IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/doj/eagpap/200603.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovation and Ex Ante Consideration of Licensing Terms in Standard Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Tor Winston

    (Economic Analysis Group, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice)

Abstract

In an effort to produce interoperable products, firms frequently participate in Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) to collaboratively set technical standards for products used by networks of consumers. Some SSO members say they suffer from a type of holdup: after they sink technology-specific investments in developing and implementing a standard using a particular patented technology the patent owner can set licensing terms that exploit those investments. These members have called on SSOs to enhance competition between patent owners by soliciting and considering licensing terms for competing technologies ex ante, before anointing one as "the standard." However, more competitive licensing terms may dampen incentives to innovate. This paper analyzes the balance between the welfare benefits of the added competition and the welfare costs of reduced innovation. The model of R&D investment and standard setting predicts that both total welfare and consumer welfare are higher when an SSO considered licensing terms ex ante as long as the cost of innovation is not "high." The model also predicts that the welfare benefits of ex ante consideration of licensing terms grow as the costs of innovation falls. However, when the cost of innovation is "high" the negative welfare effects are always small.

Suggested Citation

  • Tor Winston, 2006. "Innovation and Ex Ante Consideration of Licensing Terms in Standard Setting," EAG Discussions Papers 200603, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
  • Handle: RePEc:doj:eagpap:200603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/221875.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1987. "Coordination Through Committees and Markets," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5sn4b6v4, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Oliver E. Williamson, 2025. "Transaction Cost Economics," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, edition 0, chapter 4, pages 47-71, Springer.
    3. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    4. Bertrand Quélin & Tamym Abdessemed & Jean‐Philippe Bonardi & Rodolphe Durand, 2001. "Standardization of Network Technologies: Market Processes or the Result of Inter‐Firm Co‐operation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 543-569, September.
    5. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1988. "Coordination Through Committees and Markets," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt08w115vq, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    6. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    7. Gilbert, Richard J, 1992. "Symposium on Compatibility: Incentives and Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 1-8, March.
    8. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    9. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    10. Angelique Augereau & Shane Greenstein & Marc Rysman, 2004. "Coordination vs. Differentiation in a Standards War: 56K Modems," NBER Working Papers 10334, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 2002. "Patent Licensing: The Inside Story," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 70(1), pages 7-15, January.
    12. Ilya Segal, 1999. "Contracting with Externalities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 337-388.
    13. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:4:p:543-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    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. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    2. Timothy Simcoe & Jeremy Watson, 2019. "Forking, Fragmentation, and Splintering," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 283-297, December.
    3. Foucart, Renaud & Li, Qian Cher, 2021. "The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    4. Tobias Kretschmer & Katrin Muehlfeld, 2004. "Co-opetition in Standard-Setting: The Case of the Compact Disc," Working Papers 04-14, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    5. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    6. Masaki Tomochi & Hiroaki Murata & Mitsuo Kono, 2002. "A Consumer-Based Model of Competitive Diffusion of Two Goods: The Effects of Network Externalities and Local Interactions," Game Theory and Information 0205006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Daniel P. Gross, 2020. "Collusive Investments in Technological Compatibility: Lessons from U.S. Railroads in the Late 19th Century," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5683-5700, December.
    8. Vitor Trindade & Johannes Moenius, 2007. "Networks, Standards and Intellectual Property Rights," Working Papers 0705, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    9. Belleflamme, Paul, 2002. "Coordination on formal vs. de facto standards: a dynamic approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 153-176, March.
    10. Funk, Jeffrey L. & Methe, David T., 2001. "Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: the case of mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 589-610, April.
    11. van Wessel, R.M., 2008. "Realizing business benefits from company IT standardization : Case study research into the organizational value of IT standards, towards a company IT standardization management framework," Other publications TiSEM 4bdde091-4f3f-4be1-84aa-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Oz Shy, 2011. "A Short Survey of Network Economics," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(2), pages 119-149, March.
    13. Dinçkol, Dize & Ozcan, Pinar & Zachariadis, Markos, 2023. "Regulatory standards and consequences for industry architecture: The case of UK Open Banking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    14. Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Hong Jiang & Shukuan Zhao & Chang Liu & Yong Chen, 2016. "The role, formation mechanism, and dynamic mechanism of action of technology standards in industrial systems," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 289-302, September.
    16. Werle, Raymund, 2000. "Institutional aspects of standardization: Jurisdictional conflicts and choice of standardization organizations," MPIfG Discussion Paper 00/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    17. van Wegberg, M.J., 2003. "The grand coalition versus competing coalitions: trade-offs in how to standardize," Research Memorandum 021, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    18. van de Kaa, Geerten & Greeven, Mark, 2017. "LED standardization in China and South East Asia: Stakeholders, infrastructure and institutional regimes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 863-870.
    19. Kerstan, Sven & Kretschmer, Tobias & Muehlfeld, Katrin, 2012. "The dynamics of pre-market standardization," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 105-119.
    20. A Kimms, 2003. "Costing communication standards in information systems using a minimum cut approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 426-431, April.

    More about this item

    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:doj:eagpap:200603. 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: Tung Vu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/atrgvus.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.