IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/snv/dp2009/201071.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Technology Licensing Payment Mechanisms on Firms' Innovative Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Jung Eun Lee
  • Younghoon Kim
  • Yeonbae Kim

    () (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), Seoul National University)

  • Donghyuk Choi

    (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), Seoul National University)

Abstract

Although numerous papers have examined the ways in which firms can improve their innovative performance through technology alliances, empirical research on the effect of contract structures in technology licensing has been scarce. This study provides evidence that the payment mechanisms agreed upon in licensing contracts affect the licensee firms¡¯ innovative performance. Based on a dataset of technology licensing contracts concluded by small- and medium-sized enterprises around the world, this paper analyzes the influence of fixed-fee payments and ongoing payments?including royalty, milestone, and equity payments?on firm performance. The findings reveal that ongoing payments are more likely to positively influence the innovative performance of licensee firms. The results also suggest that equity grants to the licensor would not impact the licensee¡¯s performance as much as fixed-fee payments. These outcomes provide crucial insights into the ways in which small high-tech firms can utilize their external technology resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Jung Eun Lee & Younghoon Kim & Yeonbae Kim & Donghyuk Choi, 2010. "The Impact of Technology Licensing Payment Mechanisms on Firms' Innovative Performance," TEMEP Discussion Papers 201071, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Dec 2010.
  • Handle: RePEc:snv:dp2009:201071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://147.46.237.98/DP-71.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 2007. "Royalties vs. fees: How do firms pay for foreign technology?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 741-759, August.
    2. Lee, Yikuan & Cavusgil, S. Tamer, 2006. "Enhancing alliance performance: The effects of contractual-based versus relational-based governance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 896-905, August.
    3. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Thursby, Marie & Thursby, Jerry, 2009. "Shirking, sharing risk and shelving: The role of university license contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 80-91, January.
    4. Sugata Marjit & Arijit Mukherjee, 2001. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information: The Role of Equity Participation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 157(2), pages 282-282, June.
    5. Oxley, Joanne E, 1997. "Appropriability Hazards and Governance in Strategic Alliances: A Transaction Cost Approach," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 387-409, October.
    6. Bessy, Christian & Brousseau, Eric, 1998. "Technology licensing contracts features and diversity1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 451-489, December.
    7. Roberto G. Gutierrez & Shana Carter & David M. Drukker, 2001. "On boundary-value likelihood-ratio tests," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(60).
    8. Kim, YoungJun & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2006. "Technology licensing partners," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 273-289.
    9. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Contracting for tacit knowledge: the provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 233-256, August.
    10. Bousquet, Alain & Cremer, Helmuth & Ivaldi, Marc & Wolkowicz, Michel, 1998. "Risk sharing in licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 535-554, September.
    11. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Martinez-Giralt, Xavier & David Perez-Castrillo, J., 1996. "The role of information in licensing contract design," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 43-57, January.
    12. Pisano, Gary P, 1989. "Using Equity Participation to Support Exchange: Evidence from the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 109-126, Spring.
    13. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    14. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    15. Maryann Feldman & Irwin Feller & Janet Bercovitz & Richard Burton, 2002. "Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 105-121, January.
    16. Thomas Hatzichronoglou, 1997. "Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 1997/2, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology licensing; payment mechanism; innovative performance; small-and-medium-sized enterprises.;

    JEL classification:

    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions

    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:snv:dp2009:201071. 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: (Jorn Altmann). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tesnukr.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.