Economics of Survival Post Trade Secret Misappropriation: Business Insights from Single Firm Event Study on Lexar Media

  • Rajorshi Sen GUPTA Department of Economics, BITS Pilani KK Birla Goa Campus

Abstract

The epic case of Lexar’s trade secret misappropriation by Toshiba (2005) is analyzed. Event study methodology is applied to assess the effect of intellectual property (IP) misappropriation by Toshiba on the value of Lexar. Both parametric tests and non parametric tests are applied to examine the statistical significance of the litigation event on Lexar. It is found that one extant parametric test cannot reject the null hypothesis: Start of litigation event had no effect on Lexar returns. In contrast, non parametric test suggests significant negative impact on Lexar stock price. Both parametric and non parametric tests reject the hypothesis: End of litigation had no effect on Lexar returns. While Lexar stock price fell during the trial commencement, later as Lexar won the litigation, investors updated their belief regarding the validation of its IP. While Lexar continued with supply chain outsourcing strategy, it combated the IP theft problem by producing differentiated products, continuously investing in innovative designs and establishing strategic marketing partnership with Kodak. Companies willing to outsource might invest in product differentiation strategies when it is difficult to protect their IP from theft by outsourcing partners in the presence of weak legal enforcement of contracts.

References

[1] 10Q and 10K Reports filed by Lexar, Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic Database and Thomson One Banker. Accessed June 1, 2016
[2] Agrawal, M., Kishore, R., and Raghav Rao, H. 2006. Market reactions to E-business \outsourcing announcements: An event study, Information and Management, 43: 861–873.
[3] Bhagat, S., Brickley, J. A., and Coles, J. L. 1994. The costs of inefficient bargaining and financial distress: Evidence from corporate lawsuits, Journal of Financial Economics, 35(2): 221–247.
[4] Binder, J.J. 1998. The Event Study Methodology Since 1969, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 11: 111–137.
[5] Brown, S.J., and Warner, J.B. 1985. Using Daily Returns: The Case of Event Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, 14: 3–31.
[6] Business Week Online. 2003. October 29. Accessed June 1, 2016
[7] Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., and MacKinlay, A. C. 1997. The Econometrics of Financial Markets, Princeton University Press.
[8] Carr, C., and Gorman, L. 2001. The Revictimization of the Companies by the Stock Market Who Report Trade Secret Theft under the Economic Espionage Act, The Business Lawyer, 57(1): 25-53.
[9] Cockburn, I., and Griliches, Z., 1988. Industry effects and appropriability measures in the stock market’s valuation of R&D and patents, The American Economic Review, 78(2): 419–423.
[10] Event Brief of Q2 2005 Lexar Earnings Conference Call. Accessed June 1, 2016
[11] Fair Disclosure Wire, 2005. Event Brief of Q1 2005 Lexar Earnings Conference Call.
[12] Fama, E. F. 1976. Foundations of Finance. New York: Basic Books.
[13] Gelbach, J.B., Helland, E., and Klick, J. 2013. Valid Inference in Single-Firm, Single-Event Studies, American Law and Economics Review, 495-541
[14] Gilbert, R., and Shapiro, C. 1990. Optimal patent length and breadth, RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1): 106–112.
[15] Higgins, M.J., and Rodriguez, R. 2006. The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Financial Economics, 80: 351–383.
[16] http://www.crsp.com/products/research-products/crsp-historical-indexes
[17] http://www.library.hbs.edu/helpsheets/wrdscrspstock.html
[18] Lerner, J. 1994. The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.
[19] Lunney, G. S. J. 2005. Direct and indirect stock price reactions to patent decisions. New Orleans: Tulane University.
[20] Micron Technology. 2006. FORM S-4/A, United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
[21] Mikkleson, W. H., and Partch, M. 1988. Withdrawn Security Offerings. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 23: 119–134.
[22] Mitchell, M. L. 1989. The Impact of External Parties on Brand Name Capital: The 1982 Tylenol Poisonings and Subsequent Cases, Economic Inquiry, 27: 601-618.
[23] Oh, W., Gallivan, M.J., and Kim, J.W. 2006. The Market's Perception of the Transactional Risks of Information Technology Outsourcing Announcements, Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(4): 271-303.
[24] Patell, J. A. 1976. Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior: Empirical test, Journal of Accounting Research, 14: 246-276.
[25] Raghu, T. S., Wonseok, W., Mohan, S. B., and Raghav Rao, H. 2008. Market reaction to patent infringement litigations in the information technology industry, Inf Syst Front, 10: 61–75.
[26] Salinger, M. 1992. Standard Errors in Event Studies, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 27: 39–53.
[27] Sen Gupta, R. 2018. Risk Management and Intellectual Property Protection in Outsourcing, Global Business Review, 19(3), Forthcoming
[28] Subramani, M, and Walden, E. 2000. The Impact of E-Commerce Announcements on the Market Value of Firms, Information Systems Research.
[29] Theil, H. 1971. Principles of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Published
2016-08-20
How to Cite
GUPTA, Rajorshi Sen. Economics of Survival Post Trade Secret Misappropriation: Business Insights from Single Firm Event Study on Lexar Media. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 3, p. 521-534, aug. 2016. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/184>. Date accessed: 14 apr. 2024.
Section
Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics