Exit Deterrence

This paper is the first to provide a general context whereby potential entry can lead incumbent firms to permanently reduce the intensity of competition in a market. All previous results found that potential entry would lead to lower prices and greater competition. Examining markets where entry occurs by the acquisition of access rights from an existing incumbent, we demonstrate that, where competitive choices are strategic complements, a more efficient entrant may be unable to acquire those rights from a less efficient incumbent due to the unilateral accommodating behavior of the efficient incumbent. Similarly, such accommodating behavior may deter efficient investment by an incumbent. These results have implications as to how economists view potential entry and its benefits.     

Innovation Strategy and Entry Deterrence

We model an incumbent’s decision to pursue radical or incremental innovation when facing a rival entrant. The radical innovation may yield lucrative financial returns but entails significant technological and market‐related uncertainties. It is also particularly attractive to the rival entrant: if the market for it pans out, such an innovation obsoletes the existing technology and any incremental improvements to it. Each firm has its own assessment of the market potential for the radical innovation, and the reliability of these market forecasts can differ. We show that when the entrant’s market‐assessment capability is weak, the incumbent will pursue incremental innovation and postpone its plans to develop radical innovation even when it thinks highly of the market potential for the radical innovation. The incumbent does so to avoid validating the high market potential to the entrant, who may otherwise be encouraged to invest aggressively. The incumbent thus prefers to look “soft” with respect to its innovation strategy in order to discourage entry. Even if its innovation strategy is not observable, we show that an incumbent that assesses the commercial potential for a radical innovation favorably may pursue an incremental path and communicate its plans publicly; this strategy serves to reduce entry by affecting the entrant’s beliefs about the market potential of the innovation. Finally, we extend the model to investigate the entrant’s decision to communicate its innovation intentions. We find that the entrant communicates its plans to aggressively pursue radical innovation only if the incumbent’s market‐assessment capabilities are strong. In doing so, the entrant acts preemptively to discourage the incumbent from pursuing the radical innovation, and is less concerned with validating market potential.     

Real options game analysis of sleeping patents

Using the real options game approach, we analyze the two-stage preemptive patent-investment race between an incumbent and a challenger (new entrant) in a product market with profit flow uncertainty. The challenger can gain entry into the monopolized product market dominated by the incumbent by patenting related technologies for a substitute product. To maintain its monopolized advantage, the incumbent has an incentive to block challenger’s entry by patenting the substitute product before the challenger. Either firm can pay an upfront fee to gain an immediate acquisition of the patent and subsequently holding the real option to develop the new substitute product. Under our simplified real options game model, there is no potential patent litgation risk. Also, the costs of holding the patent, like the payment of annual fees, are taken to be zero. We provide a full characterization of the optimal strategies adopted by the incumbent and challenger firm in this asymmetric patent-investment race. In particular, we examine the phenomena of sleeping patent, where the patented product is not launched immediately into the product market.     

Potential competition and quality disclosure

This study presents a model of quality disclosure in which an incumbent, through its quality and disclosure choices, influences the potential that a new entrant enters the market. In this regard, we consider a sequential framework in which the incumbent chooses its quality and decides whether to disclose it to the market; subsequently, the entrant makes the same decisions, if it enters the market. We show that the potential competition can create strategic incentives for the incumbent to choose nondisclosure, because the availability of information about the incumbent's quality promotes entry by enhancing the entrant's expected profit from the market. In addition, an analysis of the effects of mandatory disclosure laws suggests that they can be effective in encouraging new market entrants and in improving the product quality of established firms.     

竞争企业的技术许可与市场进入策略研究

本文对在位企业和潜在进入企业同时选择技术许可费并决定是否进入市场的策略进行了分析和讨论。我们证明如果在位平台企业收取的许可费小于某一临界水平,则潜在进入企业的的最优反应是不进入;如果收取的许可费大于某临界水平,则进入企业的最优反应是进入。另外,如果在位平台企业的初始网络规模和网络外部性足够强,则在位企业选择垄断的技术许可价格,并且进入企业选择不进入。如果初始网络优势不是很大,则潜在进入者的出现使得在位企业会降低技术许可费,以形成进入壁垒。     

Optimal pricing strategy for foreign market entry: a game theoretic approach

Given that pricing plays an important role in a company's international competitive strategy, researchers have long argued the need for theory building in the area of international pricing. This study develops an optimal pricing strategy for foreign market entry using a game theoretic framework. The proposed model assumes two firms, a local incumbent and a foreign entrant, competing in a market. Consumers know the quality of the incumbent's offering, but do not know how it compares to that of the foreign entrant's. Based on these assumptions, and using the theory of inference making, we propose an upward price distortion by the entrant firm as an optimal entry strategy under incomplete information. The paper presents a game theoretic derivation to establish that the game has a unique intuitive separating equilibrium where the entrant firm stands to gain by engaging in upward price distortion to signal high quality to consumers. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction

