Core　and　disruptive　technologies,　two　fundamental　types　of　technological　innovation,　play　pivotal　roles　in　determining　enterprises′　current　and　future　profits,　and　are　extensively　addressed　by　a　number　of　theories　and　practices.　While　previous　studies　have　discussed　ways　to　identify　core　and　disruptive　technologies,　as　well　as　the　key　role　of　inventors′　external　cooperation　network　in　the　formation　of　these　two　types　of　technologies,　comparative　studies　are　relatively　scarce.　In　terms　of　the　essence　of　core　and　disruptive　technologies,　companies　may　consider　the　benefits　and　risks　of　inventors′　external　network　differently　when　developing　the　two　distinct　technologies.　When　developing　core　technologies,　companies　may　increasingly　focus　on　reducing　the　risk　of　information　leakage　rather　than　the　benefits　of　acquiring　heterogeneous　knowledge　because　core　technologies　dominate　the　industry　mainstream　and　serve　as　a　current　profit　engine　for　companies.　However,　they　tend　to　prioritize　the　benefits　of　heterogeneous　knowledge　rather　than　reducing　the　risk　of　information　leakage　when　developing　disruptive　technologies　that　disrupt　the　industry　mainstream　and　serve　as　future　profit　engines　for　companies.　Therefore,　the　differing　degree　of　dilemma　between　heterogeneous　knowledge　and　information　leakage　determines　a　key　distinction　between　core　and　disruptive　technologies.　However,　further　investigation　is　required　to　analyze　the　different　roles　of　inventors′　external　cooperation　network　in　the　formation　of　core　and　disruptive　technologies　from　the　perspective　of　benefit　and　risk.　To　address　this,　we　conceptually　distinguish　between　core　and　disruptive　technologies,　and　propose　their　identification　methods　based　on　patent　data.　Then,　we　theoretically　analyze　the　different　influences　of　direct　and　indirect　ties　in　inventors′　external　networks　on　the　formation　of　core　and　disruptive　technologies,　and　how　external　indirect　ties,　acting　as　a　boundary　condition,　moderate　the　relationship　between　external　direct　ties　and　core　/　disruptive　technologies.　Finally,　we　utilized　USPTO　data　on　pharmaceutical　invention　patents　from　1980　to　2017　to　conduct　an　empirical　analysis.　The　empirical　findings　are　as　follows.　First,　direct　ties　in　inventors′　external　networks　have　an　inverted　U-shaped　effect　on　the　formation　of　both　core　and　disruptive　technologies,　but　the　slope　of　the　inverted　U-shape　is　different.　Specifically,　until　the　optimal　amount　of　external　direct　ties　is　reached　(before　the　turning　point　of　the　inverted　U-shape),　the　positive　effect　of　external　direct　ties　on　core　technologies　is　stronger　than　that　on　disruptive　technologies.　Conversely,　after　the　optimal　amount　is　reached　(after　the　turning　point　of　the　inverted　U-shape),　the　negative　effect　of　external　direct　ties　on　core　technologies　is　stronger　than　that　on　disruptive　technologies.　This　indicates　that,　compared　to　disruptive　technologies,　companies　have　lower　demand　for　heterogeneous　knowledge　but　higher　requirements　for　risk　control　of　information　leakage　when　developing　core　technologies.　Second,　external　indirect　ties　in　inventor　network　have　a　negative　effect　on　the　formation　of　core　technology　and　a　positive　effect　on　the　formation　of　disruptive　technology.　External　indirect　partners　mainly　play　the　role　of　information　medium.　On　the　one　hand,　they　can　provide　inventors　with　general　information　about　technological　innovation.　On　the　other　hand,　they　may　increase　the　risk　of　internal　information　leakage　to　inventors　or　enterprises.　When　developing　core　technologies,　companies　pay　higher　attention　to　reducing　the　risk　of　information　leakage　rather　than　acquiring　heterogeneous　knowledge.　When　developing　disruptive　technologies,　heterogeneous　knowledge　and　information　are　increasingly　important,　and　the　necessity　for　information　confidentiality　is　not　as　stringent　as　it　is　when　developing　core　technologies.　Therefore,　external　indirect　ties　may　inhibit　the　formation　of　core　technologies　and　promote　the　formation　of　disruptive　technologies.　Furthermore,　external　indirect　ties　weaken　the　inverted　U-shaped　relationship　between　external　direct　ties　and　core　technologies,　and　strengthen　the　inverted　U-shaped　relationship　between　external　direct　ties　and　disruptive　technologies.　Direct　and　indirect　ties　often　work　together;　therefore,　the　effect　of　their　interaction　should　be　considered　when　assessing　their　impact　on　technological　innovation.　In　the　case　of　core　technologies,　although　a　high　level　of　external　indirect　ties　can　increase　the　benefits　of　obtaining　heterogeneous　knowledge　to　a　certain　extent,　it　will　also　rapidly　increase　the　risk　of　core　information　leakage.　The　direct　ties　will　weaken　the　inverted　U-shaped　relationship　between　external　direct　ties　and　core　technologies.　In　the　case　of　disruptive　technologies,　a　high　level　of　external　indirect　ties　greatly　increases　the　benefit　of　obtaining　general　knowledge　from　external　direct　cooperation　while　they　will　increase　the　risk　of　innovation　information　leakage　to　a　marginal　degree.　In　general,　external　indirect　ties　enhance　the　inverted　U-shaped　relationship　between　external　direct　ties　and　disruptive　technologies.　These　results　provide　useful　practical　implications　for　enterprises′　innovation　management.　Companies　and　inventors,　for　instance,　should　be　mindful　of　the　scale　of　external　cooperation　by　balancing　between　benefits　and　risks.　Companies　can　arrange　for　inventors　to　conduct　direct　or　indirect　cooperation　differently,　depending　on　the　type　of　technological　innovation.　Additionally,　inventors　cannot　disregard　the　influence　of　indirect　partners　when　choosing　direct　partners　in　the　process　of　technological　innovation.　©　(2025),　(Zhejiang　University).　All　rights　reserved.