IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reecon/v70y2016i4p693-713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patent licensing and bargaining with innovative complements and substitutes

Author

Listed:
  • Spulber, Daniel F.

Abstract

Inventors and producers bargain over royalties to license multiple patented inventions. In the first stage of the bargaining game, inventors offer licenses to producers and producers demand licenses. In the second stage of the game, inventors and producers engage in bilateral bargaining over licensing royalties. The analysis shows that there is a unique weakly dominant strategy equilibrium in license offers. The main result is that this bargaining procedure maximizes the joint profits of inventors and producers. Licensing royalties are less than bundled monopoly royalties. The efficiency of the bargaining outcome contrasts with the inefficiency of patent royalties in the Cournot posted prices model. The analysis explores the implications of the main results for antitrust policy concerns including Standard Essential Patent holdup, royalty stacking, patent thickets, the Tragedy of the Anticommons, and justification for patent pools. The discussion also considers how imperfect intellectual property rights affect bargaining over royalties.

Suggested Citation

  • Spulber, Daniel F., 2016. "Patent licensing and bargaining with innovative complements and substitutes," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 693-713.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reecon:v:70:y:2016:i:4:p:693-713
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rie.2016.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944316301685
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rie.2016.08.004?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diamond, P. A. & Maskin, Eric, 1981. "An equilibrium analysis of search and breach of contract II. A non-steady state example," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 165-195, October.
    2. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    3. Daniel F. Spulber, 2013. "How Do Competitive Pressures Affect Incentives to Innovate When There Is a Market for Inventions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(6), pages 1007-1054.
    4. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    5. Tomoya Yanagisawa & Dominique Guellec, 2009. "The Emerging Patent Marketplace," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/9, OECD Publishing.
    6. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    7. Rabah Amir & Val E. Lambson, 2000. "On the Effects of Entry in Cournot Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 235-254.
    8. Gastón Llanes & Joaquín Poblete, 2014. "Ex Ante Agreements in Standard Setting and Patent‐Pool Formation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 50-67, March.
    9. Simon P. Anderson & André De Palma & Jacques-François Thisse, 1989. "Demand for Differentiated Products, Discrete Choice Models, and the Characteristics Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(1), pages 21-35.
    10. Mariko Sakakibara, 2010. "An empirical analysis of pricing in patent licensing contracts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 927-945, June.
    11. Rubinstein, Ariel & Wolinsky, Asher, 1985. "Equilibrium in a Market with Sequential Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1133-1150, September.
    12. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2014. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 68-88, March.
    13. Gastón Llanes & Stefano Trento, 2012. "Patent policy, patent pools, and the accumulation of claims in sequential innovation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(3), pages 703-725, August.
    14. Sung-Hwan Kim, 2004. "Vertical Structure and Patent Pools," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 25(3), pages 231-250, July.
    15. Didier Laussel & Ngo Van Long, 2012. "Vertical Disintegration: A Dynamic Markovian Approach," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 745-771, September.
    16. Wipo, 2012. "World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2012 edition," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2012:941, April.
    17. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Britz, Volker & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Predtetchinski, Arkadi, 2010. "Non-cooperative support for the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1951-1967, September.
    19. Bharat N. Anand & Tarun Khanna, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    20. Anand, Bharat N & Khanna, Tarun, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    21. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2015. "Standard-Essential Patents," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(3), pages 547-586.
    22. William Fellner, 1947. "Prices and Wages under Bilateral Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 61(4), pages 503-532.
    23. Gale, Douglas M, 1986. "Bargaining and Competition Part II: Existence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 807-818, July.
    24. 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.
    25. Steffen Brenner, 2009. "Optimal formation rules for patent pools," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 373-388, September.
    26. John Sutton, 1986. "Non-Cooperative Bargaining Theory: An Introduction," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(5), pages 709-724.
    27. Richard Schmalensee, 2009. "Standard‐Setting, Innovation Specialists And Competition Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 526-552, September.
    28. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2004. "Efficient Patent Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 691-711, June.
    29. Lensberg, Terje, 1988. "Stability and the Nash solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 330-341, August.
    30. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2014. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 68-88, March.
    31. 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.
    32. J. Gregory Sidak, 2013. "The Meaning Of Frand, Part I: Royalties," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 931-1055.
    33. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    34. Diamond, Peter A, 1981. "Mobility Costs, Frictional Unemployment, and Efficiency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 798-812, August.
    35. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    36. 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.
    37. Gerhard Tintner, 1939. "The Problem of Bilateral Monopoly: A Note," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47, pages 263-263.
    38. J. Gregory Sidak, 2015. "The Meaning Of Frand, Part Ii: Injunctions," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 201-269.
    39. Einer Elhauge, 2008. "Do Patent Holdup And Royalty Stacking Lead To Systematically Excessive Royalties?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 535-570.
    40. Bester, Helmut, 1993. "Bargaining versus Price Competition in Markets with Quality Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 278-288, March.
    41. Peter A. Diamond, 1982. "Wage Determination and Efficiency in Search Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(2), pages 217-227.
    42. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2008. "How Strong Are Weak Patents?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-1369, September.
    43. Peter A. Diamond & Eric Maskin, 1979. "An Equilibrium Analysis of Search and Breach of Contract, I: Steady States," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 282-316, Spring.
    44. Gale, Douglas M, 1986. "Bargaining and Competition Part I: Characterization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 785-806, July.
    45. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    46. Kato, Atsushi, 2004. "Patent pool enhances market competition," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 255-268, June.
    47. Bennett, Elaine, 1997. "Multilateral Bargaining Problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 151-179, May.
    48. Daniel F. Spulber, 2015. "How Patents Provide The Foundation Of The Market For Inventions," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 271-316.
    49. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1972. "A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 80-106, January.
    50. A. M. Henderson, 1940. "A Further Note on the Problem of Bilateral Monopoly," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48, pages 238-238.
    51. Vijay Krishna & Roberto Serrano, 1996. "Multilateral Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(1), pages 61-80.
    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. Derek J. Clark & Jean-Christophe Pereau, 2021. "Group bargaining in supply chains," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(3), pages 111-138, September.
    2. Alexei Alexandrov & Russell Pittman & Olga Ukhaneva, 2018. "Pricing of Complements in the U.S. Freight Railroads: Cournot Versus Coase," EAG Discussions Papers 201801, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    3. Gaurav Kankanhalli & Alan Kwan, 2024. "Bargaining power in the market for intellectual property: Evidence from licensing contract terms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 109-173, March.
    4. Alexandrov, Alexei & Pittman, Russell & Ukhaneva, Olga, 2017. "Royalty stacking in the U.S. freight railroads: Cournot vs. Coase," MPRA Paper 78249, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2023. "Standard-essential patents, innovation, and competition," Other publications TiSEM 292e319a-9e6a-4465-8f8f-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Carlo Capuano & Iacopo Grassi, 2020. "Imperfect patent protection, licensing, and willingness to pay for the innovation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(2), pages 333-359, June.
    7. Sinitsyn, Maxim, 2022. "On the inefficiencies of anti-stacking royalty clauses," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    8. Carlo Capuano & Iacopo Grassi, 2019. "Imperfect patent protection, licensing, and Social Welfare," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(4), pages 2639-2649.
    9. 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.

