Following Chesbrough’s definition of Open Innovation (ОI), it could be said that for firms the motivation for open innovation and the exchange of knowledge equally seems to be profit making[1]. Firms opt for the OI model based on a cost/benefit analysis they make beforehand. Depending on their specific business model, organizations might have different strategies on how to capture maximum value from the time, money and effort invested in an OI project. Specific motives could vary from cost cutting or expedition of time to market to innovation catalysis and market expansion. Thus, some entities may be interested in the ownership over the jointly developed technology, while others may focus only on receiving sufficient sub-licensing rights or even no rights at all. Traditional business strategy provides two methods of value capture – IP ownership or creative management of the value chain. Thus, even though on first sight a company does not appear to receive any direct financial returns from an OI initiative, it may pursue a more general and strategic goal, which will accrue revenue in the longer term (i.e. market expansion, boost of innovation in specific marketplace, etc.).



[1] Van Overwalle G., Inventing inclusive patents: From old to new open innovation, Kritika: Essays on intellectual property, vol.1, p.206-277