[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cmf/wpaper/wp2016_1608.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Inverse Cournot Effect in Royalty Negotiations with Complementary Patents

Author

Listed:
Abstract
It has been commonly argued that the decision of a large number of inventors to license complementary patents necessary for the development of a product leads to excessively large royalties. This well-known Cournot-complements or royaltystacking effect would hurt efficiency and downstream competition. In this paper we show that when we consider patent litigation and introduce heterogeneity in the portfolio of different firms these results change substantially due to what we denote the Inverse Cournot e ect. We show that the lower the total royalty that a downstream producer pays, the lower the royalty that patent holders restricted by the threat of litigation of downstream producers will charge. This effect generates a moderation force in the royalty that unconstrained large patent holders will charge that may overturn some of the standard predictions in the literature. Interestingly, though, this effect can be less relevant when all patent portfolios are weak making royalty stacking more important.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2016. "The Inverse Cournot Effect in Royalty Negotiations with Complementary Patents," Working Papers wp2016_1608, CEMFI.
    • Handle: RePEc:cmf:wpaper:wp2016_1608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cemfi.es/ftp/wp/1608.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2018. "A Model Of Patent Trolls," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 2075-2106, November.
    2. Llobet, Gerard, 2003. "Patent litigation when innovation is cumulative," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1135-1157, October.
    3. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2016. "The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 45-73.
    4. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2013. "Cooperation vs. Collusion: How Essentiality Shapes Co-opetition," IDEI Working Papers 801, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    5. Marc Bourreau & Y. Ménière & T. Pohlmann, 2015. "The market for standard essential patents," Working Papers hal-01261024, HAL.
    6. Aleksandra Boutin, 2016. "Screening for Good Patent Pools through Price Caps on Individual Licenses," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 64-94, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2015. "Patent pools, litigation, and innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 499-523, September.
    2. Tesoriere, Antonio, 2019. "Stable sharing rules and participation in pools of essential patents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-58.
    3. Jeon, Haejun, 2019. "Patent protection and R&D subsidy under asymmetric information," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 332-354.
    4. Siyu Ma & Yair Tauman, 2021. "Licensing of a New Product Innovation with Risk Averse Agents," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(1), pages 79-102, August.
    5. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    6. Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, 2019. "Price Caps as Welfare-Enhancing Coopetition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 3018-3069.
    7. Turner, John L., 2018. "Input complementarity, patent trolls and unproductive entrepreneurship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 168-203.
    8. Yann Ménière & Sarah Parlane, 2008. "Innovation in the Shadow of Patent Litigation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 32(2), pages 95-111, March.
    9. Pierre Larouche & Florian Schuett, 2019. "Repeated interaction in standard setting," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 488-509, June.
    10. Gerard Llobet & Javier Suarez, 2005. "Financing and the Protection of Innovators," Working Papers wp2005_0502, CEMFI.
    11. Ángel L. López & Xavier Vives, 2019. "Overlapping Ownership, R&D Spillovers, and Antitrust Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(5), pages 2394-2437.
    12. Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, 2015. "Different Rules of Legal-Cost Allocation and Patent Holdup," Research in Law and Economics, in: Economic and Legal Issues in Competition, Intellectual Property, Bankruptcy, and the Cost of Raising Children, volume 27, pages 143-159, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    13. Luca Sandrini, 2024. "Price Versus Market Share with Royalty Licensing: Incomplete Adoption of a Superior Technology with Heterogeneous Firms," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 64(2), pages 243-265, March.
    14. Youqiong Ai & Thomas Y. Lu, 2019. "On the Rationality of Bundled Rebate Program in Modem Chip Industry: an Analysis on Qualcomm’s Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 641-660, December.
    15. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2015. "Standard-Essential Patents," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(3), pages 547-586.
    16. Andreas Panagopoulos & In-Uck Park, 2008. "Patent Protection, Takeovers, and Startup Innovation: A Dynamic Approach," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 08/201, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    17. Nicoletta Berardi & Paul Seabright, 2020. "Joint Ownership of Production Projects as a Commitment Device against Interest Groups," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 176(3), pages 572-594.
    18. Josep Pijoan-Mas, 2006. "Precautionary Savings or Working Longer Hours?," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 9(2), pages 326-352, April.
    19. Sinitsyn, Maxim, 2022. "On the inefficiencies of anti-stacking royalty clauses," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    20. Ismail Saglam, 2023. "Licensing cost‐reducing innovations under supply function competition," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 180-201, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intellectual property; standard setting organizations; patent licensing; R&D investment; patent pools.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • 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
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:cmf:wpaper:wp2016_1608. 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: Araceli Requerey (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemfies.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.