考虑革新程度认知差异的新产品技术授权研究

建立博弈模型，探讨技术革新认知差异情形下，外部技术创新者向寡占竞争格局的生产企业授权生产新产品专利的最优决策问题。研究发现，创新授权者关于新产品市场的认知劣势使固定收费契约不具备完全优于特许权收费契约的绝对优势；在双重收费契约下，专利人授权对象选择因认知差异影响，由排他性授权向非排他性授权决策转变；认知差异性削弱了创新企业市场势力，从而提高特许权收费契约优势，而拍卖、股权投资等有助于创新企业克服认知劣势。据此，建议创新企业明晰创新专利长期回报，综合搭配应用多种授权契约；以非排他性授权策略配合特许权收费、双重收费和股权投资等契约模式，实现技术交易产业链激励共容下的利润最大化，促进技术创新传播应用，提高社会福利水平。     

减排技术的跨国转让与环境政策选择——基于Stackelberg竞争的博弈模型

细分外国企业对减排技术的转让方式,使转让方式与东道国环境政策相匹配,是一个有待深入研究的问题.在Stackelberg竞争模型中考虑拥有减排技术的外国企业作为市场跟随者在东道国市场上与东道国企业竞争,分析外国企业减排技术的最优授权方式,提出东道国政府的最优环境政策选择.从分析结论看:固定收费和特许权收费的技术授权都可以增加外国企业利润,但外国企业更偏好于特许权收费的技术授权,而双重收费可能降低外国企业的利润;技术授权对东道国的社会福利不确定,特许权收费的技术授权总可以增加外国社会福利,固定收费和双重收费的技术授权可能恶化外国社会福利;特许权收费和双重收费下减排技术的扩散可以有效改善环境,而固定收费则可能增加排放总量;特许权收费的技术授权需要东道国制定相对宽松的环境政策.东道国政府需要根据不同污染物的污染属性和扩散程度适时调整环境税政策,以实现企业利润、社会福利和环境的共同改善.     

跨国多期技术授权方式选择及社会福利分析--基于空间数量歧视竞争的框架

跨国技术授权作为企业获得竞争优势的重要途径已经受到理论界的关注。与以往的内部技术授权研究不同,文章构建了一个外国拥有技术的企业与东道国企业的空间数量歧视竞争模型,考察多期技术授权存在技术泄露、关税内生及空间竞争对外国拥有技术的企业的最优授权策略选择以及东道国社会福利的影响。研究表明：(1)外国拥有技术的企业偏好双重收费方式,且固定收费方式优于特许权收费方式;(2)双重收费方式不能同时实现拥有技术的企业和社会福利的最优,但可以实现社会福利的次优;(3)外国企业应该通过双重收费方式或固定收费方式进行技术授权,而东道国政府不应一味地提高关税水平,适当地降低进口关税有利于跨国技术授权的实现。文章的结论对于发展中国家的技术引进以及技术出口政策的制定具有一定的现实意义。     

竞争政策与跨国最优技术授权策略

本文探讨当前中国在知识产权领域实施(宽松)竞争政策的理论基础。基于本国国有企业和私营企业与具有成本优势的外国企业进行古诺竞争的寡头模型,分析生产型外国企业如何将降低成本的专利技术分别授权给本国的两家企业。我们的研究表明:当不能歧视性授权时,外国企业总是偏好特许权收费方式;当能够歧视性授权时,外国企业在技术创新程度较大时会偏好固定收费方式。由于在歧视性授权下,外国企业将更多的利润转移到母国,因此本国福利在不允许歧视性授权下更高,但全球福利却相反。因此,本国政府从本国福利极大化的角度往往会强化竞争政策,限制歧视性授权;尽管从全球角度看,不限制歧视性授权的宽松竞争政策能够提升全球福利。     

论产品与品牌的排他性及其创造

论文从产品与服务差异、企业区别、用户特别适应三方面论述了排他性是产品与品牌核心价值之根.以著名营销学、竞争战略专家理论为指导,研究了市场经济社会中,作为产品或服务的核心价值,排他性更集中表现为品牌竞争实力;随着品牌内涵或功能的日益扩展,排他性特征及其主要内容也不断演化、丰富,更胜一筹的排他性锻造--竞争力提高成为企业永恒的努力过程.最后简略阐述了品牌排他性的维护与发展问题.     

