EH20147533 ART. INTERNATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN A MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE...
- Write a review
Article published in English
Article: International knowledge transfer in a multinational enterprise: General Electric’s patent system in Japan until the 1950s
Shigehiro NISHIMURA
Associate professor of business history - Kansai University
Abstract
When and how was General Electric’s international patent transfer system to Japan changed? At first, General Electric (GE) controlled its Japanese patents directly. Since the 1920s, however, GE entrusted patent administration to its affiliated companies and GE patents were filed and registered in the names of affiliated companies. This type of patent transfer system depended upon affiliated foreign companies’ patent departments. The organization of patent transfer was provided by pre-war international agreements, which arranged exchanges of exclusive licenses, defined respective territories, and covered broad product lines. However, pre-war contracts were voided by antitrust lawsuits and, more decisively, U.S. government foreign policy and government-aided research. Changes in the contracts forced the patent and technological transfer organization to change. After World War II, GE patents were registered in the name of GE. Although GE entrusted patent administration to the patent department of an affiliated company, GE began using external patent agents and directly controlled Japanese patents once again beginning in 1958. The patent transfer organization developed with the evolution of the global economy and the growth of state power.
Thank you for the reviews ! Your comment is submitted
16 other products in the same category:
Past ten years, literature is an increasing number of works trying to identify the different levers to operate to encourage innovation within companies. In continuation of this work focused on the emergence of a "culture of innovation," the state of the art made in this article allows us to bring about a feeling of "psychological safety" is the only means that:
- Members of the organization are not paralyzed by fear of failure and continue to offer bold initiatives,
- These players learn from the mistakes that will inevitably be committed during the innovation process and are able to no longer reproduce. We suggest, as such, some lines of thought to create a culture of "room for error" in organizations, starting with the consolidation of the reward and sanction systems by the inclination of the direction to "Legends" failures. We stress however that this may be possible in the context of American culture is not necessarily in that of French culture.
Past ten years, literature is an increasing number of works trying to identify the different levers to operate to encourage innovation within companies. In continuation of this work focused on the emergence of a "culture of innovation," the state of the art made in this article allows us to bring about a feeling of "psychological safety" is the only means that:
- Members of the organization are not paralyzed by fear of failure and continue to offer bold initiatives,
- These players learn from the mistakes that will inevitably be committed during the innovation process and are able to no longer reproduce. We suggest, as such, some lines of thought to create a culture of "room for error" in organizations, starting with the consolidation of the reward and sanction systems by the inclination of the direction to "Legends" failures. We stress however that this may be possible in the context of American culture is not necessarily in that of French culture.