IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

How does a mixed ownership firm license a patent?

Listed author(s):
  • Gelves, Juan Alejandro
  • Heywood, John S.

This paper demonstrates that a cost disadvantaged innovator increasingly relies on licensing with a fixed fee as its public ownership share grows. Moreover, when the innovation is drastic, a cost disadvantaged innovator frequently licenses by fixed fee when it has a public share even as a fully private firm will never use a fixed fee. As the fixed fee improves welfare, these results suggest that the licensing method of a partial public firm helps correct the market failure of imperfect competition.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999316302085
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Economic Modelling.

Volume (Year): 59 (2016)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 278-284

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecmode:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:278-284
DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.07.018
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30411

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as
in new window


  1. Henry Wang, X., 2002. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a differentiated Cournot duopoly," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 253-266.
  2. San Martín, Marta & Saracho, Ana I., 2010. "Royalty licensing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 284-287, May.
  3. Katharine E. Rockett, 1990. "Choosing the Competition and Patent Licensing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 161-171, Spring.
  4. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2004. "On Patent Licensing in Spatial Competition," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(249), pages 208-218, 06.
  5. Heywood, John S. & Li, Jianpei & Ye, Guangliang, 2014. "Per unit vs. ad valorem royalties under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-46.
  6. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
  7. Vasileios Zikos, 2010. "R&D Collaboration Networks in Mixed Oligopoly," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 77(1), pages 189-212, July.
  8. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
  9. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
  10. 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.
  11. Maria José Gil-Moltó & Joanna Poyago-Theotoky & Vasileios Zikos, 2011. "R&D Subsidies, Spillovers, and Privatization in Mixed Markets," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 233-255, July.
  12. Hu, Albert Guangzhou & Jefferson, Gary H., 2004. "Returns to research and development in Chinese industry: Evidence from state-owned enterprises in Beijing," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 86-107, January.
  13. Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, 1998. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Tale of University Licensing," NBER Working Papers 6698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Thursby, Jerry G & Jensen, Richard & Thursby, Marie C, 2001. "Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 59-72, January.
  15. Wang, Leonard F.S. & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2012. "Undesirable competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 175-177.
  16. Beise, Marian & Stahl, Harald, 1999. "Public research and industrial innovations in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 397-422, April.
  17. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2010. "Patent Licensing from a High-Cost Firm to a Low-Cost Firm," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 384-395, 09.
  18. Guangliang Ye, 2012. "Patent Licensing in a Mixed Oligopoly with a Foreign Firm," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(2), pages 1191-1197.
  19. Matsumura, Toshihiro, 1998. "Partial privatization in mixed duopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 473-483, December.
  20. Kamien, Morton I & Tauman, Yair, 2002. "Patent Licensing: The Inside Story," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 70(1), pages 7-15, January.
  21. Gelves, J. Alejandro & Heywood, John S., 2013. "Privatizing by merger: The case of an inefficient public leader," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 69-79.
  22. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Martinez-Giralt, Xavier & David Perez-Castrillo, J., 1996. "The role of information in licensing contract design," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 43-57, January.
  23. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2004. "Endogenous Cost Differentials between Public and Private Enterprises: A Mixed Duopoly Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 71(284), pages 671-688, November.
  24. Ishibashi, Ikuo & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2006. "R&D competition between public and private sectors," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 1347-1366, August.
  25. 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.
  26. Sinha, Uday Bhanu, 2016. "Optimal value of a patent in an asymmetric Cournot duopoly market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-105.
  27. John S. Heywood & Guangliang Ye, 2011. "Patent licensing in a model of spatial price discrimination," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(3), pages 589-602, 08.
  28. Nandini Gupta, 2005. "Partial Privatization and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(2), pages 987-1015, 04.
  29. María José Gil-Moltó & Joanna Poyago-Theotoky, 2008. "Flexible versus Dedicated Technology Adoption in the Presence of a Public Firm," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 74(4), pages 997-1016, April.
  30. Lu, Yuanzhu & Poddar, Sougata, 2014. "Patent licensing in spatial models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 250-256.
  31. Ghosh, Arghya & Saha, Souresh, 2015. "Price competition, technology licensing and strategic trade policy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 91-99.
  32. Zhang, Anming & Zhang, Yimin & Zhao, Ronald, 2003. "A study of the R&D efficiency and productivity of Chinese firms," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-464, September.
  33. Massimo Florio, 2014. "The return of public enterprise," Working Papers 201401, CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies.
  34. Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Endogenous timing in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 181-185, November.
  35. Luigi Filippini, 2005. "Licensing Contract In A Stackelberg Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(5), pages 582-598, 09.
  36. Chen, Yi-Wen & Yang, Ya-Po & Wang, Leonard F.S. & Wu, Shih-Jye, 2014. "Technology licensing in mixed oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 193-204.
  37. Niu, Shuai, 2013. "The equivalence of profit-sharing licensing and per-unit royalty licensing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 10-14.
  38. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
  39. Mukesh Eswaran, 1994. "Cross-Licensing of Competing Patents as a Facilitating Device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 27(3), pages 689-708, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecmode:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:278-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.