IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/9454.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Abuse of Dominance and Licensing of Intellectual Property

Author

Listed:
  • Rey, Patrick
  • Salant, David

Abstract

Patent thickets, layers of licenses a firm needs to be able to offer products that embody technologies owned by multiple firms, and licensing policies have drawn increasing scrutiny from policy makers. Patent thickets involve complementary products, which gives rise to double marginalization -- the so-called royalty stacking problem -- and has the potential to retard diffusion of new technologies and reduce consumer welfare. This paper examines the impact of licensing policies of one or more upstream owners essential} intellectual property (IP) on the downstream firms that require access to that IP. The terms under which downstream firms can access this IP affects entry decisions, product diversity, prices and welfare. We consider both the case in which a single party controls the essential IP and the case in which different parties control complementary pieces of essential IP. We compare the outcome of several alternative standard licensing arrangements, such as flat rate access fees, royalty percentages, per unit fees, patent pools and cross-licensing arrangements, with or without vertical integration. We first consider the case where there is a single upstream owner of essential IP. Increasing the number of licenses enhances product variety, which creates added value, but it also intensifies downstream competition, which dissipates profits. We derive conditions under which the upstream IP monopoly will then want to provide an excessive or insufficient number of licenses, relative to the number that maximizes consumer surplus or social welfare. When there are multiple owners of essential IP, royalty stacking can reduce the number of the downstream licensees, but also the downstream equilibrium prices the consumers face. The paper derives conditions determining whether this reduction in downstream price and variety is beneficial to consumers or society. Finally, the paper explores the impact of alternative licensing policies. With fixed license fees or royalties expressed as a percentage of the price, an upstream IP owner cannot control the intensity of downstream competition. In contrast, volume-based license fees (i.e., per-unit access fees), do permit an upstream owner to control downstream competition and to replicate the outcome of complete integration. The paper also shows that vertical integration can have little impact on downstream competition and licensing terms when IP owners charge fixed or volume-based access fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2008. "Abuse of Dominance and Licensing of Intellectual Property," MPRA Paper 9454, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:9454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9454/1/MPRA_paper_9454.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Lerner, 2005. "The Scope of Open Source Licensing," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 20-56, April.
    2. Michael Spence, 1976. "Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 217-235.
    3. McAfee, R. Preston & Schwartz, Marius, 1995. "The non-existence of pairwise-proof equilibrium," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 251-259, September.
    4. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
    5. Fauli-Oller, Ramon & Sandonis, Joel, 2002. "Welfare reducing licensing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 192-205, November.
    6. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    7. B. Caillaud & R. Guesnerie & P. Rey & J. Tirole, 1988. "Government Intervention in Production and Incentives Theory: A Review of Recent Contributions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, Spring.
    8. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    9. Oliver Hart & Jean Tirole, 1990. "Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990 Micr), pages 205-286.
    10. Matthieu Glachant & Yann Ménière, 2013. "Technology Diffusion with Learning Spillovers: Patent Versus Free Access," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 81(5), pages 683-711, September.
    11. Anne Layne-Farrar & A. Jorge Padilla & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments," Working Papers wp2007_0702, CEMFI.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Allain, Marie-Laure & Chambolle, Claire & Rey, Patrick, 2011. "Vertical Integration, Information and Foreclosure," IDEI Working Papers 673, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised Nov 2011.
    15. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Carl Shapiro, 2010. "Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties-super-1," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 509-557.
    18. Chen, Yongmin, 2001. "On Vertical Mergers and Their Competitive Effects," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 667-685, Winter.
    19. Shin Kishimoto & Shigeo Muto, 2012. "Fee Versus Royalty Policy In Licensing Through Bargaining: An Application Of The Nash Bargaining Solution," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 293-304, April.
    20. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    21. John Vickers, 1995. "Competition and Regulation in Vertically Related Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 1-17.
    22. Can Erutku & Yves Richelle, 2006. "Licensing a new product with non-linear contracts," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 932-947, August.
    23. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    24. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    25. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2014. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 68-88, March.
    26. Michael A. Salinger, 1988. "Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 345-356.
    27. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    28. Daniel P. O'Brien & Greg Shaffer, 1992. "Vertical Control with Bilateral Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(3), pages 299-308, Autumn.
    29. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716.
    30. Shapiro, Carl, 2006. "Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt6px3m1rb, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    31. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1986. "How to License Intangible Property," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 567-589.
    32. Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1992. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 698-703, June.
    33. Hernandez-Murillo, Ruben & Llobet, Gerard, 2006. "Patent licensing revisited: Heterogeneous firms and product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 149-175, January.
    34. Katharine E. Rockett, 1990. "Choosing the Competition and Patent Licensing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 161-171, Spring.
    35. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    36. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    37. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
    38. Kamien, Morton I., 1992. "Patent licensing," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 331-354, Elsevier.
    39. Yongmin Chen & Michael H. Riordan, 2007. "Price and Variety in the Spokes Model," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(522), pages 897-921, July.
    40. Michael L. Katz, 1980. "Multiplant Monopoly in a Spatial Market," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 519-535, Autumn.
    41. Lemley, Mark A & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8638s257, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    42. A. Michael Spence, 1975. "Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 417-429, Autumn.
    43. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    44. Lancaster, Kelvin, 1975. "Socially Optimal Product Differentiation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(4), pages 567-585, September.
    45. Menell, Peter S. & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2007. "Intellectual Property Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 1473-1570, Elsevier.
    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. Pierre Larouche & Florian Schuett, 2019. "Repeated interaction in standard setting," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 488-509, June.
    2. Seifert, Jacob, 2013. "Compulsory Licensing, Innovation and Welfare," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79778, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    4. Shamim S. Mondal & Viswanath Pingali, 2017. "Competition and Intellectual Property Policies in the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 42(2), pages 61-79, June.
    5. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    6. Larouche, Pierre & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Repeated Interaction in Standard Setting," Other publications TiSEM 34a31bb2-0930-472a-b5dc-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Haugen, Atle & Juranek, Steffen, 2021. "Classroom experiments on technology licensing: Royalty stacking, cross-licensing and patent pools," Discussion Papers 2021/3, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    8. Alexei Alexandrov & Russell Pittman & Olga Ukhaneva, 2018. "Pricing of Complements in the U.S. Freight Railroads: Cournot Versus Coase," EAG Discussions Papers 201801, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    9. Alexandrov, Alexei & Pittman, Russell & Ukhaneva, Olga, 2017. "Royalty stacking in the U.S. freight railroads: Cournot vs. Coase," MPRA Paper 78249, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Larouche, Pierre & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Repeated Interaction in Standard Setting," Other publications TiSEM 4a722c80-9eb3-47d8-bea7-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Layne-Farrar, Anne & Llobet, Gerard, 2014. "Moving beyond simple examples: Assessing the incremental value rule within standards," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 57-69.
    12. Zhang, Huaige & Wang, Xuejun & Qing, Ping & Hong, Xianpei, 2016. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in a differentiated Stackelberg duopolistic competition market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 215-229.
    13. Karbowski, Adam & Prokop, Jacek, 2015. "Patent hold-up and royalty stacking: the case of multiple downstream firms," EconStor Conference Papers 127475, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    14. Bakaouka, Elpiniki & Milliou, Chrysovalantou, 2018. "Vertical licensing, input pricing, and entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 66-96.
    15. Jacob Seifert, 2015. "Welfare effects of compulsory licensing," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 317-350, December.
    16. Toker Doganoglu & Firat Inceoglu, 2014. "Licensing of a Drastic Innovation with Product Differentiation," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(3), pages 296-321, June.
    17. Li, Hai & Qing, Qiankai & Wang, Juan & Hong, Xianpei, 2021. "An analysis of technology licensing and parallel importation under different market structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 132-143.
    18. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2013. "Licensing process innovations when losersʼ messages determine royalty rates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 388-402.
    19. Adachi, Takanori & Ebina, Takeshi, 2014. "Double marginalization and cost pass-through: Weyl–Fabinger and Cowan meet Spengler and Bresnahan–Reiss," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 170-175.

