target
different academic and practitioner audiences, to include a methodological workshop to
explain the social system approach to examining knowledge assets, conference presentations
and articles for relevant academic journals.

Ethical considerations
The research will gather information of a commercially and personally sensitive nature.
Informed consent will be obtained from all research participants and identities will be
codified to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. The information will not be used for
commercial purposes either now or at any point in the future. The research will adopt
guidelines suggested by the industrial partner TTI as part of their commitment to ensure good
practice between academic partners and industry. The research will also be conducted within
the terms of the University of Edinburgh School of Management’s Code of Research Ethics.

Conclusions
The research provides a number of valuable intellectual contributions. It offers evidence to
explain how new enterprises entering the digital economy assess, utilise and develop their
knowledge assets and the costs and benefits of development, protection and disclosure for
enterprises. In this regard, the research establishes the applicability of different models of
innovation, resource acquisition and firm growth to explain how IC, IP and IPR evolve in the
critical early stages of the on-line enterprise. The research also establishes the relevance of
social system theories to our understanding of the roles and contributions of various actors,

716
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

legal regimes, sectoral and enterprise factors and the interrelations and interactions among
them related to knowledge assets.

The research identifies and describes the particular features of IC, IP and IPR, given
enterprise strategy and knowledge management activities, knowledge asset characteristics,
market and sectoral conditions and given legal and regulatory environments. Examining in-
depth the evolutional development and use of IC, IP and IPR in multiple on-line business
sectors will establish empirical evidence of where business, economic and legal justifications
for knowledge assets and IPRs are in conflict with practice.

Finally, development of an expert panel of academics and practitioners actively engaged in

the knowledge asset field is expected to contribute significantly to qualifying case study
insights as they emerge in this research. The research is expected to leverage the benefits of
the expert panel to develop a more permanent network of interested parties to further develop
and explore this important area of study.

References
Arrow, K. J. (1999) “Technical Information and Industrial Structure”, in G.R. Carroll and David, J.
Teece (eds) Firms, Markets and Hierarchies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156-63.
Autio, E. (2000) “Growth of Technology-based New Firms, in D.L. Sexton and H. Landstrom (eds.)
Handbook of Entrepreneurship. 329-347.
Bhide, A. (2000) The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses, Oxford University Press.
Blackburn, R.A. (ed.) (2003) Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms,
London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research, London: Unwin Hyman.
Bygrave, W. (1997) The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Callon, M. (1987) “Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological
Analysis”, in W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds) The Social Construction of
Technological Systems, Boston: MIT Press.
Callon, M. (1992) “The Dynamics of Techno-Economic Networks”, in R. Coombs, P. Saviotti and V.
Walsh (eds) Technological Change and Company Strategies: London: Academic Press.
Casson, M.C. (1990) Entrepreneurship. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Chidamber, S.R. and Kon, H.B. (1994) “A Research Retrospective of Innovation Inception and
Success: The Technology-Push, Demand-Pull Question”. International Journal of Technology
Management, 9(1): 94-112.
Churchill, N. and Lewis, V. (1986) “Entrepreneurial Research: Directions and Methods. In D. Sexton
and R. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurial Research. Cambridge: Ballinger.
339-65.
David, P. (2001) “The Consequences for Internet-Mediated Research Collaborations of Broadening
IPR Protections”, European Commission, Workshop on IPR Aspects of International
Collaboration, May 10.
Dam, K. (1993) "The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law," University of Chicago, Law and
Economics Working Paper No.19.
Davis, L. (2002) “Is Appropriability a Problem for Innovations in Digital Information Goods?”
Working Paper, Centre for Law, Economics and Financial Institutions, Copenhagen Business
School.
Dosi, G. (1988) “The Nature of the Innovative Process”, in Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R. R.,
Silverberg, G. and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, New York: Pinter
Publishers.
717
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

