IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/7511.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Waiting to imitate: on the dynamic pricing of knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Henry, Emeric
  • Ponce, Carlos

Abstract

We study the problem of an inventor who brings to the market an innovation that can be legally copied. Imitators may 'enter' the market by copying the innovation at a cost or by buying from the inventor the knowledge necessary to reproduce and use the invention. The possibility of contracting affects the need for patent protection. Our results reveal that: (i) Imitators wait to enter the market and the inventor becomes a temporary monopolist; (ii) The inventor offers contracts which allow resale of the knowledge acquired by the imitators; (iii) As the pool of potential imitators grows large, the inventor may become a permanent monopolist.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry, Emeric & Ponce, Carlos, 2009. "Waiting to imitate: on the dynamic pricing of knowledge," CEPR Discussion Papers 7511, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:7511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=7511
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 557-586.
    2. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414.
    4. Michele Boldrin & David Levine, 2002. "The Case Against Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 209-212, May.
    5. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2003. "Licensing the market for technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 277-295, October.
    6. Muto, Shigeo, 1986. "An Information Good Market with Symmetric Externalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 295-312, March.
    7. Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1994. "Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 190-209, March.
    8. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Katharine E. Rockett, 1990. "Choosing the Competition and Patent Licensing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 161-171, Spring.
    10. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264.
    11. Bessen, James, 2005. "Patents and the diffusion of technical information," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 121-128, January.
    12. Simon, Leo K & Stinchcombe, Maxwell B, 1989. "Extensive Form Games in Continuous Time: Pure Strategies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1171-1214, September.
    13. B. Douglas Bernheim, 1984. "Strategic Deterrence of Sequential Entry into an Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, Spring.
    14. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2008. "Appropriation and Intellectual Property," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002262, David K. Levine.
    16. Jean-Pierre Benoit, 1985. "Innovation and Imitation in a Duopoly," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 99-106.
    17. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    18. Hendricks, Ken & Weiss, Andrew & Wilson, Charles A, 1988. "The War of Attrition in Continuous Time with Complete Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 29(4), pages 663-680, November.
    19. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2014. "Intellectual Property," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000990, David K. Levine.
    20. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    21. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819.
    22. Gallini, Nancy T, 1984. "Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 931-941, December.
    23. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "Markov Perfect Equilibrium: I. Observable Actions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 191-219, October.
    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. Mohamed MABROUKI, 2018. "What Kind Of Intellectual Propfrty Regime Is More Favorable To Innovation: With Or Without A Patent?," Journal of Smart Economic Growth, , vol. 3(1), pages 77-95, Juin.
    2. Benoit, Jean-Pierre & Galbiati, Roberto & Henry, Emeric, 2013. "Rational parasites," CEPR Discussion Papers 9351, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Rousakis, Michael, 2012. "Implementation Cycles : Investment-Specific Technological Change and the Length of Patents," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 983, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    4. Tuomas Takalo, 2012. "Rationales and Instruments for Public Innovation Policies," Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, Lifescience Global, vol. 1, pages 157-167.
    5. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    6. Henry, Emeric & Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2012. "Innovation Beyond Patents: Technological Complexity as a Protection against Imitation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Rousakis, Michael, 2012. "Implementation Cycles: Investment-Specific Technological Change and the Length of Patents," Economic Research Papers 270656, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    8. Julia Cagé & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2020. "The Production of Information in an Online World," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 87(5), pages 2126-2164.
    9. Correia-da-Silva João & Pinho Joana & Vasconcelos Hélder, 2015. "How Should Cartels React to Entry Triggered by Demand Growth?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-47, January.
    10. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Tesoriere, Antonio & Balletta, Luigi, 2017. "A dynamic model of open source vs proprietary R&D," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 221-239.
    12. Emeric Henry & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Keeping Secrets: The Economics of Access Deterrence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 95-118, August.
    13. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Galbiati, Roberto & Henry, Emeric, 2017. "Investing to cooperate: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-17.
    14. Bronwyn H. Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2012. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Literature Review," NBER Working Papers 17983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Mabrouki, Mohamed, 2018. "Le brevet : un instrument efficace pour promouvoir l’innovation au profit de la croissance ou un mal nécessaire ? [Patent: an effective instrument to promote innovation for the benefit of growth or," MPRA Paper 85752, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Mohamed Mabrouki, 2018. "Supporting economic growth through innovation: How does human capital influence the rate of growth?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(2), pages 957-972.
    17. Leppälä, Samuli, 2013. "Arrow's paradox and markets for nonproprietary information," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2013/2, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    18. Fernandez Donoso, Jose, 2014. "Do complex inventions need less international patent protection?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 278-281.

    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. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8gkjgsq3 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Emeric Henry & Carlos J. Ponce, 2008. "Waiting to Copy: On the Dynamics of the Market for Technology," Working Papers hal-01066192, HAL.
    3. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatr32p81 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2008. "Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization," Economics Working Papers 1254, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2014.
    5. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    6. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10121 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Maria Isabella Leone & Keld Laursen, 2011. "Patent Exploitation Strategies and Value Creation," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Jean-François Sattin, 2016. "Exploring the survival of patent licensing: some evidence from French foreign agreements," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 610-630, June.
    11. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    12. Boldrin Michele & Levine David K., 2009. "Does Intellectual Monopoly Help Innovation?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 991-1024, December.
    13. Jürgen Mihm & Fabian J. Sting & Tan Wang, 2015. "On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation Races," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2662-2684, November.
    14. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Galbiati, Roberto & Henry, Emeric, 2017. "Investing to cooperate: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-17.
    15. Preet S Aulakh & Marshall S Jiang & Yigang Pan, 2010. "International technology licensing: Monopoly rents, transaction costs and exclusive rights," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 41(4), pages 587-605, May.
    16. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2005. "My Precious. The Role of Appropriability Strategies in Shaping Innovative Performance," DRUID Working Papers 05-02, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    17. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
    18. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    19. Santiago, Leonardo P. & Martinelli, Marcela & Eloi-Santos, Daniel T. & Hortac, Luciana Hashiba, 2015. "A framework for assessing a portfolio of technologies for licensing out," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 242-251.
    20. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Ruble, Richard & Versaevel, Bruno, 2014. "Innovation and imitation incentives in dynamic duopoly," MPRA Paper 59453, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Sebastian von Engelhardt & Sushmita Swaminathan, 2008. "Open Source Software, Closed Source Software or Both: Impacts on Industry Growth and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 799, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    22. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Fosfuri, Andrea, 2004. "Determinants of international activity: evidence from the chemical processing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1599-1614, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contracting; knowledge trading; Patents; war of attrition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:7511. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.