不完全契约下企业劳动力成本最优

整个市场就是一系列的契约,企业本身是一个契约,并且是一个不完全契约。劳动力进入企业后就会与企业形成一种不完全契约。企业如何在这种不完全契约下使劳动力成本最小,是所有企业要解决的问题,也是企业竞争优势的一个重要来源。本文主要是分析讨论企业如何在不完全契约下实现劳动力成本最小。     

技术引进中的逆向选择与社会福利

在国外广商不参与市场生产的框架下,求解在市场信息不对称情况下,国外厂商的技术授权策略,并分析各种技术授权情况下的社会福利问题。     

弱产权与研发人力资本投资激励问题研究

企业研发过程是一个知识创造的过程,研发形成的技术创新成果包括可缔约的显性知识和不可缔约的隐性知识,技术创新成果知识产权的保护存在困难,事前难以基于研发人力资本投资和技术创新知识产权进行缔约,使用完全契约理论研究方法则存在一定的局限性。论文运用不完全契约理论,研究了研发过程中弱知识产权保护下,研究人员的事前研发投资激励问题。研究认为,在不完全契约背景下,研究人员总是存在事前研发投资不足问题。如果存在外部风险投资公司,能够提高研究人员的投资水平;而创新技术知识溢出程度越大,越不利于研发人员作出有效率地投资。创新技术的专用性程度也影响到研发人员的事前研发投入激励,在创新技术为完全专用性技术的情况下,研发人员作出的事前研发投入水平低于在创新技术为通用性技术的情况下的投入水平,但仍能获得部分事后谈判准租。     

军民融合企业技术创新生态系统协同机制研究

本文在共生视角下研究军民融合企业技术创新生态系统的协同演化机制,分析政府干预下"学研机构—军民融合企业"的主从博弈策略,探讨"政企学研"组成的技术创新生态系统在独立生存合作、协同创新合作和联盟共存合作三个阶段的运作机理.主要考虑两种政府干预情境:一种是针对一般技术创新,政府不进行补贴激励;另一种是针对高精尖技术创新,政府会对其进行补贴激励.针对两种政府干预情境和三个演化阶段,采用主从博弈分别确定学研机构的技术创新程度和技术转移费用以及军民融合企业的边际收益.研究表明:学研机构和军民融合企业采用成本分担机制共同进行技术研发,有助于提高技术创新程度;协同创新合作阶段的成本分担机制可使创新生态系统获得帕累托改进;在大部分情形下不存在使学研机构和军民融合企业都满意的创新成本分担契约;联盟共存合作阶段的利润共享机制可以消除创新生态系统的双重边际效应,获得帕累托最优.     

基于收益共享与两部收费的卖方消费信贷契约协调

考虑一个由单个零售商和单个金融企业组成的卖方消费信贷系统,产品需求不确定且依赖于手续费率。分别得出了集中决策模型、分散决策模型以及收益共享与两部收费组合契约协调模型下零售商和金融企业的最优决策。研究表明:收益共享与两部收费组合契约能够实现系统的协调,且在契约参数满足一定条件时,可以实现系统利润的任意分配及零售商与金融企业的Paret o改进。最后通过数值分析,进一步检验了所提出的组合契约协调的有效性。     

Quality differentiation and product innovation licensing

Evidence reveals that there are more than 50% product innovation licensings applied within industries. We study product innovation licensing (quality-enhancing licensing) in both exclusive and non-exclusive schemes each under unit/revenue royalty and fixed fee in a vertically differentiated Cournot oligopoly, where a quality-leading firm is an internal licensor. We show that, under a non-exclusive licensing, royalty licensing is the superior policy for the licensor if quality difference within firms is small, regardless of whether a unit or revenue royalty scheme is offered. Under an exclusive licensing, a two-part tariff is optimal. If fixed fee licensing is practicable, the licensor favors an exclusive licensing. Furthermore, an increase in quality difference within firms increases the optimal rates. Using the simulated results, we examine that licensing improves social welfare in all schemes, and the number of licensees will influence the magnitude of welfare enhancement.     

Optimal patent licensing—Two or three-part tariff

We look into technology transfer by an insider patentee in a spatial duopoly model under three types of licensing contracts—(i) two-part tariff with fixed fee and per-unit royalty, (ii) two-part tariff with fixed fee and ad-valorem royalty and (iii) general three-part tariff with fixed fee, per-unit and ad-valorem royalties. Under two-part tariff contracts, the licenser is better off with the per-unit royalty contract but the general contract does better than the other contracts. In contrast to the existing literature, all three licensing contracts may make the consumers worse-off compared to no licensing, with the lowest consumer surplus achieved under the general licensing contract. Welfare under the general licensing contract is equal to the welfare under two-part tariff with ad-valorem royalty and it is higher than the welfare under no licensing but lower than the welfare under two-part tariff with per-unit royalty. Hence, the general three-part licensing contract is privately optimal but not socially optimal. Similar conclusions hold also under a nonspatial linear demand model with differentiated products.     

