Choosing the partners in the licensing alliance

I consider a situation in which the incumbent strategically adopts the licensing alliance, facing potential entrants. The queue of entrants consists of two firms, the ‘strong’ entrant and the ‘weak’ entrant, who differ in their productivities. The incumbent sets a licensing fee and offers it to the entrants. Each entrant decides whether or not to buy the licensing alliance. After the set of the licensing alliance is determined, they engage in the Cournot competition. I examine the optimal licensing fee, and show that the optimal licensing fee is to charge a discriminatory royalty to each licensee. I also examine the licensing policy on the partner(s): To whom should the licensor license its technology? By comparing the equilibrium expected payoffs for the licensor, I show that licensing to both entrants would be preferred to licensing to a single entrant. But, if the licensor faces the problem on choosing the partner, he prefers the licensing of the weak entrant to the strong entrant. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managing technology licensing for stochastic R&D: from the perspective of an enterprise information system

Enterprise information technology (IT) plays an important role in technology innovation management for high-tech enterprises. However, to date most studies on enterprise technology innovation have assumed that the research and development (R&D) outcome is certain. This assumption does not always hold in practice. Motivated by the current practice of some IT industries, we establish a three-stage duopoly game model, including the R&D stage, the licensing stage and the output stage, to investigate the influence of bargaining power and technology spillover on the optimal licensing policy for the innovating enterprise when the outcome of R&D is uncertain. Our results demonstrate that (1) if the licensor has low (high) bargaining power, fixed-fee (royalty) licensing is always superior to royalty (fixed-fee) licensing to the licensor regardless of technology spillover; (2) if the licensor has moderate bargaining power and technology spillover is low (high) as well, fixed-fee (royalty) licensing is superior to royalty (fixed-fee) licensing; (3) under two-part tariff licensing and the assumption of licensors with full bargaining power, if a negative prepaid fixed fee is not allowed, two-part tariff licensing is equivalent to royalty licensing which is the optimal licensing policy; if negative prepaid fixed fee is allowed, the optimal policy is two-part tariff licensing.     

Determinants of technology licensing: the case of licensors

This paper empirically analyzes the behavior of technology licensors using a large dataset of US‐traded companies. The stock of technological knowledge of the licensor, this company's prior exposure to licensing, the rate of growth of its primary sector, the strength of IPR protection, and the nature of the technology are found to be important determinants of the propensity to sell technology through nonexclusive licenses. Smaller firms in industries with ‘simpler’ technologies tend to sell technology through exclusive licenses more than others. In contrast, larger firms in industries dealing with more ‘complex’ technologies engage relatively more in cross licensing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managerial incentives for process innovation

Cost‐reducing investments by firms are often not publicly observable. This lack of observability would preclude a strategic use of process innovation. However, we show that an observable and verifiable contract that provides direct monetary incentives for cost reductions — an innovation incentive contract — can act as a strategic commitment device. Our model predicts that manager‐led firms are more innovative than owner‐led firms and that these contracts become less prevalent as product market competition intensifies. Both predictions are consistent with recent empirical evidence. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who is more aggressive under vertical product differentiation?

In this paper, we introduce quality differences in vertical market and compare the managerial delegation contracts of downstream firms. We find that the owner of a downstream firm that produces low-quality products induces the manager to behave more aggressively when the marginal cost coefficient is low. While when marginal cost coefficient is high, the owner of a downstream firm that produces high-quality products induces the manager to behave more aggressively. It is further found that managerial delegation can improve the profits of downstream firms but reduce the consumer surplus and social welfare.     

Manufacturer collusion: Strategic implications of the channel structure

We investigate how the structure of the distribution channel affects tacit collusion between manufacturers. When selling through a common retailer, we find—in contrast to the conventional understanding of tacit collusion that firms act to maximize industry profits—that colluding manufacturers strategically induce double marginalization so that retail prices are above the monopoly level. This lowers industry profits but increases the profit share that manufacturers appropriate from the retailer. Comparing common distribution with independent (exclusive) distribution, we show that the latter facilitates collusion. Despite this result, common retailing leads to lower welfare because a common retailer monopolizes the downstream market. For the case of independent retailing, we also demonstrate that contract offers that are observable to the rival retailer are not necessarily beneficial for collusive purposes.     

Automatic‐renewal contracts with heterogeneous consumer inertia

Automatic contract renewals are a common feature in consumer markets. Since these contracts renew automatically unless a consumer actively cancels, firms can use them to exploit consumer inertia. As a source of inertia I study limited attention and investigate how firms use contract renewal to sell to consumers with different degrees of inattention. In monopolistic markets, adverse selection of more‐attentive consumers limits the exploitation of naively inattentive consumers. When signing a contract, naively inattentive consumers overestimate their future probability to make an active cancellation decision. To exploit this mistake, the monopolist wants to target these consumers with large prices after contracts renew. These back‐loaded contracts, however, adversely attract more‐attentive consumers who cancel more often when choosing these exploitative contracts. To mitigate adverse selection, monopolists focus less on exploiting naively inattentive consumers. Adverse selection induces fewer consumer mistakes and can increase efficiency. I show that competition mitigates adverse selection, which induces firms to focus more on exploitation with more back‐loaded pricing. I discuss implications for recently implemented policies on automatic‐renewal contracts.     

