IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lbo/lbowps/2013_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patent pool under endogenous technology choice

Author

Listed:
  • Arijit Mukherjee

    (School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, UK)

Abstract

It is generally believed that patent pools by complementary input suppliers make the consumers, final goods producers and the society better off by reducing the complements problem. We show that this may not be the case under endogenous technology choice. Although a patent pool reduces input price, it may make the consumers and the society worse off by reducing innovation. We also show that a patent pool makes the input suppliers better off, but it may not make all final goods producers better off compared with non-cooperation between the input suppliers.

Suggested Citation

  • Arijit Mukherjee, 2013. "Patent pool under endogenous technology choice," Discussion Paper Series 2013_07, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Jul 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:lbo:lbowps:2013_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sbe/RePEc/lbo/lbowps/Mukherjee_lbowps_2013_07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2014. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 68-88, March.
    2. Aoki, Reiko & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2004. "The Consortium Standard and Patent Pools," Economic Review, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 55(4), pages 345-357, January.
    3. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2004. "Efficient Patent Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 691-711, June.
    4. Priest, George L, 1977. "Cartels and Patent License Arrangements," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 309-377, October.
    5. Ray Chaudhuri, Prabal, 1995. "Technological asymmetry and joint product development," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 23-39, March.
    6. Arijit Mukherjee & Enrico Pennings, 2004. "Imitation, patent protection, and welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 715-733, October.
    7. Jay Pil Choi, 2010. "Patent Pools And Cross-Licensing In The Shadow Of Patent Litigation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(2), pages 441-460, May.
    8. Sung-Hwan Kim, 2004. "Vertical Structure and Patent Pools," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 25(3), pages 231-250, July.
    9. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2003. "Does society prefer small innovation?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 301-307, March.
    10. Mattoo, Aaditya & Olarreaga, Marcelo & Saggi, Kamal, 2004. "Mode of foreign entry, technology transfer, and FDI policy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 95-111, October.
    11. Kato, Atsushi, 2004. "Patent pool enhances market competition," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 255-268, June.
    12. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    13. Mookherjee, Dilip & Ray, Debraj, 1991. "On the competitive pressure created by the diffusion of innovations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 124-147, June.
    14. Layne-Farrar, Anne & Lerner, Josh, 2011. "To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 294-303, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Complementary inputs; Patent pool; Innovation; Welfare;

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:lbo:lbowps:2013_07. 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: (Huw Edwards). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/delbouk.html .

    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 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.

    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.