This paper analyzes the relationship between incumbency and R&D incentives in the context of a model of technological competition in which technologically successful entrants are able to license their innovation to (or be acquired by) an incumbent. That such a sale should take place is natural, since postinnovation monopoly profits are greater than the sum of duopoly profits. We identify three key findings about how innovative activity is shaped by licensing. First, since an incumbent's threat to engage in imitative R&D during negotiations increases its bargaining power, there is a purely strategic incentive for incumbents to develop an R&D capability. Second, incumbents research more intensively than entrants as long as (and only if) their willingness to pay for the innovation exceeds that of the entrant, a condition that depends critically on the expected licensing fee. Third, when the expected licensing fee is sufficiently low, the incumbent considers entrant R&D a strategic substitute for in-house research. This prediction about the market for ideas stands in contrast to predictions of strategic complementarity in patent races where licensing is not allowed.     

Patent Settlements as a Barrier to Entry

We formulate a model of entry with two incumbent firms—a patent holder and an infringer—and a potential entrant, with asymmetric information about the validity of the infringed patent (patent strength) between incumbent firms and the entrant. Within this framework we show that patent settlements between the incumbent firms can be mutually beneficial even when the cost of trial is zero and the settlement agreement takes the form of a simple fixed license fee. For patents of intermediate strength, settlements are a tool for entry deterrence. The two parties agree on a high settlement amount which sends a credible signal to “outsiders” that the patent is not weak and therefore entry will not be profitable. This provides a novel explanation for the role of settlements and to the recent observation of high license fees negotiated in settlement agreements. It suggests that firms should disclose the settlement amount if they want to keep out further entrants. We also show that even nonreverse settlements that entail only a fixed fee can be anticompetitive because they are used to block entry.     

Are Sunk Costs a Barrier to Entry?

The received wisdom is that sunk costs create a barrier to entry—if entry fails, then the entrant, unable to recover sunk costs, incurs greater losses. In a strategic context where an incumbent may prey on the entrant, sunk entry costs have a countervailing effect: they may effectively commit the entrant to stay in the market. By providing the entrant with commitment power, sunk investments may soften the reactions of incumbents. The net effect may imply that entry is more profitable when sunk costs are greater.     

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.     

Strategic Invasion in Markets with Switching Costs

We investigate the role of consumer switching costs in a three-stage model in which the entrant and the incumbent firm set prices sequentially and then the consumers decide from which firm to buy. We characterize the unique subgame perfect equilibrium and find that even an entrant with a higher marginal cost may profitably invade part of the market due to the existence of switching costs. Switching costs benefit both firms but harm consumers. This model is used to understand pricing behavior in the US telecommunications industry.     

International Expansion,Diversification and Regulated Firm Nonmarket Strategy

Previous studies have shown that regulated firms diversify for reasons that are different than for unregulated firms. We explore some of these differences by providing a theoretical model that starts by considering the firm–regulator relationship as an incomplete information issue, in which a regulated incumbent has knowledge that the regulator does not have, but the firm cannot convey hard information about this knowledge. The incumbent faces both market and nonmarket competition from a new entrant. In that context, we show that when the firm faces tough nonmarket competition domestically, going abroad can create a mechanism that makes information transmission to the regulator more credible. International expansion can thus be a way to solve domestic nonmarket issues in addition to being a catalyst for growth. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Location Decisions of Competing Networks

Early entrants in markets with network effects usually occupy a “central location” and serve agents with “intermediate tastes,” whereas later entrants are niche players. Why would the first entrant choose to become a “general” network, given that later entrants will not have enough room for differentiation, resulting in a more intense competition for market share? In a Hotelling model with two rival networks, we show that for intermediate values of the network externality parameter the location equilibrium is indeed asymmetric: the first entrant locates at the center whereas the second entrant chooses an extreme (niche) location.     

