IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/21090.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Empirical Examination of Patent Hold-up

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Galetovic
  • Stephen Haber
  • Ross Levine

Abstract

A large literature asserts that standard essential patents (SEPs) allow their owners to “hold up” innovation by charging fees that exceed their incremental contribution to a final product. We evaluate two central, interrelated predictions of this SEP hold-up hypothesis: (1) SEP-reliant industries should experience more stagnant quality-adjusted prices than similar non-SEP-reliant industries; and (2) court decisions that reduce the excessive power of SEP holders should accelerate innovation in SEP-reliant industries. We find no empirical support for either prediction. Indeed, SEP-reliant industries have the fastest quality-adjusted price declines in the U.S. economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Galetovic & Stephen Haber & Ross Levine, 2015. "An Empirical Examination of Patent Hold-up," NBER Working Papers 21090, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21090
    Note: IO PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21090.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    2. Joskow, Paul L, 1988. "Asset Specificity and the Structure of Vertical Relationships: Empirical Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 95-117, Spring.
    3. Gilbert,Richard J. & Kahn,Edward P. (ed.), 1996. "International Comparisons of Electricity Regulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521495905.
    4. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    5. David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, 1998. "Testing Static Oligopoly Models: Conduct and Cost in the Sugar Industry, 1890-1914," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(2), pages 355-377, Summer.
    6. Oliver E. Williamson, 1967. "Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75(2), pages 123-123.
    7. Nordhaus William D, 2008. "Baumol's Diseases: A Macroeconomic Perspective," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-39, February.
    8. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Oulton,Nicholas & O'Mahony,Mary, 1994. "Productivity and Growth," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521453455.
    10. 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.
    11. F. Scott Kieff & Anne Layne-Farrar, 2013. "Incentive Effects From Different Approaches To Holdup Mitigation Surrounding Patent Remedies And Standard-Setting Organizations," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 1091-1123.
    12. Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1989. "Empirical studies of industries with market power," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 1011-1057, Elsevier.
    13. Einer Elhauge, 2008. "Do Patent Holdup And Royalty Stacking Lead To Systematically Excessive Royalties?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 535-570.
    14. Bruce H. Kobayashi & Joshua D. Wright, 2009. "Federalism, Substantive Preemption, And Limits On Antitrust: An Application To Patent Holdup," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 469-516.
    15. J. Gregory Sidak, 2009. "Patent Holdup And Oligopsonistic Collusion In Standard-Setting Organizations," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 123-188.
    16. Klein, Benjamin & Crawford, Robert G & Alchian, Armen A, 1978. "Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(2), pages 297-326, October.
    17. Bernhard Ganglmair & Luke M. Froeb & Gregory J. Werden, 2012. "Patent Hold-Up and Antitrust: How A Well-Intentioned Rule Could Retard Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, June.
    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. Shufen Tang & Yuqing Zheng & Taiping Li & Li Zhou, 2021. "The hold‐up problem in China's broiler industry: Empirical evidence from Jiangsu Province," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(4), pages 539-554, December.
    2. Justus Baron & Jorge Contreras & Martin Husovec & Pierre Larouche, 2019. "Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights," JRC Research Reports JRC115004, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Gamarra, Yanis & Friedl, Gunther, 2022. "Firms' Involvement in Standardization and Average Total Costs per Patent Family," 31st European Regional ITS Conference, Gothenburg 2022: Reining in Digital Platforms? Challenging monopolies, promoting competition and developing regulatory regimes 265630, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    4. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    5. Baron, Justus, 2020. "Counting standard contributions to measure the value of patent portfolios - A tale of apples and oranges," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3).
    6. Love, Brian & Lefouili, Yassine & Helmers, Christian, 2020. "Do Standard-Essential Patent Owners Behave Opportunistically? Evidence from U.S. District Court Dockets," TSE Working Papers 20-1160, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Tang, Shufen & Zheng, Yuqing & Li, Taiping & Zhou, Li, 2021. "The Hold-up Problem in China’s Broiler Industry: Empirical Evidence from Jiangsu Province," 2021 ASAE 10th International Conference (Virtual), January 11-13, Beijing, China 329410, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    8. Fiedler, Clemens & Larrain, Maria & Prüfer, Jens, 2023. "Membership, governance, and lobbying in standard-setting organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2020. "How does patent transfer affect innovation of firms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    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. Davide Vannoni, 1999. "Empirical Studies of Vertical Integration: the Transaction Cost Orthodoxy," CERIS Working Paper 199903, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    2. Gonzalez-Diaz, Manuel & Arrunada, Benito & Fernandez, Alberto, 2000. "Causes of subcontracting: evidence from panel data on construction firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 167-187, June.
    3. Manuel González & Benito Arruñada & Alberto Fernández, 1997. "La decisión de subcontratar: el caso de las empresas constructoras," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 21(3), pages 501-521, September.
    4. Jarrad Harford & Robert Schonlau & Jared Stanfield, 2019. "Trade Relationships, Indirect Economic Links, and Mergers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3085-3110, July.
    5. James Jr., Harvey S., 1998. "Are employment and managerial control equivalent? Evidence from an electronics producer," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 447-471, September.
    6. Mikko Ketokivi & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2020. "Transaction Cost Economics As a Theory of Supply Chain Efficiency," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(4), pages 1011-1031, April.
    7. Maloney, Michael T., 2017. "Alchian remembrances," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 561-582.
    8. Woodruff, Christopher, 2002. "Non-contractible investments and vertical integration in the Mexican footwear industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 1197-1224, October.
    9. Francine Lafontaine & Margaret E. Slade, 1998. "Incentive Contracting and the Franchise Decision," NBER Working Papers 6544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    11. Lőrinczi, Gyula, 2013. "A cégek eredete [The origin of the firm]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 25-46.
    12. René van den Brink & Robert P. Gilles, 2003. "Explicit and Latent Authority in Hierarchical Organizations," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-102/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Sharon Novak & Steven D. Eppinger, 2001. "Sourcing By Design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 189-204, January.
    14. Costello, Anna M., 2013. "Mitigating incentive conflicts in inter-firm relationships: Evidence from long-term supply contracts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 19-39.
    15. George Hendrikse & Patrick Hippmann & Josef Windsperger, 2015. "Trust, transaction costs and contractual incompleteness in franchising," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 867-888, April.
    16. van den Brink, J.R. & Gilles, R.P., 2005. "Explicit and Latent Authority in Hierarchical Organizations," Other publications TiSEM b4225229-4c7a-433f-8340-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Luis Alfonso Dau & Randall Morck & Bernard Yin Yeung, 2021. "Business groups and the study of international business: A Coasean synthesis and extension," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(2), pages 161-211, March.
    18. Gibbons, Robert, 2005. "Four forma(lizable) theories of the firm?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 200-245, October.
    19. Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta, 2010. "Editors’ Introduction," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Kimmich, Christian & Fischbacher, Urs, 2016. "Behavioral determinants of supply chain integration and coexistence," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 55-77.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:nbr:nberwo:21090. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.