IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v47y2016icp1-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal bid disclosure in patent license auctions under alternative modes of competition

Author

Listed:
  • Fan, Cuihong
  • Jun, Byoung Heon
  • Wolfstetter, Elmar G.

Abstract

The literature on patent license auctions in oligopoly assumed that the auctioneer reveals the winning bid and stressed that this gives firms an incentive to bid high in order to signal an aggressive output strategy in a downstream Cournot market game, and conversely bid low to signal acquiescent pricing in a Bertrand market game. The present paper examines the information revealed by publishing the winning or the losing or no bid, assuming an oligopoly with differentiated goods. We rank disclosure rules and find that it is not optimal for the innovator to disclose the winning bid, regardless of the mode of competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2016. "Optimal bid disclosure in patent license auctions under alternative modes of competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:47:y:2016:i:c:p:1-32
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167718716300133
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.03.001?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. Goeree, Jacob K., 2003. "Bidding for the future: signaling in auctions with an aftermarket," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 345-364, February.
    2. Bernard Lebrun, 2010. "First‐price auctions with resale and with outcomes robust to bid disclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(1), pages 165-178, March.
    3. Das Varma, Gopal, 2003. "Bidding for a process innovation under alternative modes of competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 15-37, January.
    4. Giebe, Thomas & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2008. "License auctions with royalty contracts for (winners and) losers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 91-106, May.
    5. Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans & Elena Katok, 2008. "Regret and Feedback Information in First-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 808-819, April.
    6. Mark Bagnoli & Susan G. Watts, 2015. "Competitive intelligence and disclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 709-729, October.
    7. Vives, Xavier, 1984. "Duopoly information equilibrium: Cournot and bertrand," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 71-94, October.
    8. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    9. Gal-Or, Esther, 1985. "Information Sharing in Oligopoly," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(2), pages 329-343, March.
    10. Isa Hafalir & Vijay Krishna, 2008. "Asymmetric Auctions with Resale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 87-112, March.
    11. David R. Collie & Vo Phuong Mai Le, 2015. "Product Differentiation, the Volume of Trade and Profits under Cournot and Bertrand Duopoly," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 73-86, February.
    12. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Jun & Elmar Wolfstetter, 2014. "Licensing a common value innovation when signaling strength may backfire," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 215-244, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 2000. "Auctions with Downstream Interaction Among Buyers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(4), pages 768-791, Winter.
    15. Katuščák, Peter & Michelucci, Fabio & Zajíček, Miroslav, 2015. "Does feedback really matter in one-shot first-price auctions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 139-152.
    16. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    17. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2014. "Optimal bid disclosure in license auctions with downstream interaction," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 467, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    18. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2013. "Licensing process innovations when losersʼ messages determine royalty rates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 388-402.
    19. Kamien, Morton I., 1992. "Patent licensing," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 331-354, Elsevier.
    20. Xavier Vives, 1990. "Trade Association Disclosure Rules, Incentives to Share Information, and Welfare," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(3), pages 409-430, Autumn.
    21. Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2007. "Auctions with Anticipated Regret: Theory and Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1407-1418, September.
    22. Carl Shapiro, 1986. "Exchange of Cost Information in Oligopoly," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(3), pages 433-446.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olivier Bos & Tom Truyts, 2021. "Auctions with signaling concerns," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 420-448, May.
    2. Helmuts Āzacis, 2020. "Information disclosure by a seller in sequential first-price auctions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 411-444, June.
    3. Hirai, Toshiyuki & Watanabe, Naoki & Muto, Shigeo, 2019. "Farsighted stability in patent licensing: An abstract game approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 141-160.
    4. Hirai, Toshiyuki & Watanabe, Naoki, 2018. "von Neumann–Morgenstern stable sets of a patent licensing game: The existence proof," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2021. "Strategic Leaks in First-Price Auctions and Tacit Collusion: The Case of Spying and Counter-Spying," CESifo Working Paper Series 9021, CESifo.
    6. Cho, Myeonghwan & Song, Joon, 2022. "Auctioning business licenses to engage in Cournot competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).

    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. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Jun & Elmar Wolfstetter, 2014. "Licensing a common value innovation when signaling strength may backfire," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 215-244, February.
    2. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    3. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2013. "Licensing process innovations when losersʼ messages determine royalty rates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 388-402.
    4. Ding, Wei & Fan, Cuihong & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2013. "Horizontal mergers with synergies: Cash vs. profit-share auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 382-391.
    5. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2009. "Auctioning Process Innovations when Losers’ Bids Determine Royalty Rates," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 291, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    6. Stefano Colombo & Luigi Filippini, 2015. "Patent Licensing with Bertrand Competitors," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2018. "Optimal licensing under incomplete information: the case of the inside patent holder," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(4), pages 979-1005, December.
    8. Giebe, Thomas & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2008. "License auctions with royalty contracts for (winners and) losers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 91-106, May.
    9. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2014. "Optimal bid disclosure in license auctions with downstream interaction," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 467, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    10. Jehiel, Philippe & Moldovanu, Benny, 2005. "Allocative and Informational Externalities in Auctions and Related Mechanisms," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 142, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    11. Tao Wang, 2020. "Competitive Intelligence and Disclosure of Cost Information in Duopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(3), pages 665-699, November.
    12. Cho, Myeonghwan & Song, Joon, 2022. "Auctioning business licenses to engage in Cournot competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    13. Chang, Chun-Hao & Prakash, Arun J. & Yeh, Shu, 2004. "Sale of monopoly information and behavior of rivaling clients: A theoretical perspective," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 283-304.
    14. Myatt, David P. & Wallace, Chris, 2015. "Cournot competition and the social value of information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PB), pages 466-506.
    15. Junjie Zhou & Xiaoshuai Fan & Ying-Ju Chen & Christopher S. Tang, 2021. "Information Provision and Farmer Welfare in Developing Economies," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 230-245, 1-2.
    16. Yasuhiro Sakai, 2016. "Information Exchanges among Firms and Their Welfare Implications (Part 1) : The Dual Relations between the Cournot and Bertrand Models," Discussion Papers CRR Discussion Paper Series A: General 16, Shiga University, Faculty of Economics,Center for Risk Research.
    17. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2018. "Optimal licensing of technology in the face of (asymmetric) competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 32-53.
    18. Badia, Bruno D. & Tumendemberel, Biligbaatar, 2016. "On the licensing of a technology with unknown use," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 220-233.
    19. Ramón Faulí-Oller & Joel Sandonís, 2007. "Patent Licensing By Means Of An Auction: Internal Vs. External Patentee," Working Papers. Serie AD 2007-09, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    20. Creane, Anthony & Ko, Chiu Yu & Konishi, Hideo, 2013. "Choosing a licensee from heterogeneous rivals," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 254-268.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auctions; Innovation; Licensing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D45 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Rationing; Licensing

    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:eee:indorg:v:47:y:2016:i:c:p:1-32. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551 .

    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.