IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bav/wpaper/061_kleer.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Kleer

Abstract

Big companies and small innovation factories possess different advantages in a patent contest. While large firms typically have a better access to product markets, small firms often have a superior R&D efficiency. In this paper I model a patent contest with asymmetric firms. In a pre-contest acquisition game large firms bid sequentially for small firms to combine respective advantages. Sequential bidding allows the first large firm to wait strategically and let the other firm acquire. For low efficiencies this leads to an asymmetric market structure even though the initial situation is symmetric. Furthermore, acquisitions increase the chances for a successful innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Kleer, 2008. "Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms," Working Papers 061, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    • Handle: RePEc:bav:wpaper:061_kleer
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bgpe.de/texte/DP/061_kleer.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter-J. Jost & Claus van der Velden, 2006. "Mergers in Patent Contest Models with Synergies and Spillovers," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 58(2), pages 157-179, April.
    2. Nilssen, Tore & Sorgard, Lars, 1998. "Sequential horizontal mergers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1683-1702, November.
    3. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 1999. "Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 63-80, January.
    4. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107, Elsevier.
    7. Stephen W. Salant & Sheldon Switzer & Robert J. Reynolds, 1983. "Losses From Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(2), pages 185-199.
    8. Zoltan Acs & David Audretsch, 1990. "Innovation and Small Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011131, December.
    9. Harris, Christopher J & Vickers, John S, 1985. "Patent Races and the Persistence of Monopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 461-481, June.
    10. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908, Elsevier.
    11. Bittlingmayer, George, 1985. "Did Antitrust Policy Cause the Great Merger Wave?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 77-118, April.
    12. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    13. Dixit, Avinash K, 1987. "Strategic Behavior in Contests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 891-898, December.
    14. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    15. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robin Kleer, 2009. "Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 307-328, December.
    2. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    3. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    4. Jürgen Peters, 2000. "Buyer Market Power and Innovative Activities," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 16(1), pages 13-38, February.
    5. Wittkopp, Antje, 2002. "Marktstruktur, Innovationsaktivität und Profitabilität der deutschen Ernährungswirtschaft: Das Beispiel Functional Food," FE Working Papers 0205, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies.
    6. Ping Lin & Tianle Zhang & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Vertical integration and disruptive cross‐market R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 51-73, January.
    7. Beneito, Pilar, 2003. "Choosing among alternative technological strategies: an empirical analysis of formal sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 693-713, April.
    8. Claude D'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis‐André Gérard‐Varet, 2010. "Strategic R&D investment, competitive toughness and growth," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 273-295, September.
    9. Michael L. Katz & Howard A. Shelanski, 2005. "Merger Policy and Innovation: Must Enforcement Change to Account for Technological Change?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 109-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Elisabeth Müller & Volker Zimmermann, 2009. "The importance of equity finance for R&D activity," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 303-318, October.
    11. Mueller, Elisabeth & Zimmermann, Volker, 2006. "The Importance of Equity Finance for R&D Activity: Are There Differences Between Young and OldCompanies?," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-014, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Iritié, B. G. Jean-Jacques, 2014. "Enjeux des politiques industrielles basées sur les clusters d'innovation: cas des pôles de compétitivité [Issues of Innovative Clusters-based Industrial Policy: Case of Pole of Competitiveness]," MPRA Paper 54429, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Hoppe, Heidrun C., 2000. "Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under uncertainty," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 315-338, February.
    14. Ester Martínez Ros & Vicente Salas Fumás, "undated". "The effect of innovation activity on innovating quasi-rents: an empirical application," Studies on the Spanish Economy 03, FEDEA.
    15. Walter Park & Ralph Sonenshine, 2012. "Impact of Horizontal Mergers on Research & Development and Patenting: Evidence from Merger Challenges in the U.S," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 143-167, March.
    16. Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2007. "Is demand-pulled innovation equally important in different groups of firms?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 31(5), pages 691-710, September.
    17. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    18. By Kenneth L. Judd & Karl Schmedders & Şevin Yeltekin, 2012. "Optimal Rules For Patent Races," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(1), pages 23-52, February.
    19. Arbussà, Anna & Coenders, Germà, 2005. "Innovation strategies in the presence of technology markets: evidence from Spanish innovative firms," Working Papers of the Department of Economics, University of Girona 15, Department of Economics, University of Girona.
    20. Karbowski Adam, 2016. "The Elasticity-Based Approach to Enterprise Innovation," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 49(1), pages 58-78, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    patent contest; sequential acquisitions;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

    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:bav:wpaper:061_kleer. 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: Jennifer Feichtmayer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vierlde.html .

    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.