IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-12-00768.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model with a commitment of no production

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Colombo

    (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore)

  • Luigi Filippini

    (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore)

Abstract

A typical result in patent licensing literature is that an insider patent-holder prefers licensing through royalties instead than through a fixed fee. However, when a commitment of no production is possible for the patent-holder, the result is reverted.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Colombo & Luigi Filippini, 2013. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model with a commitment of no production," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(3), pages 2122-2128.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2013/Volume33/EB-13-V33-I3-P198.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Fosfuri & Esther Roca, 2004. "Optimal Licensing Strategy: Royalty or Fixed Fee?," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 3(1), pages 13-19, April.
    2. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Colombo & Luigi Filippini, 2015. "Patent Licensing with Bertrand Competitors," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(1), pages 1-16, January.

    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. Masahiko Hattori & Yasuhito Tanaka, 2018. "Negative Royalty in Duopoly and Definition of License Fee: General Demand and Cost Functions," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 17(2), pages 163-178, September.
    2. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2010. "Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 735-742, August.
    3. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    4. Sinha, Uday Bhanu, 2016. "Optimal value of a patent in an asymmetric Cournot duopoly market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-105.
    5. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2010. "Patent Licensing from a High‐Cost Firm to a Low‐Cost Firm," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 384-395, September.
    6. Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy & Liang, Wen-Jung & Chou, Pin-Shu, 2013. "Patent licensing under cost asymmetry among firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 297-307.
    7. Richard Watt, 2014. "Licensing of copyright works in a bargaining model," Chapters, in: Richard Watt (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Copyright, chapter 6, pages 107-117, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Chin-Sheng Chen, 2017. "Endogenous Market Structure and Technology Licensing," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-130, March.
    9. Yan, Qingyou & Yang, Le, 2018. "Optimal licensing schemes for a mixed ownership firm when facing uncertain R&D outcomes and technology spillover," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 550-572.
    10. Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Technology licensing under convex costs," Discussion Papers 10/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    11. Chin-Sheng Chen, 2017. "Endogenous Market Structure and Technology Licensing," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 115-130, March.
    12. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:20-31 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ming-Chung Chang, 2010. "Insider patent holder licensing in an oligopoly market with different cost structures: Fixed-fee, royalty, and auction," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(1), pages 20-31.
    14. Hattori, Masahiko & Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2016. "License or entry in oligopoly," MPRA Paper 73547, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2002. "On Monopolistic Licensing Strategies under Asymmetric Information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 177-189, September.
    16. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    17. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2010. "Patent licensing, bargaining, and product positioning," ISER Discussion Paper 0775, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    18. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    19. Joel Sandonís & Javier M. López-Cuñat, 2018. "Upstream Incentives To Encourage Downstream Competition In A Vertically Separated Industry," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 63(03), pages 619-627, June.
    20. Filippini Luigi & Vergari Cecilia, 2017. "Vertical Integration Smooths Innovation Diffusion," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-22, July.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent licensing; fixed fees; royalties;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00768. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.