Most-Favored-Customer Clauses and Multilateral Contracting: When Nondiscrimination Implies Uniformity

DeGraba and Postlewaite (1992) show that the seller of a durable input can solve the time inconsistency problem by offering most-favored-customer (MFC) protection to buyers. McAfee and Schwartz (1994) show that if a supplier sells inputs to competing firms using two-part tariffs, MFC protection that allows a firm to replace its contract with a contract executed by any other firm will not solve the commitment problem, and argue this implies managers cannot use MFCs as a strategic commitment device in complex contracting situations. This paper shows that if the profits of the seller and the buyers are monotonic in each term of the contract, then applying MFC protection to each term of a contract allows a manager to solve his commitment problem in complex contacting situations. We show that "standard" contract arrangements (two-part tariffs, declining block tariffs, and royalties as a percentage of sales) meet this condition.     

Whom to license patented technology

This paper examines the optimal licensing policy of a patent holder when potential licensees differ in their capacities in absorbing the patented technology. If two-part tariffs with non-negative royalties and fixed fees are feasible, the patent holder finds it optimal to license the strong firm exclusively whether or not an exclusive licensing of the weak firm deters the strong firm from entering the market. Hence, the potential trade-offs between strategic gains associated with licensing to weak competitors and efficiency gains associated with licensing to efficient competitors do not exist when two part tariffs are available. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Licensing vs. Litigation: The Effect of the Legal System on Incentives to Innovate

With uncertain scope of patent protection and imperfect enforcement, the effective strength of patent protection is determined by the legal system. We analyze how the legal system affects the incentives of firms to innovate, taking into account possibilities of strategic licensing and litigation to deter imitation. The legal system that guarantees the patentee's monopoly power maximizes the R&D intensities. However, the legal system that induces licensing provides incentives to exert R&D effort while preserving ex post efficiency. We also compare R&D, patent licensing, and litigation behavior under American and English rules of legal cost allocation.     

Repeated interaction in standard setting

Standardization may allow the owners of standard‐essential patents to charge higher royalties than would have been negotiated ex ante. In practice, however, standard‐setting efforts are often characterized by repeated interaction and complementarities among technologies. These features give firms that contribute technology to standards both the ability and the incentive to avoid excessive royalties by threatening to exclude other technology contributors from future rounds of standardization if they charge royalties exceeding ‘fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory’ (FRAND) levels. We show that such an outcome can be sustained as a subgame‐perfect equilibrium of a repeated standard‐setting game and examine how the decision‐making rules of standard‐setting organizations (SSOs) affect the sustainability of FRAND royalties. Our analysis provides a novel justification for super‐majority requirements and other rules frequently adopted by SSOs.     

A reconsideration of the link between vertical externality and managerial incentives

Previous research revealed that the strategic role of delegation contracts disappears if two quantity‐setting firms outsource input production to a monopolistic supplier. I show that this role is restored if the assumption of a downstream duopoly is relaxed. Thus, delegation contracts allow downstream profit‐maximizing owners to commit their firms to a behavior that differs from their preferences. This behavior varies nonmonotonically with the number of firms in the downstream market. Corresponding deviations from profit maximization are larger if the upstream monopolist makes a price precommitment. But little to no deviation occurs if the number of firms is large.     

Licensing standard-essential patents with costly enforcement

We study the interaction between the holder of a standard-essential patent (SEP) and two downstream firms using the patented technology to design standard-compliant products. The SEP holder approaches the downstream firms simultaneously in the shadow of patent litigation and is subject to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing requirements. We show that the patent holder faces a litigation credibility constraint and a license acceptability constraint when setting its licensing terms. For patents of intermediate strength, there is no royalty that allows the patent holder to reconcile these constraints. Consequently, it cannot license its technology and must go to court against infringers. We show that the availability of an injunction improves the patent holder's ability to license its technology, but it tends to inflate the royalty rate for implementers.     

Technology exploitation in the context of open innovation: Finding the right ‘job’ for your technology

In light of the recent economic crisis, many industrial firms attempt to capture additional value from their technologies by means of open innovation strategies. Besides acquiring external technology, many firms therefore increasingly try to license their own technology to other firms either exclusively or in addition to its application in their own products. This article shows that technology licensing offers important strategic benefits beyond generating licensing revenues, which underscore the need for an integrated management of technology licensing activities. Therefore, this article extends the concept of job-related markets that was recently developed in the managerial literature. A ‘job’ is the fundamental problem that a customer needs to resolve in a particular situation. Managers may transfer this job-related understanding to technology licensing activities because the right ‘job’ for a technology may be outside a firm’s boundaries, and it may help firms to identify additional licensing opportunities. On this basis, the article presents the concept of an integrated technology exploitation roadmap, which allows firms to use the job-related markets to integrate technology licensing in their strategic planning processes. An example of a machinery firm shows how this roadmap may contribute to strengthening a firm’s licensing business.     

