IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kgu/wpaper/65.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fee Versus Royalties in General Cost functions

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroaki Ino

    (School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University)

Abstract

Which is better off for the patentee to license its technology by fixed fee or unit royalties? Kamien and Tauman [8] showed that the fixed fee scheme brings greater private value of the patent in the linear model. We extend their analysis into a general model. Then, the simple fact that the model allows a increasing marginal cost supports the unit royalties scheme. More concretely, the unit royalties scheme is superior to the fixed fee scheme when the number of firms is large.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroaki Ino, 2010. "Fee Versus Royalties in General Cost functions," Discussion Paper Series 65, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Nov 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:kgu:wpaper:65
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://192.218.163.163/RePEc/pdf/kgdp65.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    3. Hiroaki Ino & Tomohiko Kawamori, 2009. "Oligopoly with a large number of competitors: asymmetric limit result," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 331-352, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Beggs, A. W., 1992. "The licensing of patents under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 171-191, June.
    6. Xavier Vives, 2001. "Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026272040x, December.
    7. Muto Shigeo, 1993. "On Licensing Policies in Bertrand Competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 257-267, April.
    8. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    9. 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.
    10. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    11. de Meza, David, 1986. "Immiserising invention : The private and social returns to R&D under oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 409-417, December.
    12. Yair Tauman & Naoki Watanabe, 2007. "The Shapley Value of a Patent Licensing Game: the Asymptotic Equivalence to Non-cooperative Results," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(1), pages 135-149, January.
    13. 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.
    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. Kishimoto, Shin, 2013. "Stable bargaining outcomes in patent licensing: A cooperative game approach without side payments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 183-195.

    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. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    2. Yair Tauman & Debrapiya Sen, 2012. "Patents and Licenses," Department of Economics Working Papers 12-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    3. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Giebe, Thomas & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2008. "License auctions with royalty contracts for (winners and) losers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 91-106, May.
    7. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    8. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2009. "Drastic innovations and multiplicity of optimal licensing policies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 7-10, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Neelanjan Sen, 2015. "Technology Transfer in Oligopoly in Presence of Fixed-Cost in Production," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 383-409, December.
    11. Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2008. "On the possibility of licensing in a market with logit demand functions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(17), pages 1-11.
    12. Zhao, Dan, 2017. "Choices and impacts of cross-licensing contracts," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 389-405.
    13. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    14. 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.
    15. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    16. Kishimoto, Shin, 2013. "Stable bargaining outcomes in patent licensing: A cooperative game approach without side payments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 183-195.
    17. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2016. "Licensing under general demand and cost functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 673-680.
    18. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, June.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2008:i:17:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Technology licensing under convex costs," Discussion Papers 10/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    21. Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch & Cecilia Vergari, 2013. "Bargaining and delay in patent licensing," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 279-302, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    licensing; Cournot competition; convex cost; limit theorem;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D45 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Rationing; Licensing
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:kgu:wpaper:65. 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: Toshihiro Okada (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dekgujp.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.