Fragmented property rights and royalty bargaining
AbstractWe consider production by a firm that relies on the patent rights that are held by other actors. Before production can take place, bargains have to be struck with each patent holder over the royalty per unit produced. In the negotiations, a patent holder must be mindful of the fact that a large royalty will increase the product price and lower demand for the final product. Hence each patent holder would prefer to gain a large royalty at the expense of rivals. When the producer makes the first offer in an alternating offer framework, we analyze whether it should conduct negotiations sequentially with some grouping of patent holders or simultaneously. We demonstrate that the producer will prefer simultaneous negotiation. An individual patent holder would prefer to negotiate early with the producer, and then to see remaining rights holders negotiate simultaneously. A firm that holds several patents would want to negotiate royalties on each one sequentially and then have simultaneous negotiation of payments to other rights holders.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.
Volume (Year): 72 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo
Patents Property rights Bargaining Sequential negotiation Simultaneous negotiation;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988.
"Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
- Robert Marshall & Antonio Merlo, 1996.
220, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Yair Tauman & Naoki Watanabe, 2007. "The Shapley Value of a Patent Licensing Game: the Asymptotic Equivalence to Non-cooperative Results," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 135-149, January.
- Ariel Rubinstein, 2010.
"Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
661465000000000387, David K. Levine.
- Naoki Watanabe & Shigeo Muto, 2008. "Stable profit sharing in a patent licensing game: general bargaining outcomes," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 505-523, December.
- Thomas H. Noe & Jun Wang, 2004. "Fooling All of the People Some of the Time: A Theory of Endogenous Sequencing in Confidential Negotiations," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71, pages 855-881, 07.
- Inderst, Roman, 1998.
"Multi-Issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda,"
Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications
98-35, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Fershtman, Chaim, 1990.
"The importance of the agenda in bargaining,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 224-238, September.
- Shapiro, Carl, 2006. "Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt6px3m1rb, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.