IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Patents and Licenses

  • Yair Tauman


    (Department of Economics, Stony Brook University)

  • Debrapiya Sen


    (Department of Economics, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.)

This article considers the problem of patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly under a class of general demand functions. We consider two cases, the case where the innovator is an outsider and the one where it is one of the incumbent rms. The licensing policies considered are upfront fees, royalties and combinations of the two. It is shown that (i) for generic values of magnitudes of the innovation, a royalty policy is better than fee or auction provided the industry size is relatively large, (ii) under combinations of fees and royalties, provided the innovation is relatively signi cant (or the industry size is relatively large), (a) there is always an optimal policy where the innovation is licensed to practically all rms of the industry and (b) any optimal combination includes a positive royalty.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2012
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Stony Brook University, Department of Economics in its series Department of Economics Working Papers with number 12-05.

in new window

Date of creation: Aug 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nys:sunysb:12-05
Contact details of provider: Postal: Stony Brook, NY 11794-4384
Phone: (631)632-7540
Fax: (631)632-7516
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Nisvan Erkal, 2004. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 894, The University of Melbourne.
  2. Inés MACHO-STADLER & David PEREZ-CASTRILLO, 1991. "Contrats de licences et asymétrie d'information," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 24, pages 189-208.
  3. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2002. "On Patent Licensing in Spatial Competition," Departmental Working Papers wp0212, National University of Singapore, Department of Economics.
  4. Kamien, Morton I & Tauman, Yair, 1986. "Fees versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 471-91, August.
  5. San Martín, Marta & Saracho, Ana I., 2010. "Royalty licensing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 284-287, May.
    • Saracho de la Torre, Ana Isabel & San Martín Lizarralde, Marta, 2009. "Royalty Licensing," IKERLANAK 2009-40, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
  6. 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.
  7. Giebe, Thomas & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2007. "License Auctions with Royalty Contracts for (Winners and) Losers," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 199, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
  8. Nisvan Erkal, 2003. "The Decision to Patent, Cumulative Innovation,and Optimal Policy," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 877, The University of Melbourne.
  9. Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2002. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Department of Economics Working Papers 02-03, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
  10. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos & Tauman, Yair, 2008. "Licensing of a quality-improving innovation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 410-438, November.
  11. Gallini, Nancy T, 1984. "Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 931-41, December.
  12. Luigi Filippini, 2005. "Licensing Contract In A Stackelberg Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(5), pages 582-598, 09.
  13. Tauman, Yair & Weng, Ming-Hung, 2012. "Selling patent rights and the incentive to innovate," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 241-244.
  14. Ana I. Saracho, 2002. "Patent Licensing Under Strategic Delegation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 225-251, 06.
  15. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2009. "Drastic innovations and multiplicity of optimal licensing policies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 7-10, October.
  16. Yair Tauman & Naoki Watanabe, 2007. "The Shapley Value of a Patent Licensing Game: the Asymptotic Equivalence to Non-cooperative Results," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 135-149, January.
  17. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
  18. Muto, Shigeo, 1987. "Possibility of relicensing and patent protection," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 927-945, June.
  19. Choi, Jay Pil, 2001. "Technology transfer with moral hazard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 249-266, January.
  20. Rockett, Katharine, 1990. "The quality of licensed technology," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 559-574, December.
  21. Chun-Hsiung Liao & Debapriya Sen, 2005. "Subsidy In Licensing: Optimality And Welfare Implications," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(3), pages 281-299, 06.
  22. Arijit Mukherjee, 2001. "Technology transfer with commitment," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 345-369.
  23. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "How to License Intangible Property," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 567-89, August.
  24. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
  25. Beggs, A. W., 1992. "The licensing of patents under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 171-191, June.
  26. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, 06.
  27. Tarun Kabiraj, 2004. "Patent Licensing in a Leadership Structure," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 72(2), pages 188-205, 03.
  28. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair, 2009. "The private value of a patent: A cooperative approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 84-97, July.
  29. Naoki Watanabe & Shigeo Muto, 2008. "Stable profit sharing in a patent licensing game: general bargaining outcomes," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 505-523, December.
  30. Tarun Kabiraj, 2005. "Technology Transfer In A Stackelberg Structure: Licensing Contracts And Welfare," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(1), pages 1-28, 01.
  31. 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.
  32. Wang, X Henry & Yang, Bill Z, 1999. "On Licensing under Bertrand Competition," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 106-19, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nys:sunysb:12-05. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.