IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Patent licensing with Bertrand competitors

  • Stefano Colombo

    ()

    (DISCE, Università Cattolica)

  • Luigi Filippini

    ()

    (DISCE, Università Cattolica)

We study optimal licensing contracts in a differentiated Bertrand duopoly, and show that per-unit contracts are preferred to ad valorem contracts by the patentee, while welfare is higher under the ad valorem contract. The difference between Cournot and Bertrand case is explained in terms of quantity effect and profits effect.

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://istituti.unicatt.it/teoria_economica_metodi_quantitativi_itemq1262.pdf
File Function: First version, 2012
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE) in its series DISCE - Quaderni dell'Istituto di Teoria Economica e Metodi Quantitativi with number itemq1262.

as
in new window

Length: 53 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ctc:serie6:itemq1262
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.unicatt.it/Istituti/TeoriaEconomica
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Gianluca Femminis & Gianmaria Martini, 2010. "Spillovers, Disclosure Lags, and Incentives to Innovate: Do Oligopolies Over-Invest in R&D?," Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, Vita e Pensiero, Pubblicazioni dell'Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. 118(1), pages 47-76.
  2. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, 03.
  3. Kamien, Morton I & Tauman, Yair, 1986. "Fees versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 471-91, August.
  4. San Martín Lizarralde, Marta & Saracho de la Torre, Ana Isabel, 2012. "Two-part tariff licensing mechanisms," IKERLANAK Ikerlanak;2012-59, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
  5. Kamien, Morton I. & Oren, Shmuel S. & Tauman, Yair, 1992. "Optimal licensing of cost-reducing innovation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 483-508.
  6. 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.
  7. Ana I. Saracho, 2002. "Patent Licensing Under Strategic Delegation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 225-251, 06.
  8. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2002. "On Patent Licensing in Spatial Competition," Departmental Working Papers wp0212, National University of Singapore, Department of Economics.
  9. Kabiraj, Tarun & Marjit, Sugata, 2003. "Protecting consumers through protection: The role of tariff-induced technology transfer," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 113-124, February.
  10. Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Competition And Welfare: The Implications Of Licensing," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 78(1), pages 20-40, 01.
  11. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "How to License Intangible Property," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 567-89, August.
  12. Giebe, Thomas & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2007. "License Auctions with Royalty Contracts for (Winners and) Losers," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 199, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
  13. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos & Tauman, Tami, 2009. "On the superiority of fixed fee over auction in asymmetric markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 331-333, September.
  14. Erutku, C. & Richelle, Y., 2000. "Optimal Licensing Contracts and the Value of a Patent," Cahiers de recherche 2000-07, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  15. Bousquet, Alain & Cremer, Helmuth & Ivaldi, Marc & Wolkowicz, Michel, 1998. "Risk sharing in licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 535-554, September.
  16. ERUTKU, C. & RICHELLE, Yves, 2000. "Optimal Licensing Contracts and the Value of a Patent," Cahiers de recherche 2000-07, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  17. Wang, X Henry & Yang, Bill Z, 1999. "On Licensing under Bertrand Competition," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 106-19, June.
  18. Tauman, Yair & Weng, Ming-Hung, 2012. "Selling patent rights and the incentive to innovate," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 241-244.
  19. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2013. "Licensing process innovations when losersʼ messages determine royalty rates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 388-402.
  20. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
  21. Das Varma, Gopal, 2003. "Bidding for a process innovation under alternative modes of competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 15-37, January.
  22. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
  23. Tomomichi Mizuno & Kazuhiro Takauchi & Takeshi Iida, 2011. "Better technology may be sold for a lower fee: The ad valorem tariff and licensing contract," Discussion Papers 1109, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
  24. Mukherjee, Arijit & Pennings, Enrico, 2006. "Tariffs, licensing and market structure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1699-1707, October.
  25. Luigi Filippini, 2005. "Licensing Contract In A Stackelberg Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(5), pages 582-598, 09.
  26. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
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:ctc:serie6:itemq1262. 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: (Gianluca Femminis)

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.