IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v19y2023i2p213-231n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collusive Bidding, Competition Law, and Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Gangopadhyay Shubhashis

    (India Development Foundation, Gurgaon, 122001, Haryana, India)

  • Mallios Aineas
  • Sjögren Stefan

    (UPES, Dehradun, India)

Abstract

We explain why competing firms form collective entities to buy patents from other entities, particularly from non-practicing entities (NPEs), and follow a catch and release patent strategy. We show why having competitors bid as a single unit is better than having competitors bid against each other. More important, we show that collusive bidding on patents held by NPEs, even when the patents are not essential for a standard (SEPs), may increase consumer surplus, particularly when technological innovation is drastic, and improve social welfare. This provides a theoretical foundation that explains why competition authorities often allow collusive bidding for patents and why courts employ the “rule of reason” to analyze agreements under competition law. We also show that a cartel of incumbents will always outbid a potential entrant, or a patent assertion entity, over a technology that can destroy the value of the incumbents’ existing assets.

Suggested Citation

  • Gangopadhyay Shubhashis & Mallios Aineas & Sjögren Stefan, 2023. "Collusive Bidding, Competition Law, and Welfare," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 213-231, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:19:y:2023:i:2:p:213-231:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/rle-2022-0042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2022-0042
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/rle-2022-0042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2006. "Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary Between Antitrust Law and Patent Law," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 8(3), pages 476-522.
    2. Ariel Ezrachi, 2012. "Buying Alliances And Input Price Fixing: In Search Of A European Enforcement Standard," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 47-71.
    3. Cramton Peter & Schwartz Jesse A, 2002. "Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Cramton, Peter & Schwartz, Jesse A, 2000. "Collusive Bidding: Lessons from the FCC Spectrum Auctions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 229-252, May.
    5. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    6. Lemley, Mark A & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8638s257, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    7. Patrick Bajari & Lixin Ye, 2003. "Deciding Between Competition and Collusion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 971-989, November.
    8. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    9. J. Gregory Sidak, 2009. "Patent Holdup And Oligopsonistic Collusion In Standard-Setting Organizations," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 123-188.
    10. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    11. Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff, 2012. "Recent Research on the Economics of Patents," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 541-565, July.
    12. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    13. Peter C. Carstensen, 2017. "Competition Policy and the Control of Buyer Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15260.
    14. Can Erutku & Yves Richelle, 2007. "Optimal Licensing Contracts and the Value of a Patent," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 407-436, June.
    15. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1986. "How to License Intangible Property," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 567-589.
    16. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 2002. "Patent Licensing: The Inside Story," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 70(1), pages 7-15, January.
    17. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2010. "Is there a market for ideas?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 805-837, June.
    18. Hong Wang & Hong-min Chen, 2016. "Deterring Bidder Collusion: Auction Design Complements Antitrust Policy," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 31-68.
    19. Robert C. Marshall & Leslie M. Marx & Michael J. Meurer, 2014. "The Economics of Bidder Collusion," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 367-397, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xue, Minggao & Su, Lili, 2011. "Licensing to a durable-good duopoly in patent litigation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1186-1194, May.
    2. Kishimoto, Shin & Watanabe, Naoki & Muto, Shigeo, 2011. "Bargaining outcomes in patent licensing: Asymptotic results in a general Cournot market," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 114-123, March.
    3. Marta San Martín & Ana I. Saracho, 2015. "Optimal Two-part Tariff Licensing Mechanisms," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(3), pages 288-306, June.
    4. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, June.
    5. Tsung-Sheng Tsai & Cheng-Tai Wu, 2022. "Optimal licensing contracts with a downstream oligopoly: insider versus outsider innovation," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(1), pages 147-165, May.
    6. Zhao, Dan & Chen, Hongmin & Hong, Xianpei & Liu, Jingfang, 2014. "Technology licensing contracts with network effects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 136-144.
    7. San Martín Lizarralde, Marta & Saracho de la Torre, Ana Isabel, 2012. "Two-part tariff licensing mechanisms," IKERLANAK http://www-fae1-eao1-ehu-, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    8. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2010. "Patent licensing, bargaining, and product positioning," ISER Discussion Paper 0775, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Filippini Luigi & Vergari Cecilia, 2017. "Vertical Integration Smooths Innovation Diffusion," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-22, July.
    10. Gallardo, R. Karina & McCluskey, Jill J. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B., 2016. "Assessing Innovator and Grower Profit Potential under Different New Plant Variety Commercialization Strategies," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235940, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Tauman, Yair & Weng, Ming-Hung, 2012. "Selling patent rights and the incentive to innovate," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 241-244.
    12. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    13. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    14. Huasheng Song & Ruqu Wang & Jianliang Ye, 2018. "Scarce human resources and equilibrium industry structure," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 99-119, June.
    15. Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2008. "On the possibility of licensing in a market with logit demand functions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(17), pages 1-11.
    16. Lindblom Ted & Mallios Aineas & Sjögren Stefan, 2024. "A Theoretical Analysis of Collusion Involving Technology Licensing Under Diseconomies of Scale," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 263-297, January.
    17. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    18. Elias Carayannis & Igor Dubina & Alina Ilinova, 2015. "Licensing in the Context of Entrepreneurial University Activity: an Empirical Evidence and a Theoretical Model," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, March.
    19. Montinaro, Marta & Pal, Rupayan & Scrimitore, Marcella, 2020. "Per Unit and Ad Valorem Royalties in a Patent Licensing Game," FACTS: Firms And Cities Towards Sustainability 307305, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) > FACTS: Firms And Cities Towards Sustainability.
    20. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    collusion; auction; bidding; competition law; rule of reason; social welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L43 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Legal Monopolies and Regulation or Deregulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:19:y:2023:i:2:p:213-231:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.