The role of short-term contracts and subsidies in licensing

An innovator without production facilities owns a patented invention that lasts two periods, and looks for the best licensing arrangement with a producer that has private information about the market value of the invention. The license is either a single long-term contract in force over both periods or a series of short-term contracts, one per period. Under short-term contracts, the licensee can strategically signal the value of the invention with its level of production in the first period and thus influence the terms of the contract in the second period. We show that the licensor prefers successive short-term contracts rather than a single long-term contract for intermediate-level probabilities of dealing with an efficient licensee, while the first-period contract may optimally include a per-unit subsidy (a negative royalty rate) in order to correct signaling distortions in the licensee’s production for this period. We also show that prohibiting such subsidies can lead to welfare losses.     

Licensing Innovations with Exclusive Contracts

We analyze licensing contracts specifying an exclusive territory clause and a fixed fee as a form of payment. While commonly observed, the effects of such licensing contracts have not been investigated in the licensing literature. We find that they can generate revenues for an innovator equal to those that would be obtained by a monopolist using the cost-reducing innovation that is being licensed. This result, however, depends on three factors: The size of the market relative to the pre-innovation marginal cost, the quality of the innovation, and the degree of substitutability between the goods being produced in the market.      

The licensing dilemma: understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing

The licensing of technology entails a trade‐off: licensing payments net of transaction costs (revenue effect) must be balanced against the lower price–cost margin and/or reduced market share implied by increased competition (profit dissipation effect) from the licensee. We argue that the presence of multiple technology holders, which compete in the market for technology, changes such a trade‐off and triggers more aggressive licensing behavior. To test our theory, we analyze technology licensing by large chemical firms during the period 1986–96 for 107 chemical products. We find that the rate of technology licensing displays an inverted U‐shaped relationship with the number of potential technology suppliers and is negatively related to the licensor's market share and to the degree of technology‐specific product differentiation. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Licensing Strategies in the Presence of Patent Thickets

Many key industries (e.g., biomedical, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and information technologies) are characterized by cumulative innovations, where the introduction of a new product or service often requires many complementary technologies. When these technologies are protected by intellectual property rights owned by many firms, patent thickets exist, which researchers have argued may hinder the development of cumulative innovations. Specifically, patent thickets may lead to excessive royalty burdens for potential licensees, which is called “royalty stacking,” and if such costs are passed on to consumers, prices of products based on cumulative technologies will be driven up, dubbed as “double marginalization.” The literature, however, does not address these issues under different forms of licensing contracts. This article develops a game‐theoretic model where a downstream firm seeks to license N patents that read on its product from upstream firms. It discusses a variety of licensing forms widely used in practice and attempts to discover whether royalty stacking and double marginalization occur under these forms of licenses. It also studies the impact of bargaining power between parties. It is found that when patent ownership becomes more fragmented, neither royalty stacking nor double marginalization occurs under profit‐based royalty, fixed fee, and hybrid licenses. Such problems occur only under pure quantity‐based or pure revenue‐based royalty licenses when the downstream firm's bargaining power is low. It is also shown that no matter how fragmented the ownership structure of patent is, hybrid licenses consisting of a fixed fee and a quantity‐ or revenue‐based royalty rate lead to the same market outcomes as a fully integrated firm that owns all the patents and the downstream market. This article has interesting implications for both research and practice. First, the results show that even under the same patent ownership structure, different forms of licenses lead to quite different market outcomes. Therefore, it is suggested that firms and policy makers pay more attention to contractual forms of licenses when trying to minimize the negative impact of patent thickets. Second, the extant literature has largely assumed that quantity‐based royalties are used, where double marginalization is the most severe. In practice, revenue‐based royalties are most common, under which double marginalization is much milder. Third, the results show that patent pools can be most effective in mitigating royalty stacking and double marginalization when quantity‐based or revenue‐based royalties are the sole or primary payment form, especially when downstream firms have low bargaining power.     

Grantbacks,territorial restraints,and innovation

We analyse the effect of grantback clauses in licensing contracts. While competition authorities fear that grantback clauses might decrease the licensee's ex post incentives to innovate, a standard defence is that grantback clauses are required for the patent-owner to agree to license its technology in the first place. We examine the validity of this “but for” defence and the equilibrium effect of grantback clauses on the innovation incentives of the licensee for both non-severable and severable innovations, which roughly correspond to infringing and non-infringing innovations. We show that grantback clauses do not increase the patent-holder's incentives to license when non-severable innovations are at stake but they do when severable innovations are concerned – suggesting that the “but for” defence might be valid for severable innovations but not for non-severable ones, in direct contradiction to regulation in some jurisdictions. Moreover we show that, for severable innovations, grantback clauses can increase the range of parameters for which follow-on innovation by the licensee occurs. Our work extends the large literature on sequential innovation to an environment where information diffuses through licensing rather than through the mere act of patenting. In this different informational set up we show that Green and Scotchmer (1995)’s conclusion that the initial innovator should have a patent of infinite breadth no longer holds.     

