IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijethy/v17y2021i4p471-478.html

Bargaining over a license: A counterintuitive result

Author

Listed:
  • Giorgos Stamatopoulos

Abstract

Standard intuition in a multiple buyers‐single seller framework suggests that the buyer who is willing to pay the most for an object under sale would acquire it not only under a take‐it‐or‐leave‐it (TOLI) selling mechanism but also under bargaining with the seller, assuming of course that the buyers are not differentiated in terms of bargaining power. In this note we present a frequently encountered model where this principle fails to hold. We consider a Cournot market with two asymmetric firms, which are the potential buyers of a license to the use of a cost‐reducing technology. We compare the licensing outcome of the optimal TOLI mechanism with the outcome of a bargaining procedure. Surprisingly, we show that although the inefficient firm obtains the license under the optimal TOLI licensing mechanism, the result is reversed under bargaining, namely the efficient firm acquires it. As a byproduct, we obtain that market efficiency is lower under bargaining than under the optimal TOLI mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2021. "Bargaining over a license: A counterintuitive result," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 17(4), pages 471-478, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijethy:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:471-478
    DOI: 10.1111/ijet.12251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijet.12251
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ijet.12251?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kitamura, Hiroshi & Matsushima, Noriaki & Sato, Misato, 2017. "Exclusive contracts and bargaining power," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-3.
    2. Shin Kishimoto & Shigeo Muto, 2012. "Fee Versus Royalty Policy In Licensing Through Bargaining: An Application Of The Nash Bargaining Solution," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 293-304, April.
    3. Bergstrom, Theodore C. & Varian, Hal R., 1985. "Two remarks on Cournot equilibria," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 5-8.
    4. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos & Tauman, Tami, 2009. "On the superiority of fixed fee over auction in asymmetric markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 331-333, September.
    5. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2010. "Patent licensing, bargaining, and product positioning," ISER Discussion Paper 0775, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    6. Spulber, Daniel F., 2016. "Patent licensing and bargaining with innovative complements and substitutes," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 693-713.
    7. Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch & Cecilia Vergari, 2013. "Bargaining and delay in patent licensing," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 279-302, December.
    8. Heidrun C. Hoppe & Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 2006. "License Auctions and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 371-396, June.
    9. Jose J. Sempere Monerris & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2001. "The patent holder's bargaining power and the licensing of an innovation," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(12), pages 765-769.
    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. Cecilia Vergari & Luigi Filippini, 2023. "Innovation Diffusion and Strategic Outside Option in a Bargaining Game," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 63(1), pages 41-71, August.

    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. Kasberger, Bernhard, 2023. "When can auctions maximize post-auction welfare?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Shin Kishimoto, 2020. "The welfare effect of bargaining power in the licensing of a cost-reducing technology," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 173-193, March.
    3. Cecilia Vergari & Luigi Filippini, 2023. "Innovation Diffusion and Strategic Outside Option in a Bargaining Game," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 63(1), pages 41-71, August.
    4. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 2021. "Patent assertion entities and the courts: Injunctive or fee-based relief?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch & Cecilia Vergari, 2013. "Bargaining and delay in patent licensing," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 279-302, December.
    6. Alberto Galasso & El Hadi Caoui, 2025. "Fractional Ownership and Copyright Licensing: Evidence from the Music Industry," NBER Working Papers 34336, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Matthew Beacham, 2012. "The effect of Stackelberg cost reductions on spatial competition with heterogeneous firms," Discussion Papers 12/14, Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Janssen, Maarten C.W. & Karamychev, Vladimir A. & Maasland, Emiel, 2011. "Auctions with flexible entry fees: A note," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 594-601, June.
    9. Lars Persson, 2005. "The Failing Firm Defense," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 175-201, June.
    10. Chen, Xu & Wang, Xiaojun & Jing, Haojie, 2023. "Technology licensing strategies for three cost-differential manufacturers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 622-635.
    11. Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2006. "Endogenous asset ownership structures in deregulated markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1729-1752, October.
    12. David R. Collie, 2019. "Taxation under oligopoly in a general equilibrium setting," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 21(4), pages 738-753, August.
    13. Sascha Fuellbrunn & Tibor Neugebauer, 2007. "An experimental investigation of collusion in hard-close auctions: partners and friends," FEMM Working Papers 07024, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    14. van Damme, E.E.C., 2002. "The Dutch UMTS-auction," Other publications TiSEM e33a97f5-c69b-4c3b-9aca-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Adriaan R. Soetevent & Marco A. Haan & Pim Heijnen, 2014. "Do Auctions and Forced Divestitures Increase Competition? Evidence for Retail Gasoline Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 467-502, September.
    16. Bruno D. Badia, 2019. "Patent Licensing and Technological Catch-Up in a Heterogeneous Duopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(2), pages 287-300, September.
    17. Hu, Youxin & Kagel, John & Xu, Xiaoshu & Ye, Lixin, 2013. "Theoretical and experimental analysis of auctions with negative externalities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 269-291.
    18. Farrell Joseph & Shapiro Carl, 2010. "Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, March.
    19. Sinitsyn, Maxim, 2022. "On the inefficiencies of anti-stacking royalty clauses," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    20. Carlo Capuano & Iacopo Grassi, 2019. "Imperfect patent protection, licensing, and Social Welfare," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(4), pages 2639-2649.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ijethy:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:471-478. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1742-7355 .

    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.