Fowler, T.B. (2001) “The Impact of Technology on Intellectual Property Rights”, The
Telecommunications Review, 33-49.
Flood, P., Heffernan, M, Farrell, J., MacCurtain, S., O'Hara, T., O'Regan, P., and Carroll, C. (2002)
Managing Knowledge-based Organisations - Top Management Teams and Innovation in the
Indigenous Software Industry. Dublin: Blackhall Publishing.
Kroeger, C. (1974) “Management Development in the Small Firm”. California Management Review,
Fall: 41-47.
Harrison, S. and Sullivan. P.H. (2000) Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Learning from Leading
Companies, Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (1): 33-46.
Howells, J., Nedeva, M, Georghiou, Evans, J. and Hinder, S. (1998) “Key Findings: Industry-
Academic Links in the UK”, PREST, University of Manchester, HEFCE ref 98/70.
Koruna, S. and Jung, H. H. (2001) “Patent Valuation”, Centre for Enterprise Science, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, in Proceedings of the 4th PICMET Conference, Portland,
Oregon.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Lessig, L. (2002) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, New York:
Vintage.
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993) “A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search”, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization.2: 307-333
Lundvall, B. (ed.) (1992) National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory Of Innovation and
Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B. and Johnson, B. (1994) “The Learning Economy”, Journal of Industry Studies 1(2): 23-
42.
Mitchell, J. C. (1983) “Case and Situational Analysis”, The Sociological Review, 31(2), 187-211.
Molina, A. (1990) “Transputers and Transputer-based Parallel Computers: Sociotechnical Constituencies
and the Build Up of British-European Capabilities in Information Technology”, Research Policy,
19: 309-33.
Molina, A. (1995) “Technology and the Making of Europe: The Human Story and Lessons of a Large-
Scale Collaboration”, The Office of Official Publications, Luxembourg: Commission of the
European Communities (CEC).
Molina, A. (1997) “Insights into the Nature of Technology Diffusion and Implementation: The Perspective
of Sociotechnical Alignment”, Technovation, 17 (11-12): 601-26.
Molina, A. (1998) “The Role of the Technical in Innovation and Technology Development: The
Perspective of Socio-technical Constituencies”, Technovation, 19: 1-29.
Molina, A. and Gregson, G. (2002) “Real-time Evaluation Methodology as a Learning Instrument in
High Technology SME Support Networks”. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 2 (1): 69-99.
Nelson, R. (ed.) (1982) Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-industry Analysis. New York:
Pergamon.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company. New York: Oxford University
Press.
OECD (2001) Science, Technology and Innovation Scoreboard: Towards a Knowledge-based
Economy. Paris: OECD Publications.
Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pitkethly, R. (2003) “The Strategic Management of Intellectual Property Rights”, Copenhagen
Business School-Danish Patent Office Lecture, Copenhagen February.
Porter, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) “The Core Competence of the Corporation”, Harvard Business
Review. 68(3): 79-88.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., Swartz, E. (1998) Doing Research in Business and
Management. London: Sage Publications.
718
 FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research. London: Blackwell.

Sarantakos, S. (1993) Social Research. London: MacMillan Press.
Stewart, T. (1997) Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York:
Guilford Press.
Tang, P. (2003) Management of IP by Electronic Publishers”, in P.A. Blackburn (ed.) Intellectual
Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms, London: Routledge, 85-104.
Teece, D. J. (1986) “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,
Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy”, Research Policy, 15, 285-305.
Teece, D. J. (1996), “Firm Organization, Industrial Structure and Technological Innovation”, Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31: 193-224.
Teece, D.J. (2000) Managing Intellectual Capital, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management”,
Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-33.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1993) “The Development of an Infrastructure for Entrepreneurship”. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8, 211-30.
Wiig, K. (1997), “Integrating Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 30 (3), 399-405.
World Intellectual Property Organisation (2004) “The Impact of Electronic Commerce on Intellectual
Property”, Primer on Intellectual Property Issues Related to Electronic Commerce,
http://ecommerce.wipo.int/primer/section3.html.
Yin, R (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (eds) (1995) “Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of
Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test”, Organization Science 6 (1):76-93

719