IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ijb/journl/v17y2018i2p163-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negative Royalty in Duopoly and Definition of License Fee: General Demand and Cost Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Masahiko Hattori

    (Faculty of Economics, Doshisha University, Japan)

  • Yasuhito Tanaka

    (Faculty of Economics, Doshisha University, Japan)

Abstract

We extend the analysis about negative royalty in a duopoly with an outside innovator under linear demand and cost functions by Liao and Sen (2005) to a situation with general demand and cost functions. Moreover, we consider a case where an innovator has an option to enter the market and show that the optimal royalty rate for the innovator when it does not have an option to enter the market is smaller than that when it can enter the market. The sign of the optimal royalty rate depends on whether firms' goods are strategic substitutes or strategic complements. We provide a concise example of welfare analysis, which suggests that the prohibition of entry of the innovator into the market may be an appropriate policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Masahiko Hattori & Yasuhito Tanaka, 2018. "Negative Royalty in Duopoly and Definition of License Fee: General Demand and Cost Functions," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 17(2), pages 163-178, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ijb:journl:v:17:y:2018:i:2:p:163-178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.17-2/pdf/vol_17-2-5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.17-2/abstract/05.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Seade, Jesus, 1980. "The stability of cournot revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 15-27, August.
    4. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2016. "Licensing under general demand and cost functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 673-680.
    5. Andrea Fosfuri & Esther Roca, 2004. "Optimal Licensing Strategy: Royalty or Fixed Fee?," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 3(1), pages 13-19, April.
    6. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    7. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    8. Chun‐Hsiung Liao & Debapriya Sen, 2005. "Subsidy In Licensing: Optimality And Welfare Implications," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(3), pages 281-299, June.
    9. Dixit, Avinash K, 1986. "Comparative Statics for Oligopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(1), pages 107-122, February.
    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. Salman Ali & Syed Mizanur Rahman, 2020. "R&D Expenditure in a Competitive Landscape: A Game Theoretic Approach," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 19(1), pages 47-60, June.

    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. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    2. Masahiko Hattori & Yasuhito Tanaka, 2018. "License and Entry Strategies for an Outside Innovator Under Duopoly with Combination of Royalty and Fixed Fee," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 485-502, December.
    3. Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy & Liang, Wen-Jung & Chou, Pin-Shu, 2013. "Patent licensing under cost asymmetry among firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 297-307.
    4. Ma, Siyu & Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2022. "Optimal patent licensing: from three to two part tariffs," MPRA Paper 111624, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Yan, Qingyou & Yang, Le, 2018. "Optimal licensing schemes for a mixed ownership firm when facing uncertain R&D outcomes and technology spillover," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 550-572.
    6. Stefano Colombo & Siyu Ma & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2021. "Equivalence between fixed fee and ad valorem profit royalty," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(5), pages 1052-1073, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2010. "Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 735-742, August.
    9. Hattori, Masahiko & Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2017. "License and entry strategies for an outside innovator in duopoly with combination of royalty and fixed fee under vertical differentiation," MPRA Paper 78856, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    11. Chin-Sheng Chen, 2017. "Endogenous Market Structure and Technology Licensing," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 115-130, March.
    12. Masahiko Hattori & Yasuhito Tanaka, 2020. "Entry of Innovator and License in Oligopoly," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 709-731, December.
    13. Yair Tauman & Debrapiya Sen, 2012. "Patents and Licenses," Department of Economics Working Papers 12-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Chin-Sheng Chen, 2017. "Endogenous Market Structure and Technology Licensing," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-130, March.
    16. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2016. "Licensing under general demand and cost functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 673-680.
    17. 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.
    18. San Martín, Marta & Saracho, Ana I., 2010. "Royalty licensing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 284-287, May.
      • San Martín Lizarralde, Marta & Saracho de la Torre, Ana Isabel, 2009. "Royalty Licensing," IKERLANAK 6548, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    19. 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.
    20. Ismail Saglam, 2023. "Licensing cost‐reducing innovations under supply function competition," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 180-201, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:ijb:journl:v:17:y:2018:i:2:p:163-178. 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: Szu-Hsien Ho (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbfcutw.html .

    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.