Intellectual property clearinghouses: The effects of reduced transaction costs in licensing
We focus on downstream uses of intellectual property (IP) that combine multiple rights and examine the effects of introducing an IP clearinghouse. We identify the two sometimes conflicting functions of clearinghouses: transaction cost reductions and coordination. We show that reduced transaction costs cause licensors to raise royalties in some cases, which makes them worse off due to the [`]tragedy of the anticommons'. Downstream welfare effects may also be positive or negative and we characterize the effects on downstream manufacturers and final consumers. We also show that total welfare is most likely to increase following a transaction cost reduction when the number of intellectual property rights per downstream use is small, or if rights are relatively substitutable in downstream use, but it is also possible for welfare to decrease.
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.
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.
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.:
- Buchanan, James M & Yoon, Yong J, 2000. "Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 1-13, April.
- Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2004.
"Efficient Patent Pools,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 691-711, June.
- Carl Shapiro, 2001.
"Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting,"
in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Shapiro, Carl, 2000. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt4hs5s9wk, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Carl Shapiro, 2004. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools and Standard Setting," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000539, David K. Levine.
- Carl Shapiro, 2003. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting," Law and Economics 0303005, EconWPA.
- Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2003.
"Licensing the market for technology,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 277-295, October.
- Kleit, Andrew N, 2000. "ASCAP Versus BMI (Versus CBS): Modeling Competition between and Bundling by Performance Rights Organizations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(4), pages 579-590, October.
- Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
- Hollander, Abraham, 1984. "Market structure and performance in intellectual property : The case of copyright collectives," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 199-216, September.
- Aoki, Reiko & Schiff, Aaron, 2007. "Promoting Access to Intellectual Property: Patent Pools, Copyright Collectives and Clearinghouses," PIE/CIS Discussion Paper 334, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
- Suma Athreye & John Cantwell, 2005.
"Creating Competition? Globalisation and the emergence of new technology producers,"
Open Discussion Papers in Economics
52, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
- Athreye, Suma & Cantwell, John, 2007. "Creating competition?: Globalisation and the emergence of new technology producers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 209-226, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:22:y:2010:i:3:p:218-227. 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.