Real options game models of R&D competition between asymmetric firms with spillovers

Using real options game models, we consider the characterization of strategic equilibria associated with an asymmetric Research and Development (R&D) race between an incumbent firm and an entrant firm in the development of a new innovative product under market and technological uncertainties. The random arrival time of the discovery of the patent protected innovative product is modeled as a Poisson process. Input spillovers on the R&D effort are modeled by the change in the leader’s hazard rate of success of innovation upon the follower’s entry into the R&D race. Asymmetry between the two competing firms include sunk costs of investment, stochastic revenue flow rates generated from the product, and hazard rates of arrival of success of R&D efforts of the two firms. Under asymmetric duopoly, we obtain the complete characterization of the three types of Markov perfect equilibria (sequential leader–follower, preemption and simultaneous entry) of the firms’ optimal R&D entry decisions with respect to various sets of model parameters. Our model shows that under positive input spillover, preemptive equilibrium does not occur in the R&D race due to the presence of dominant second mover advantage. The two firms choose optimally to enter simultaneously if the sunk cost asymmetry is relatively small; otherwise, sequential equilibrium would occur. When the initial hazard rate is low relative to the level of input spillover, simultaneous entry would occur as an optimal decision, signifying another scenario of dominant second mover advantage. On the other hand, when the initial hazard rate is sufficiently high so that the first mover advantage becomes more significant, simultaneous equilibrium does not occur even under high level of positive input spillover.     

会计师事务所的进入、退出与审计市场的竞争

本文主要从进入、退出的角度研究审计市场的竞争。本文的分析表明,审计市场的市场占有率变动率更为合理地衡量市场的动态变化,审计市场的进入壁垒主要是准入壁垒(管制壁垒),而结构性壁垒和流动性壁垒主要存在于大客户市场,对于小客户市场的影响作用很小。为了防止进入者的进入,在位者通过各种流动性壁垒的设置以提高进入者的成本。但从总体看,审计市场仍然是高度竞争的。     

Sustaining Collusion in Growing Markets

The impact of demand growth on the collusion possibilities is investigated in a Cournot supergame where market growth may trigger future entry and the collusive agreement is enforced by the most profitable ‘grim trigger strategies’ available. It is shown that even in situations where perfect collusion can be sustained after entry, coping with a potential entrant in a market which is growing over time may completely undermine any pre‐entry collusive plans of the incumbent firms. This is because, before entry, a deviation and the following punishment phase may become more attractive thanks to their additional effect in terms of delaying entry.     

The effect of entrant brand's ownership on national brands' positioning strategies

National brand manufacturers face the threat of new product entry from not only their traditional competitors (other national brand manufacturers) but also from their own customers (the retailer). We compare how national brands can limit the loss due to entry of these two types of entrants by positioning of their brands. Our results show that national brands position farther from one another when the new entrant is a store brand than when the entrant is another national brand. We also find that due to different positioning strategies of these two types of entrant brands—the entrant store brand positioning “in‐between” incumbent national brands whereas the entrant national brand positioning “away” from incumbent national brands—incumbent national brands may lose more from the entry of a weaker store brand than from the entry of a stronger national brand. Finally, we find that taking into consideration both pricing and product positioning decisions, consumer and social welfare are generally higher from store brand entry than from national brand entry.     

A bottom-up simulation on competition of online interpersonal communication platforms

The competition of interpersonal communication platforms is a complex process affected by various factors. This paper aims to simulate and analyze this process from a bottom-up perspective. Individual platform selection serves as the micro-foundation for the study. The evolution of online interpersonal communication networks, and innovations proposed by online interpersonal communication platforms, would also impact this process by affecting individual selection on those platforms. Three scenarios were designed for this study to simulate typical modes of competition. In this regard, the simulation results were compared to practical cases. Taken together, this bottom-up simulation model could reproduce and anticipate the applied competition process associated with such platforms. Based on this model, it was found that, in any case, one online interpersonal communication platform will eventually monopolize the market, either partly or entirely. The late entrant platform, comprising a major innovation, tends to fail when competing with the incumbent monopoly due to “network externalities.” Even when two competing platforms continue to propose innovations, and they will alternately lead the competition due to those innovations, this type of replacement of their competitive positions in the market may only occur a few times and then disappear completely.

     

Process innovation and the persistence of monopoly with labour-managed firms

The issue of the persistence of monopoly when at least one labour-managed firm takes part in an auction for a cost-reducing innovation is tackled in this paper. It is shown that (i) when the incumbent is a profit-maximizing firm while the entrant is a labour-managed firm, monopoly persists; (ii) when both firms are labour-managed, monopoly persists only if the technology initially employed by the incumbent is highly inefficient as compared to the new one; and, finally, (iii) when the incumbent is labour-managed while the outsider is a profit seeking agent, then entry always occurs and monopoly changes hands. Received: 3 July 1997 / Accepted: 16 February 1998     

With a Little Help from My Enemy: Comparative Advertising as a Signal of Quality

We extend the theory of advertising as a quality signal   using a model where an entrant can choose to advertise by comparing its product to that of an established incumbent. Comparative advertising, comparing quality of one's own product to that of a rival's, empowers the latter to file for court intervention if it believes the comparison to be false or misleading. We show that comparative advertising can be a signal in instances where generic advertising is not viable.