CorText Manager around the world

@article{Franco2022,

title = {Producing and using artificial intelligence: What can Europe learn from Siemens’s experience?},

author = {Sebastián Fernández Franco and Juan M Graña and David Flacher and Cecilia Rikap},

url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Grana-2/publication/360759657_Producing_and_using_artificial_intelligence_What_can_Europe_learn_from_Siemens's_experience/links/62a739f955273755ebe9963b/Producing-and-using-artificial-intelligence-What-can-Europe-learn-from-Siemenss-experience.pdf},

doi = {10.1177/10245294221097066},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-06-10},

journal = {Competition & Change},

volume = {0},

pages = {1–30},

abstract = {This paper examines the innovation strategy of Siemens, a key player in Europe’s digital economy, by performing network and lexical analyses using data derived from Siemens’s patents and scientific publications since 1998. We observe that the company’s innovation efforts evolved from a broader attempt to develop internal information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities – alongside its historical industrial priorities – to a strategy focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) for sector-specific and niche applications (such as life and medical sciences). As a result, it became dependent on tech giants’ clouds for accessing more general AI services and digital infrastructure. We build on the intellectual monopoly literature focusing on the effects of tech giants on other leading corporations, to analyse Siemens’s experience. By abandoning the development of general ICT and given the emergence of tech giants as digital economy intellectual monopolies, we show that Siemens is risking its technological autonomy towards these big tech companies. Our results provide clues to understand the challenges faced by Europe and its firms in relation to US and Chinese tech giants.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Rikap2020,

title = {Amazon: A story of accumulation through intellectual rentiership and predation },

author = {Cecilia Rikap},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420932418},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-06-17},

journal = {Competition & Change},

abstract = {This article elaborates on intellectual monopoly theory as a form of predation and rentiership using Amazon as a case study. By analysing Amazon’s financial statements, scientific publications and patents, we show that Amazon’s economic power heavily relies on its systematic innovations and capacity to centralize and analyse customized data that orients its business and innovations. We demonstrate how Amazon’s innovation activities have evolved over time with growing importance of technologies related to data and machine learning. We also map Amazon’s innovation networks with academic institutions and companies. We show how Amazon appropriates intellectual rents from these networks and from technological cooperation with other intellectual monopolies. We argue that Amazon, as other data-driven monopolies, predates value from suppliers and third-party companies participating in its platform. One striking characteristic of Amazon is the low rate of reported profits. The centrality of innovations leads us to suggest an alternative calculation that shows that Amazon’s profits are not as low as they appear in Annual Reports. We also argue that lower profits are coherent with Amazon’s rentiership and predatory strategy since they contribute to the avoidance of accusations of excessive market power. Finally, the paper offers preliminary observations on: (i) the complementarities between financial and intellectual rentierism and (ii) how data-driven intellectual monopoly expands big corporations’ political power. Going beyond the specific case of Amazon, we thus contribute to a better understanding of the role of lead firms and power dynamics within innovation networks.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Rikap2019,

title = {Asymmetric Power of the Core: Technological Cooperation and Technological Competition in the Transnational Innovation Networks of Big Pharma},

author = {Cecilia Rikap},

url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09692290.2019.1620309},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-06-26},

urldate = {2019-06-26},

journal = {Review of International Political Economy},

volume = {26},

number = {5},

pages = {987-1021},

abstract = {This article theoretically and empirically analyzes leader corporations’ innovation processes in contemporary capitalism. We highlight three characteristics: their transnational scope, the primacy of power or asymmetric relations exercised by leaders over the participants of their innovation circuits or networks, and the relevance of what we called technological competition and technological cooperation between leaders. Focusing on the latter, our theoretical contribution integrates the concepts of innovation circuit, global innovation network and modularity of knowledge production in order to elaborate a preliminary model for synthesizing leader’s technological competition and collaboration behaviors. This model is the general framework used for studying three big pharma’s innovation networks (Roche, Novartis and Pfizer). In particular, we study those networks by considering two outputs: scientific publications and patents. Network maps are constructed based on institutions’ co-occurrences, thus looking at who is co-authoring their publications and co-owning these corporations’ patents. We find that big pharmaceuticals co-produce together mainly generic knowledge modules, thus develop a strong technological cooperation. Simultaneously, to succeed in their technological competition they outsource stages of their innovation networks to subordinate institutions that, even if they contribute to achieve the innovation, will not be co-owners of the resulting patents, while big pharmaceuticals enjoy associated innovation rents.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}