Private Agreements for Coordinating Patent Rights: The Case of Patent Pools
Inventors and users of technology often enter into cooperative agreements for sharing their intellectual property in order to implement a standard or to avoid costly litigation. Over the past two decades, U.S. antitrust authorities have viewed pooling arrangements that integrate complementary, valid and essential patents as having procompetitive benefits in reducing prices, transactions costs, and the incidence of legal suits. Since patent pools are cooperative agreements, they also have the potential of suppressing competition if, for example, they harbor weak or invalid patents, dampen incentives to conduct research on innovations that compete with the pooled patents, foreclose competition from downstream product or upstream input markets, or raise prices on goods that compete with the pooled patents. In synthesizing the ideas advanced in the economic literature, this paper explores whether these antitrust concerns apply to pools with complementary patents and, if they do, the implications for competition policy to constrain them. Special attention is given to the application of the U.S. Department of Justice - Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (1995) and its companion Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition (2007) to recent patent pool cases.
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.:
- Chaim Fershtman & Morton I. Kamien, 1990.
"Cross Licensing of Complementary Technologies,"
866, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Lerner, Josh & Tirole, Jean, 2003.
"Efficient Patent Pools,"
IDEI Working Papers
211, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2006.
"Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation,"
Economics Working Papers
0025, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
- Schiff, Aaron & Aoki, Reiko, 2007.
"Differentiated Standards and Patent Pools,"
PIE/CIS Discussion Paper
336, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
- Dequiedt, V. & Versaevel, B., 2004.
"Patent pools and the dynamic incentives to R&D,"
200412, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
- Bruno Versaevel & Vianney Dequiedt, 2007. "Patent Pools and the Dynamic Incentives to R&D," Working Papers 0703, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique (GATE), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Université Lyon 2, Ecole Normale Supérieure.
- Vianney Dequiedt & Bruno Versaevel, 2007. "Patent Pools and the Dynamic Incentives to R&D," Post-Print halshs-00142497, HAL.
- Sunil Kanwar, 2010.
"Intellectual Property Protection and the Licensing of Technology to Developing Countries,"
- Sunil Kanwar, 2010. "Intellectual Property Protection and the Licensing of Technology to Developing Countries," Working papers 188, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
- Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002.
"Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?,"
in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Law and Economics 0201001, EconWPA.
- Nancy Gallini and Suzanne Scotchmer., 2001. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Economics Working Papers E01-303, University of California at Berkeley.
- Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2003. "Intellectual Property: When is it the Best Incentive System?," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000532, David K. Levine.
- Gallini, Nancy & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9wx2c2hz, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2011. "Selection Biases in Complementary R&D Projects," CESifo Working Paper Series 3425, CESifo Group Munich.
- Dequiedt, Vianney & Versaevel, Bruno, 2013. "Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 59-69.
- Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005.
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
- Whinston, Michael D, 1990.
"Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-59, September.
- Aoki, Reiko & Schiff, Aaron, 2007. "Promoting Access to Intellectual Property: Patent Pools, Copyright Collectives and Clearinghouses," PIE/CIS Discussion Paper 334, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
- 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.
- Jay Pil Choi, 2005. "Live and Let Live: A Tale of Weak Patents," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 724-733, 04/05.
- Cabral, Luís & Salant, David, 2014.
"Evolving technologies and standards regulation,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 48-56.
- SHAVELL, Steven & VAN YPERSELE, Tanguy, .
"Rewards versus intellectual property rights,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
-1597, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Sung-Hwan Kim, 2004. "Vertical Structure and Patent Pools," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 231-250, 07.
- Sunil Kanwar & Robert Evenson, 2003.
"Does intellectual property protection spur technological change?,"
Oxford Economic Papers,
Oxford University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 235-264, April.
- Sunil Kanwar & Robert E Evanson, 2004. "Does Intellectual Property Protection Spur Technological Change?," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000455, David K. Levine.
- Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 419-51, June.
- Mukesh Eswaran & Nancy Gallini, 1996. "Patent Policy and the Direction of Technological Change," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 722-746, Winter.
- Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008.
"Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk
[Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk]," Introductory Chapters, Princeton University Press.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521879286 is not listed on IDEAS
- Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-28, Spring.
- Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2010. "Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 472-503.
- Ryan L. Lampe & Petra Moser, 2009. "Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation? Evidence from the 19th-Century Sewing Machine Industry," NBER Working Papers 15061, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uca:ucaiel:5. 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: (Lucia Padovani)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.