The technological uniqueness paradox

Abstract Research summary We establish a new paradox surrounding technological uniqueness, defined as the degree to which a firm's patented technology portfolio differs from its competitors. On the one hand, technological uniqueness acts as a barrier to incoming technology spillovers and impedes firm performance. On the other hand, technological uniqueness reduces outgoing technology spillovers and contributes to a strategic resource that is more costly to imitate. We empirically examine these competing arguments and find evidence that the strategic resource argument dominates for average firms in the data with more technologically unique firms performing better. At the same time, we show that pursuing technological uniqueness is costly, as unique firms indeed benefit less from incoming technology spillovers, are harder to understand by equity analysts and have higher costs of equity capital. Managerial Summary We establish empirically for a sample of public corporations that being technologically unique pays off‐companies with distinctive patent portfolios outperform their peers on average. This uniqueness creates a competitive moat that is difficult for rivals to overcome. But there is a catch: the same uniqueness that protects a company also isolates it. When technology is so different from conventional wisdom, it becomes difficult for outsiders to understand, then a contrarian company will also struggle to learn from others' breakthroughs. We empirically document a double penalty: contrarian companies benefit less from innovations by peer firms and equity analysts can't easily evaluate the business, driving up the cost of capital.