Managerial perceptions of technology licensing as an alternative to internal R&D in new product development: an empirical investigation

Increasingly, companies are using the licensing approach to acquire external technology as an alternative to internal new product development. However, the licensing literature presents lists of benefits and costs without identifying either their relative importance or the underlying dimensions. This article presents the results of a survey of Australian licensee firms designed to fill this gap in the literature. The results show that the major reason for licensing relates more to the immediate need to gain competitive advantage than the relative low cost advantage of technology licensing or having access to future technology. The major impediments to licensing are the entry and exit costs and the loss of decision-making autonomy resulting from licensor-imposed restrictions. Further, only two factors, perceived search costs and low cost market entry advantage of licensing appear to vary among the industries studied. Future research and managerial implications of the results are discussed.     

The Licensing of Market Development Rights within Technology Alliances: A Shareholder Value Perspective*

Technology alliances create market development rights that are shared between partners in an alliance relative to codeveloped product technology. Alliance partners will often manage the shared market development rights in a cooperative manner by forming an agreement in which one partner (i.e., the licensor) licenses its market development rights to the other partner in the alliance (i.e., the licensee). The real options and bargaining power literatures provide opposing recommendations regarding whether a licensor creates greater shareholder value by licensing its market development rights to the licensee on a more or less restrictive basis. Empirical analysis of technology alliance contracts reveals that the restrictiveness by which a licensor should license its market development rights to a licensee depends on the licensee's strategic marketing emphasis. Specifically, a licensee will create greater value by following a more restrictive distribution strategy when its partner's marketing strategy emphasizes value creation. Alternatively, a licensee will create greater value when its partner's marketing strategy emphasizes value appropriation by following a less restrictive distribution strategy. From a theoretical perspective, the paper's findings provide early evidence regarding the contribution of marketing strategy toward value creation in technology alliances and help resolve the differing expectations offered by the real options and bargaining power literatures. Managerially, the paper identifies an alliance partner's strategic marketing emphasis as a hitherto unrecognized factor determining when managers should follow a more or less restrictive distribution strategy when licensing marketing development rights within technology alliances.     

Contracting with endogenous entry

We analyze entry in markets where a principal contracts with a privately informed agent. Before learning his production cost, the agent knows his probability of having a low cost – his ex ante “type” – and decides whether to pay an entry fee to contract with the principal. There are two cut-off equilibria that determine the possible types of an agent who actually enters the market, and neither equilibrium can be discarded by standard selection criteria. Contrasting with standard intuition, in the equilibrium with the highest cut-off an increase in the entry fee reduces the marginal type of the agent who enters, thus increasing entry and the expected cost of an entrant. This equilibrium is selected by a criterion based on “robustness to equilibrium risk,” even though the equilibrium with the lowest cut-off is Pareto dominant for the agent. Public policies that increase entry barriers may be welfare improving.     

Licensing‐in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant‐back clause and technological unfamiliarity

Drawing on contractual economics and innovation management, licensing‐in is hypothesized to accelerate licensees' invention process. Studying a matched dataset of licensees and non‐licensees, licensees are shown to be faster at inventing, but the effect is negated if the license includes a grant‐back clause, shifting incentives from licensee to licensor. Also, the effect is significantly reduced if the licensee is unfamiliar with the licensed technology. The effect of the grant‐back clause is offset if the licensee is unfamiliar with the licensed technology, suggesting that the licensee retains the incentives to invent under these circumstances. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Per unit vs. ad valorem royalties under asymmetric information

We study an inside patent holder's optimal licensing policy when it has imperfect information about the value of the patent to its rival. The patent holder can choose any two-part licensing fee with either per unit or ad valorem royalties. We demonstrate that the equilibrium will be either a fully separating contract with different per unit royalty rates, or a contract with a single ad valorem royalty that excludes a high cost rival. Fixed fees will not be used. The presence of asymmetric information uniquely drives the per unit royalties that otherwise would not be adopted. Per unit royalties always generate higher social welfare than ad valorem royalties.     

Vertical contracts in search markets

This paper studies a simple model to underline the importance of consumer search for understanding wholesale contracts between manufacturers and retailers. The model has one manufacturer and two retailers who compete in a homogeneous goods market where the wholesale contract is unobserved by consumers. If the manufacturer is in the position to offer two-part tariffs, the model without search either does not have an equilibrium wholesale contract (if retailers hold passive beliefs) due to the well-known opportunism problem or it is characterized by the absence of a fixed fee (when retailers hold symmetric beliefs). With consumer search, an equilibrium wholesale contract always exists (even if retailers hold passive beliefs) overcoming the opportunism problem and is always characterized by some fixed fee. If the manufacturer offers linear wholesale contracts, the differences between the models with and without consumer search are less pronounced, but remain even if the search cost vanishes. Thus, the vertical contracting literature cannot simply ignore search costs by saying that they are probably small and can therefore be neglected.     

