Goldilocks and the Licensing Firm: Choosing a Partner when Rivals are Heterogeneous
AbstractMarkets are often characterized with firms of differing capabilities with more efficient firms licensing their technology to lesser firms. We examine the effects that the amount of the technology transferred, and the characteristics of the partner have on this licensing. We find that a partial technology transfer can be the joint-profit minimizing transfer; no such transfer then is superior. However, under weakly concave demand, a complete transfer always increases joint profits so long as there are at least three firms in the industry. We also establish a "Goldilocks" condition in partner selection: it is neither too efficient nor too inefficient. Unfortunately, profitable transfers between sufficiently inefficient firms reduce welfare, while transfers from relatively efficient firms increase welfare. However, an efficient firm might not select the least efficient partner, though it is the social-welfare-maximizing partner.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Boston College Department of Economics in its series Boston College Working Papers in Economics with number 720.
Date of creation: 01 Nov 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill MA 02467 USA
Web page: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC/
More information through EDIRC
licensing; technology transfers;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing
- L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
- L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-11-07 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2009-11-07 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-INO-2009-11-07 (Innovation)
- NEP-IPR-2009-11-07 (Intellectual Property Rights)
- NEP-MIC-2009-11-07 (Microeconomics)
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.:
- Rubén Hernández-Murillo & Gerard Llobet, 2004.
"Patent licensing revisited: heterogeneous firms and product differentiation,"
2002-031, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
- Hernandez-Murillo, Ruben & Llobet, Gerard, 2006. "Patent licensing revisited: Heterogeneous firms and product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 149-175, January.
- Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 2007.
"How Strong Are Weak Patents?,"
Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series
qt8vg425vj, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Jay Pil Choi, 1999.
"A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The "Boomerang" Effect and Grant-Back Clauses,"
Working Paper Series
no16, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
- Jay Pil Choi, 2002. "A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The "Boomerang" Effect and Grant-Back Clauses," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 203-229, August.
- Jay Pil Choi, 1999. "A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The Boomerang Effect and Grant-Back Clauses," CESifo Working Paper Series 188, CESifo Group Munich.
- Giebe, Thomas & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2007.
"License Auctions with Royalty Contracts for (Winners and) Losers,"
Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems
199, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- 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.
- Andrew C. Inkpen, 2000. "Learning Through Joint Ventures: A Framework Of Knowledge Acquisition," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1019-1044, November.
- Creane, Anthony & Konishi, Hideo, 2009. "The unilateral incentives for technology transfers: Predation (and deterrence) by proxy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 379-389, May.
- Thomas �stebro, 2002. "Noncapital Investment Costs and the Adoption of CAD and CNC in U.S. Metalworking Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 672-688, Winter.
- Baye, Michael R & Crocker, Keith J & Ju, Jiandong, 1996. "Divisionalization, Franchising, and Divestiture Incentives in Oligopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 223-36, March.
- Fauli-Oller, Ramon & Sandonis, Joel, 2002. "Welfare reducing licensing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 192-205, November.
- Arghya Ghosh & Hodaka Morita, 2012. "Knowledge Transfer and Partial Equity Ownership," Discussion Papers 2012-18, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.