IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trf/wpaper/105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Licensing Resolves Hold-Up: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Siebert, Ralph
  • Graevenitz, Georg von

Abstract

In a patent thicket licensing provides a mechanism to either avoid or resolve hold-up. Firms' R&D incentives will differ depending on how licensing is used. In this paper we study the choice between ex ante licensing to avoid hold-up and ex post licensing to resolve it. Building on a theoretical model of a patent portfolio race, firms' choices of licensing contracts are modelled. We derive several hypotheses from the model and find support for these using data from the semiconductor industry. The empirical results show that firms' relationships in product markets and technology space jointly determine the type of licensing contract chosen. Implications for the regulation of licensing are discussed. We estimate a dynamic panel data model with unobserved heterogeneity and a lagged dependent variable. A method suggested by Wooldridge (2005) is employed to estimate a random effects probit model using conditional maximum likelihood.

Suggested Citation

  • Siebert, Ralph & Graevenitz, Georg von, 2006. "How Licensing Resolves Hold-Up: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 105, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    • Handle: RePEc:trf:wpaper:105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13446/1/105.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Rowley & Dean Behrens & David Krackhardt, 2000. "Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 369-386, March.
    2. Roberto Hernán & Pedro L. Marín & Georges Siotis, 2003. "An empirical evaluation of the determinants of Research Joint Venture Formation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 75-89, March.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1347-1393, July.
    4. Nti, Kofi O, 1997. "Comparative Statics of Contests and Rent-Seeking Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(1), pages 43-59, February.
    5. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    6. Blundell, Richard & Bond, Stephen, 1998. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 115-143, August.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:cte:wbrepe:wb041507 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    10. Dale W. Jorgenson, 2001. "Information Technology and the U.S. Economy," Higher School of Economics Economic Journal Экономический журнал Высшей школы экономики, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 5(1), pages 3-34.
    11. repec:cup:etheor:v:13:y:1997:i:5:p:667-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Arellano, Manuel & Carrasco, Raquel, 2003. "Binary choice panel data models with predetermined variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 125-157, July.
    14. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    15. Arellano, Manuel, 2003. "Panel Data Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245291.
    16. Cockburn, Iain & Henderson, Rebecca, 1994. "Racing to Invest? The Dynamics of Competition in Ethical Drug Discovery," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 481-519, Fall.
    17. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    18. Bharat N. Anand & Tarun Khanna, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    19. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:1:p:103-35 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1997. "Multiplicative Panel Data Models Without the Strict Exogeneity Assumption," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(5), pages 667-678, October.
    21. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    22. Beath, John & Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 1989. "Strategic R&D Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(395), pages 74-83, Supplemen.
    23. repec:bla:jemstr:v:3:y:1994:i:3:p:481-519:a is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Kamien, Morton I & Muller, Eitan & Zang, Israel, 1992. "Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1293-1306, December.
    25. Bo E. Honoré & Ekaterini Kyriazidou, 2000. "Panel Data Discrete Choice Models with Lagged Dependent Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 839-874, July.
    26. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    27. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    28. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, 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. Galasso, Alberto, 2007. "Broad cross-license agreements and persuasive patent litigation: theory and evidence from the semiconductor industry," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6718, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Siebert, Ralph & von Graevenitz, Georg, 2006. "Jostling for Advantage: Licensing and Entry into Patent Portfolio Races," CEPR Discussion Papers 5753, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Alberto Galasso, 2007. "Broad Cross-License Agreements andPersuasive Patent Litigation: Theory andEvidence from the Semiconductor Industry," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 45, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    4. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie & Elisabeth Müller, 2010. "Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 899-925, June.
    5. Haizhen Lin, 2010. "Do Minimum Quality Standards Improve Quality? A Case Study of the Nursing Home Industry," Working Papers 2010-01, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    6. Mueller, Elisabeth & Cockburn, Iain M. & MacGarvie, Megan, 2013. "Access to intellectual property for innovation: Evidence on problems and coping strategies from German firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 529-541.
    7. Christian Jaag, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Future of Universal Service Obligations in Communications," Working Papers 0040, Swiss Economics.

    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. Georg Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner & Dietmar Harhoff, 2013. "Incidence and Growth of Patent Thickets: The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Complexity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 521-563, September.
    2. Burak Dindaroglu, 2010. "Intra-Industry Knowledge Spillovers and Scientific Labor Mobility," Discussion Papers 10-01, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    3. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54, January.
    4. Paola Giuri & Myriam Mariani & Stefano Brusoni & Gustavo Crespi & Dominique Francoz & Alfonso Gambardella & Walter Garcia-Fontes & Aldo Geuna & Raul Gonzales & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl & Christia, 2005. "Everything you Always Wanted to Know about Inventors (but Never Asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU Survey," LEM Papers Series 2005/20, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, September.
    6. Siebert, Ralph Bernd & Graevenitz, Georg von, 2010. "Licensing in the Patent Thicket - Timing and Benefits," MPRA Paper 24007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Siebert, Ralph & von Graevenitz, Georg, 2010. "Jostling for advantage or not: Choosing between patent portfolio races and ex ante licensing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 225-245, February.
    8. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    9. Femminis Gianluca & Martini Gianmaria, 2010. "First-Mover Advantage in a Dynamic Duopoly with Spillover," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-46, November.
    10. Hinloopen, Jeroen & Smrkolj, Grega & Wagener, Florian, 2013. "In Defense of Trusts: R&D Cooperation in Global Perspective," MPRA Paper 63551, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 09 Apr 2015.
    11. Jeroen Hinloopen & Grega Smrkolj & Florian Wagener, 2016. "R&D Cooperatives and Market Collusion: A Global Dynamic Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-048/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Majid M. Al-Sadoon & Tong Li & M. Hashem Pesaran, 2017. "Exponential class of dynamic binary choice panel data models with fixed effects," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6-9), pages 898-927, October.
    13. Francesco Bartolucci & Claudia Pigini, 2017. "Granger causality in dynamic binary short panel data models," Working Papers 421, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    14. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Ralph Siebert, 2013. "Are Ex Ante and Ex Post Licensing Agreements Useful Instruments to Lessen Uncertainty in R&D?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4535, CESifo.
    16. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500129 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Siebert, Ralph & Graevenitz, Georg von, 2006. "Jostling for Advantage: Licensing and Entry into Patent Portfolio Races," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 184, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    18. Pigini, Claudia & Bartolucci, Francesco, 2022. "Conditional inference for binary panel data models with predetermined covariates," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 83-104.
    19. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir, 2017. "Patent thickets, defensive patenting, and induced R&D: an empirical analysis of the costs and potential benefits of fragmentation in patent ownership," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 599-634, March.
    20. Ryan L. Lampe & Petra Moser, 2012. "Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation? Evidence from 20 U.S. Industries under the New Deal," NBER Working Papers 18316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Hold-Up Problem; Licensing; Innovation; Patent Race; Patent Thicket;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L49 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Other
    • L63 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Microelectronics; Computers; Communications Equipment

    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:trf:wpaper:105. 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: Tamilla Benkelberg (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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.