Commercialization of a demand-enhancing innovation: The release of a new apple variety by a public university

The upsurge of patented fruit varieties developed by university plant-breeding programs motivated this re-examination of optimal commercialization strategies when an innovator cares about profits for both itself and the licensees. Our theoretical findings suggest that the optimal licensing arrangement that maximizes weighted joint profits depends on the innovation level size, number of firms, and the weights assigned to the innovator and licensee profits. We designed an experiment to test the case with a small number of firms and found that the joint profits are the greatest under an exclusive per-unit royalty scheme. However, when the number of firms is large, as may be the case for a varietal introduction into the U.S. apple industry, our model suggests that the joint profits will be the largest under a nonexclusive contract, either with a two-part tariff, if the innovation level is high, or a per-unit royalty if the innovation level is low.     

Licensing a quality-enhancing innovation to an upstream firm

This paper examines the case where a patent holder who is not a producer licenses its quality-enhancing innovation to an upstream firm, which sells its product through a downstream monopoly. It is found that the patent holder prefers a two-part tariff contract, which includes both a fixed-fee and per-unit output royalty. However, the royalty included in the licensing contract makes each firm price at a markup over marginal cost and therefore makes both consumers and the society worse off, if the innovation is small and the supplier is weak. From a welfare perspective, licensing by means of an ad valorem tax is more efficient, as it allows the upstream firm to be less aggressive when trading with the downstream firm.     

License auctions with royalty contracts for (winners and) losers

This paper revisits the licensing of a non-drastic process innovation by an outside innovator to a Cournot oligopoly. We propose a new mechanism that combines a restrictive license auction with royalty licensing. This mechanism is more profitable than standard license auctions, auctioning royalty contracts, fixed-fee licensing, pure royalty licensing, and two-part tariffs. The key features are that royalty contracts are auctioned and that losers of the auction are granted the option to sign a royalty contract. Remarkably, combining royalties for winners and losers of the auction makes the integer constraint concerning the number of licenses irrelevant.     

Patent licensing under cost asymmetry among firms

This paper extends Poddar and Sinha's (2010) duopolistic model to an oligopolistic model consisting of three cost differential firms engaging in Cournot competition. The focus of the paper is on the impact of the differences in efficiency among the three firms on the choices of the patentee's optimal licensing contract. By confining the number of licenses to one license only, the paper derives a more comprehensive result than that in Poddar and Sinha (2010). In addition, it shows that the insider patentee may choose pure fixed-fee, mixed or pure royalty licensing regardless of licensing to one or two licensees. This paper also proves that the optimal licensing contract can be either exclusive or non-exclusive, depending upon the relative cost advantage between the two licensees.     

Tariff induced licensing contracts,consumers’ surplus and welfare

We construct a duopolistic trade model with technology transfer and consider two-part tariff licensing contracts. We show that a tariff on foreign products can influence the licensing strategy of the foreign firm. There is a trade-off between a tariff and a royalty license in affecting the product price. We show in particular that a tariff can be chosen so as to induce fee licensing and maximize both consumers’ surplus and domestic welfare. This resolves the so-called conflict between these two objectives in respect of the choice of a tariff. The paper provides a number of testable hypothesis.     

Patent Licensing in the Presence of Trade Barriers

We develop a two‐country duopoly model to explore the optimal licensing contract for an outsider licensor in terms of fixed‐fee and royalty licensing by taking into account trade barriers when firms produce a homogeneous product and engage in Bertrand competition in each market. The present paper focuses on the interaction between licensing and trade barriers in two international markets. We show that both royalty and non‐exclusive fixed‐fee licensing can be optimal. Furthermore, exclusive fixed‐fee licensing can be optimal, which is a result that is not discussed in the existing literature.     

Licensing cost-reducing innovations under supply function competition

In this paper, we study the licensing of cost-reducing innovations in a duopoly under supply function competition. We show that the innovator prefers fixed-fee licensing to no licensing if its cost advantage is not extremely large. Moreover, if its cost advantage is not extremely small, the innovator prefers fixed-fee licensing and mixed licensing to revenue-royalty licensing. This second result arises only because of our assumption that the cost functions are quadratic. We show that if the cost functions are linear and royalty payments are per unit of output, the innovator strictly prefers royalty licensing to fixed-fee licensing. We also show that in our model, consumer surplus is remarkably higher under any type of licensing than under no licensing. However, revenue-royalty licensing is slightly superior for consumers to the other two types of licensing and only so if the cost advantage of the innovator is sufficiently large.