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. 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.
    2. Gilbert, Richard J, 1992. "Symposium on Compatibility: Incentives and Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 1-8, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:4:p:543-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. repec:cdl:econwp:qt08w115vq is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ilya Segal, 1999. "Contracting with Externalities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 337-388.
    10. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    11. 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.
    12. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    13. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    14. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    15. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 2002. "Patent Licensing: The Inside Story," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 70(1), pages 7-15, January.
    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. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    2. Banerjee, Swapnendu & Poddar, Sougata, 2019. "‘To sell or not to sell’: Licensing versus selling by an outside innovator," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 293-304.
    3. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    4. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2018. "Optimal licensing of technology in the face of (asymmetric) competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 32-53.
    5. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2007. "On patent licensing in spatial competition with endogenous location choice," Discussion Papers 2007-35, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    6. Kuang-Cheng Andy Wang & Ching-Chih Tseng & Wen-Jung Liang, 2016. "Patent Licensing in the Presence of Trade Barriers," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 329-347, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Madhuri H. Shastry & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2024. "Privatization and Licensing Under Public Budget Constraint," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Tauman, Yair & Weng, Ming-Hung, 2012. "Selling patent rights and the incentive to innovate," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 241-244.
    10. Hao Xu & Deqing Tan, 2023. "Optimal Abatement Technology Licensing in a Dynamic Transboundary Pollution Game: Fixed Fee Versus Royalty," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(3), pages 905-935, March.
    11. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2010. "Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 735-742, August.
    12. Gooroochurn, Nishaal & Hanley, Aoife, 2007. "A tale of two literatures: Transaction costs and property rights in innovation outsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1483-1495, December.
    13. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    14. 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).
    15. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    16. Sinha, Uday Bhanu, 2016. "Optimal value of a patent in an asymmetric Cournot duopoly market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-105.
    17. Rabah Amir & David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2011. "Per-Unit Royalty vs Fixed Fee: The Case of Weak Patents," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00595493, HAL.
    18. Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy & Liang, Wen-Jung & Chou, Pin-Shu, 2013. "Patent licensing under cost asymmetry among firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 297-307.
    19. Kishimoto, Shin & Watanabe, Naoki & Muto, Shigeo, 2011. "Bargaining outcomes in patent licensing: Asymptotic results in a general Cournot market," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 114-123, March.
    20. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Incompleteness and clarity in bus contracts: Identifying the nature of the ex ante and ex post perceptual divide," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 106-117.

    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.