IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pst/wpaper/176.html

Inventions, the Structure of the Market and Ownership Changes

Author

Listed:
  • Eero Lehto

Abstract

We consider situations in which many inventors (sellers) and product market firms (sellers) trade on inventions.We first consider the product market firm’s decision to invest in its own R&D. We show that public financing which encourages the inventor’s entry reduces the producer’s own R&D and thus shifts it toward a more specialized conduct in which the inventions are purchased in the outside market. However, with an increase in the number of product market firms both the number of independent inventors and product market firm’s own R&D tend to increase. This shows that the firms do not tend to specialize and give up their own R&D with the natural growth of industries. In the second section of this study we focus on the form of trading mechanism which either the product market firm or the inventing firm chooses. In the trade considered the number of potential buyers and sellers determines, however, the actual price (and thus each party’s shares of the total value of a commercialized invention). The alternative modes of the trading mechanism are either to sell an invention at fixed price or to agree on the arrangement in which the inventor is made a stockholder in the buyer’s firm. We assume that in some degree the inventing firm’s effort are also required in commercialisation after the trade. Owing to the imperfectness of information, explicit contractual mechanisms are assumed to be excluded. The post-trade commercialization efforts make such an arrangement attractive in which the inventor is encouraged to exert post-trade effort by making the inventor an owner in the product market firm. In the trading mechanism considered there also arises a tendency to enforce the opponent’s incentives to exert a post-trade effort. The product market firm would thus be more eager than the inventor to make a payment in the form of its own stocks rather than of pure money. We also show that the decision concerning the mode of agreement (the means of payment) should typically be allocated to that party who is relatively inefficient in raising the total value of an invention in the context of commercialization.

Suggested Citation

  • Eero Lehto, 2002. "Inventions, the Structure of the Market and Ownership Changes," Working Papers 176, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
  • Handle: RePEc:pst:wpaper:176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://labore.fi/wp-content/uploads/2002/01/Tyopapereita-176.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2002
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eero Lehto, 2002. "Bidding the Inventions as Incentive Schemes and the Ownership Structure," Working Papers 175, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    2. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 2000. "Asymmetric Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(3), pages 413-438.
    3. 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.
    4. Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-286, July.
    5. Eero Lehto & Olavi Lehtoranta, 2002. "Becoming an Acquirer and Becoming Acquired," Working Papers 177, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    6. R. Preston McAfee & John McMillan, 1987. "Competition for Agency Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 296-307, Summer.
    7. Choi, Jay Pil, 2001. "Technology transfer with moral hazard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 249-266, January.
    8. Klemperer, Paul, 1999. " Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-86, July.
    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. Eero Lehto & Olavi Lehtoranta, 2002. "Becoming an Acquirer and Becoming Acquired," Working Papers 177, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.

    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. Eero Lehto & Olavi Lehtoranta, 2002. "How Do Innovations Affect Mergers and Acquisitions?," Working Papers 181, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    2. Maréchal, François & Morand, Pierre-Henri, 2011. "First-price sealed-bid auctions when bidders exhibit different attitudes toward risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 108-111.
    3. Eero Lehto & Olavi Lehtoranta, 2002. "Becoming an Acquirer and Becoming Acquired," Working Papers 177, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    4. Sergio Galletta & Mario Jametti & Agustin Redonda, 2015. "Highway to Economic Growth? Competition in Public Works Tenders in the Democratic Republic of Congo," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 83(2), pages 240-252, June.
    5. Onderstal, Sander, 2009. "Bidding for the unemployed: An application of mechanism design to welfare-to-work programs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 715-722, August.
    6. Elbittar, Alexander, 2009. "Impact of valuation ranking information on bidding in first-price auctions: A laboratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 75-85, January.
    7. A. Alexander Elbittar, 2005. "Impact of Valuation Ranking Information on Bidding in First-Price," Microeconomics 0508008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Lagerlof, Johan, 2012. "Does Cost Uncertainty in the Bertrand Model Soften Competition?," CEPR Discussion Papers 8817, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    9. Bounie, David & Dubus, Antoine & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2025. "Collecting and selling consumer information: Selling mechanisms matter," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(PB).
    10. Paul Klemperer, 2007. "Bidding Markets," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-47.
    11. Fibich, Gadi & Gavious, Arieh & Sela, Aner, 2004. "Revenue equivalence in asymmetric auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 309-321, April.
    12. Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Ott, Marion, 2003. "Auctions, Information, and New Technologies," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-05, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    13. Tan, Xu, 2016. "Information revelation in auctions with common and private values," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 147-165.
    14. Myatt, David P., 2025. "The impact of perceived strength in the war of attrition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 260-277.
    15. Chaturvedi, Aadhaar, 2015. "Procurement auctions with capacity constrained suppliers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(3), pages 987-995.
    16. Emiel Maasland & Sander Onderstal, 2006. "Going, Going, Gone! A Swift Tour of Auction Theory and Its Applications," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 481-481, September.
    17. Kline, Brendan, 2026. "Identification of incomplete information allocation-transfer games in monotone equilibrium," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    18. Guillotreau, Patrice & Jiménez-Toribio, Ramón, 2011. "The price effect of expanding fish auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 211-225, August.
    19. Arieh Gavious & Yizhaq Minchuk, 2014. "Ranking asymmetric auctions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(2), pages 369-393, May.
    20. Pierre Koning & S. Onderstal, 2004. "Auctioning incentive contracts; application to welfare-to-work programs," CPB Discussion Paper 38, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    More about this item

    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:pst:wpaper:176. 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: Aila Mustonen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/laborfi.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.