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

Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property

Listed author(s):
  • Rey, Patrick
  • Salant, David

We examine the impact of the licensing policies of one or more upstream owners of essential intellectual property (IP hereafter) on the variety offered by a downstream industry, as well as on consumers and social welfare. When an upstream IP monopoly increases the number of licenses, it enhances product variety, adding to consumer value, but it also intensifies downstream competition, and thus dissipates profits. As a result, the upstream IP monopoly may want to provide too many or too few licenses relative to what maximizes consumer surplus or social welfare.

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/S0167718712000616
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 International Journal of Industrial Organization.

Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 518-527

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:30:y:2012:i:6:p:518-527
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2012.05.003
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551

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. Rubén Hernández-Murillo & Gerard Llobet, 2004. "Patent licensing revisited: heterogeneous firms and product differentiation," Working Papers 2002-031, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
  2. B. Caillaud & R. Guesnerie & P. Rey & J. Tirole, 1988. "Government Intervention in Production and Incentives Theory: A Review of Recent Contributions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, Spring.
  3. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2003. "A Primer on Foreclosure," IDEI Working Papers 203, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised Nov 2005.
  4. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1986. "How to License Intangible Property," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 567-589.
  5. 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, 04.
  6. Chen, Yongmin, 2001. "On Vertical Mergers and Their Competitive Effects," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 667-685, Winter.
  7. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
  8. A. Michael Spence, 1975. "Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 417-429, Autumn.
  9. Hart, O. & Tirole, J., 1990. "Vertical Integration And Market Foreclosure," Working papers 548, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  10. McAfee, R. Preston & Schwartz, Marius, 1995. "The non-existence of pairwise-proof equilibrium," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 251-259, September.
  11. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2006. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp0740, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  12. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
  13. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2003. "The Scope of Open Source Licensing," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000140, David K. Levine.
  14. Lancaster, Kelvin, 1975. "Socially Optimal Product Differentiation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(4), pages 567-585, September.
  15. Matthieu Glachant & Yann Ménière, 2013. "Technology Diffusion with Learning Spillovers: Patent Versus Free Access," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 81(5), pages 683-711, 09.
  16. Menell, Peter S. & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2007. "Intellectual Property Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier.
  17. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
  18. Layne-Farrar, Anna & Padilla, Atilano Jorge & Schmalensee, Richard, 2007. "Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard Setting Organisations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments," CEPR Discussion Papers 6025, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  19. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716.
  20. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
  21. Kamien, Morton I., 1992. "Patent licensing," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 331-354 Elsevier.
  22. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
  23. Shapiro, Carl, 2006. "Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt6px3m1rb, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  24. Yongmin Chen & Michael H. Riordan, 2007. "Price and Variety in the Spokes Model," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(522), pages 897-921, 07.
  25. Michael A. Salinger, 1988. "Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 345-356.
  26. Green, J.R. & Scotchmer, S., 1993. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1638, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  27. Carl Shapiro, 2004. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools and Standard Setting," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000539, David K. Levine.
  28. John Vickers, 1995. "Competition and Regulation in Vertically Related Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 1-17.
  29. Allain, Marie-Laure & Chambolle, Claire & Rey, Patrick, 2011. "Vertical Integration, Information and Foreclosure," IDEI Working Papers 673, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised Nov 2011.
  30. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
  31. Schmidt, Klaus M., 2008. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," CEPR Discussion Papers 7005, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  32. Lemley, Mark A & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8638s257, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  33. Michael Spence, 1976. "Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 217-235.
  34. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
  35. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2006. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 43, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
  36. Carl Shapiro, 2010. "Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties-super-1," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 509-557.
  37. Daniel P. O'Brien & Greg Shaffer, 1992. "Vertical Control with Bilateral Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(3), pages 299-308, Autumn.
  38. Can Erutku & Yves Richelle, 2006. "Licensing a new product with non-linear contracts," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 932-947, August.
  39. Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1992. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 698-703, June.
  40. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1975. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 64, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  41. Ramón Faulí-Oller & Joel Sandonís, 2000. "Welfare Reducing Licensing," Working Papers. Serie AD 2000-12, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  42. Noel, Michael D. & Schankerman, Mark, 2006. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 5701, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  43. A. Jorge Padilla & Anne Layne-Farrar & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "Pricing Patents For Licensing In Standard Setting Organizations: Making Sense Of Frand Commitments," Working Papers wp2007_0702, CEMFI.
  44. Michael L. Katz, 1980. "Multiplant Monopoly in a Spatial Market," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 519-535, Autumn.
  45. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  46. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
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:indorg:v:30:y:2012:i:6:p:518-527. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)

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.