    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. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," 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 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    2. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    3. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Ko, Chiu Yu & Zhang, Xuyao, 2023. "A conceptual model for FRAND royalty setting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 167-176.
    4. Harstad, Bård, 2023. "Pledge-and-review bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    5. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Bargaining," Working Papers 2007-06, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    6. Fu, Xiao & Tan, Guofu & Wang, Jin, 2023. "Policy orientations and technology choices in standards wars," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Marco Rogna, 2022. "The Burning Coalition Bargaining Model," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 735-768, October.
    8. Dequiedt, Vianney & Versaevel, Bruno, 2013. "Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 59-69.
    9. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    10. Bram Driesen & Peter Eccles & Nora Wegner, 2017. "A non-cooperative foundation for the continuous Raiffa solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1115-1135, November.
    11. Britz, Volker & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Predtetchinski, Arkadi, 2010. "Non-cooperative support for the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1951-1967, September.
    12. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    13. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    14. Abbring, Jaap H., 1999. "Commitment and wage bargaining in job matching models with costly search," Serie Research Memoranda 0021, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    15. Harstad, Bård, 2021. "A Theory of Pledge-and-Review Bargaining," Memorandum 5/2022, Oslo University, Department of Economics, revised 21 Jun 2021.
    16. Serrano, Roberto, 1997. "Reinterpreting the Kernel," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 58-80, November.
    17. Chryssoula Pentheroudakis & Justus A. Baron, 2016. "Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases," JRC Research Reports JRC104068, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Pierre Larouche & Florian Schuett, 2019. "Repeated interaction in standard setting," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 488-509, June.
    19. Tesoriere, Antonio, 2019. "Stable sharing rules and participation in pools of essential patents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-58.
    20. Alexei Alexandrov & Russell Pittman & Olga Ukhaneva, 2018. "Pricing of Complements in the U.S. Freight Railroads: Cournot Versus Coase," EAG Discussions Papers 201801, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.

    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:eee:reecon:v:70:y:2016:i:4:p:693-713. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622941 .

    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.