Should managerial delegation contracts be made before or after union wage setting? A game‐theoretic analysis

This paper analyzes a multiple‐stage game in which, at the final stage, two (managerial) firms compete over quantities in the product market. Prior to this stage, firm‐specific unions set the workers' wages, while the owners of both firms hire managers and provide them with incentive contracts. Owners can freely decide to arrange the managerial contract before or after the (non‐managerial) wage determination stage. Hence, the endogenous choice of the incentive contract stage is derived. The possibility of multiple equilibria arises, where both owners choose managerial contracts before or after unions' wage setting, crucially depending on unions' preferences. Such results also prove to be true for a remarkable degree of asymmetry in preferences over wages vis‐à‐vis employment across unions.     

Research and Technology Commercialization

This paper introduces the special themed section on organizational interactions involving universities and firms that result in the commercialization of research and technology. Our objective is to shed light on some of the most vexing, yet under‐researched predicaments research institutions encounter, despite their best efforts to advance commercialization. First, we synthesize and extend recent studies, including the papers in the special themed section. Next, we develop a taxonomy of modes of commercialization. Specifically, we consider internal approaches, quasi‐internal approaches (e.g. incubators), university research parks, regional clusters, academic spin‐offs and start‐ups, licensing, contract research and consultancy, corporate venture capital, and open science and innovation. We also identify areas for further research at the individual (e.g. heterogeneity of entrepreneurial teams and experience; incentives), organizational and intra‐university (e.g. corporate governance; nature of growth strategies; relationships with trading partners; boundary spanning activities) and technology levels (e.g. institutional context; reconfiguration of technology; valuation of technology).     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship

Milton Friedman argued that the social responsibility of firms is to maximize profits. This paper examines this argument for the economic environment envisioned by Friedman in which citizens can personally give to social causes and can invest in profit‐maximizing firms and firms that give a portion of their profits to social causes. Citizens obtain social satisfaction from corporate social giving, but corporate giving may not be a perfect substitute for personal giving. The paper presents a theory of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and shows that CSR is costly when it is an imperfect substitute. When investors anticipate the CSR, shareholders do not bear its cost. Instead, the entrepreneurs who form the CSR firms bear the cost. Shareholders bear the cost of CSR only when it is a surprise, and it is to such surprises that Friedman objects. A social entrepreneur is willing to form a CSR firm at a financial loss because either doing so expands the opportunity sets of citizens in consumption‐social giving space or there is an entrepreneurial warm glow from forming the firm. Firms can also undertake strategic CSR activities that increase profits, and a social entrepreneur carries strategic CSR beyond profit maximization and market value maximization. The paper also examines the implications of taxes and the effect of the market for control for the sustainability of CSR.     

Financial contracts as coordination device

We study the use of financial contracts as bid‐coordinating device in multi‐unit uniform price auctions. Coordination is required whenever firms face a volunteer's dilemma in pricing strategies: one firm (the “volunteer") is needed to increase the market clearing price. Volunteering, however, is costly, as inframarginal suppliers sell their entire capacity whereas the volunteer only sells residual demand. We identify conditions under which signing financial contracts solves this dilemma. We test our framework exploiting data on contract positions by large producers in the New York power market. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we show that the contracting strategy is payoff dominant and provide estimates of the benefits of such strategy.     

Bayesian inference for the gravity model

This paper seeks to empirically extend the gravity model, which has been widely used to analyze volumes of trade between pairs of countries. We generalize the basic threshold tobit model by allowing for the inclusion of country‐specific effects into the analysis and also show how one can explore the relationship between trade volumes and a given covariate via a non‐parametric approach. We use our derived methodology to investigate the impact of a particular aspect of institutions—the enforcement of contracts—on bilateral trade. We find that contract enforcement matters in predicting trade volumes for all types of goods, that it matters most for the trade of differentiated goods, and that the relationship between contract enforcement and trade in our threshold tobit exhibits some nonlinearities. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Contract Law and the Governance of Inter‐Firm Technology Partnerships – An Analysis of Different Modes of Partnering and Their Contractual Implications*

abstract This paper studies some major legal implications of inter‐firm technology partnering through equity joint ventures, non‐equity partnerships, and licensing contracts. These different partnerships are placed within the classical and relational contracting perspectives, while also considering intellectual property rights issues. Samples of contracts of partnerships in bioscience, fine chemicals, biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals are analysed, in detail, with reference to the distribution of property rights, major contractual clauses, and measures for conflict resolution. Equity joint ventures and non‐equity partnerships are found to largely follow a relational contracting perspective, while licensing contracts are governed by a classical contracting perspective.