    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, April.
    2. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    3. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2016. "Licensing a technology standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 33-61.
    4. Bakaouka, Elpiniki & Milliou, Chrysovalantou, 2018. "Vertical licensing, input pricing, and entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 66-96.
    5. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    6. Zhang, Huaige & Wang, Xuejun & Qing, Ping & Hong, Xianpei, 2016. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in a differentiated Stackelberg duopolistic competition market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 215-229.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Normann, Hans-Theo, 2009. "Vertical integration, raising rivals' costs and upstream collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 461-480, May.
    10. Zhao, Dan, 2017. "Choices and impacts of cross-licensing contracts," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 389-405.
    11. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2010. "Patent Licensing from a High‐Cost Firm to a Low‐Cost Firm," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 384-395, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Poddar, Sougata & Bouguezzi, Fehmi, 2011. "Patent licensing in spatial competition: Does pre-innovation cost asymmetry matter?," MPRA Paper 32764, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 641-678, Elsevier.
    15. Zhao, Dan & Chen, Hongmin & Hong, Xianpei & Liu, Jingfang, 2014. "Technology licensing contracts with network effects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 136-144.
    16. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2016. "Licensing under general demand and cost functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 673-680.
    17. Turner, John L., 2018. "Input complementarity, patent trolls and unproductive entrepreneurship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 168-203.
    18. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    19. Kabiraj, Abhishek & Kabiraj, Tarun, 2017. "Tariff induced licensing contracts, consumers’ surplus and welfare," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 439-447.
    20. Michiel Bijlsma & Viktoria Kocsis & Victoria Shestalova & Gijsbert Zwart, 2008. "Vertical foreclosure: a policy framework," CPB Document 157, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patents; Vertical Integration;

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    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:pra:mprapa:9454. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.