Fixed‐Term Contracts: Short‐Term Blessings or Long‐Term Scars? Empirical Findings from the Netherlands 1980–2000

Using a comprehensive longitudinal dataset of prime‐age Dutch workers over the period 1980–2000, we examine how a previously held job with a fixed‐term contract influences both the likelihood and the duration of a future spell of unemployment. Analyses show that Dutch workers with fixed‐term contracts experience higher risks of future unemployment and have no shorter spells of unemployment compared to workers with regular contracts. Results also reveal that swifter employment re‐entries among men with fixed‐term contracts can be explained by their job search efforts before unemployment. Our study (partly) invalidates theoretical positions that claim that fixed‐term contracts foster employment security by shortening unemployment durations; suggesting that fixed‐term contracts are a short‐term blessing that could end, for some workers, in a recurrent unemployment trap.     

On the duration of technology licensing

We model an innovator's choice of payment scheme and duration as a joint decision in a multi-period licensing game with potential future innovations and some irreversibility of technology transfer. We find that it may be optimal to license the innovation for less than the full length of the patent and that royalty contracts can be more profitable than fixed-fee licensing even in the absence of information asymmetry and risk aversion. Moreover, licensing contracts based on royalty have a longer duration than fixed-fee licenses and are more likely to be used in industries where innovations are frequent and intellectual property protection is weak. Our paper also highlights an important link between the study of technology licensing and the theory of durable goods.     

Economic Efficiency and Political Capture in Public Service Contracts

We consider contracts for public transport services between a public authority and a transport operator. We build a structural endogenous switching model where the contract choice results from the combined effects of the incentivization scheme aimed at monitoring the operator's efficiency and the political agenda followed by the regulator to account for the voice of private interests. Our results support theoretical predictions as they suggest that cost‐plus contracts entail a higher cost for society than fixed‐price contracts but allow the public authority to leave a rent to a subset of individuals. Accounting for transfers to interest groups in welfare computations reduces the welfare gap between cost‐plus and fixed‐price regimes.     

On the competitive effects of vertical integration by a research laboratory

An independent research laboratory owns a patented process innovation ready to be used by an industry that produces differentiated goods. We analyze whether the laboratory prefers to license the innovation as an external patentee or to merge with one of the firms in the industry, licensing the innovation as an internal patentee. Under linear demand and Cournot competition, we show first, that the vertical merger is profitable only in the case of small innovations, whereas a merger increases welfare only for significant innovations; second, all profitable vertical mergers reduce welfare. However, some profitable mergers are welfare improving under price competition.     

发电企业竞价上网的成本测算模型研究

对发电企业的会计成本和边际成本测算模型进行了分析,并提出分时段的固定成本分摊模型,同时对算例进行了具体测算。     

组织信息体制、制度化关联与高技术企业集群治理效率

高技术企业集群是一种网络式中间体组织，其组织结构更多的表现为组织之间垂直方向和水平方向的信息关联关系。不同的信息关联形成不同的信息体制。高技术企业集群治理合约分为VC捆绑武治理合约、转换者式治理合约、主导企业式治理合约等三种典型形式．其治理合约的选择受制于信息体制的交易费用大小。信息体制有其特定的制度生存环境，并且具有不同的交易费用结构特征．必须使制度环境与信息体制相匹配。制度化关联与信息体制的耦合互动可以弥补组织信息体制内生的体制缺陷．降低总交易费用。制度环境的扰动和制度的历时关联影响治理合约的治理效率．治理合约需要做出相应的调遣．     

Signaling in Technology Licensing with a Downstream Oligopoly

Review of Industrial Organization - We analyze licensing contracts in an oligopolistic downstream market where an outside innovator has private information with regard to its technology. Under...     

Exclusivity in licensing alliances: using hostages to support technology commercialization

We examine why exclusivity provisions are used in licensing alliances, and when restrictions in licensing scope (e.g., by product or geography) accompany these exclusivity provisions. We find broad support for the proposition that these features are associated with the contractual challenges of allying with licensees when they contribute valuable complementary capabilities toward the commercialization of licensed technologies. Evidence from our data suggests that exclusivity is used as a contractual hostage to safeguard licensee investments in complementary assets and to enable contracting over early stage technologies. Scope restrictions are employed to balance the tradeoffs between the value creation made possible by licensee complementary capabilities and the transactional hazards entailed in working exclusively with licensees. Our results also suggest that scope restrictions and other formal safeguards may be substitute mechanisms for managing similar transactional concerns in licensing alliances. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

CONTRACTING FOR AN INNOVATION UNDER BILATERAL ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION*

We analyze licensing contracts between informed innovators and developers exerting profit‐increasing effort. Those contracts must simultaneously induce innovators to convey information on the value of their ideas, while inducing developers to exert effort and protecting the innovators' intellectual property rights. We show that the best innovators signal themselves by taking more royalties even if it reduces the developers' share of returns and their incentives. Moreover, royalties are more likely to be used when property rights are easy to enforce and pre‐contractual evidence on innovation quality is hard to produce.