IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ijb/journl/v3y2004i1p13-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Licensing Strategy: Royalty or Fixed Fee?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Fosfuri

    (Department of Business Administration, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain and CEPR, London, U.K.)

  • Esther Roca

    (ICADE, Spain)

Abstract

Licensing a cost-reducing innovation through a royalty has been shown to be superior to licensing by means of a fixed fee for an incumbent licensor. This note shows that this result relies crucially on the assumption that the incumbent licensor can sell its cost-reducing inno-vation to all industry players. If, for any reason, only some competitors could be reached through a licensing contract, then a fixed fee might be optimally chosen.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ijb:journl:v:3:y:2004:i:1:p:13-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.03-1/pdf/vol_3-1-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.03-1/abstract/02.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2003. "Licensing the market for technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 277-295, October.
    2. repec:cte:wbrepe:wb041507 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    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, 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "R&D Cooperation with Entry," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(1), pages 52-70, January.
    6. Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Technology licensing under convex costs," Discussion Papers 10/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    7. Dawson Peter, 2013. "Royalty Rate Determination," Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 133-161, October.
    8. Sinha, Uday Bhanu, 2016. "Optimal value of a patent in an asymmetric Cournot duopoly market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-105.
    9. 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.
    10. Chen, Yi-Wen & Yang, Ya-Po & Wang, Leonard F.S. & Wu, Shih-Jye, 2014. "Technology licensing in mixed oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 193-204.
    11. Dawson Peter, 2013. "Royalty Rate Determination," Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-29, October.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:20-31 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Arijit Mukherjee & Yingyi Tsai, 2013. "Technology licensing under optimal tax policy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 231-247, April.
    15. Chin-Sheng Chen, 2017. "Endogenous Market Structure and Technology Licensing," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-130, March.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Cho, Sumi & Kim, Doori & Lee, Sang-Ho, 2022. "Free licensing strategy and ex-post privatization policy with passive ownership," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    20. Chin-Sheng Chen, 2017. "Endogenous Market Structure and Technology Licensing," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 115-130, March.

    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. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    2. Lindblom Ted & Mallios Aineas & Sjögren Stefan, 2024. "A Theoretical Analysis of Collusion Involving Technology Licensing Under Diseconomies of Scale," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 263-297, January.
    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. Sanjiv Erat & Stylianos Kavadias & Cheryl Gaimon, 2013. "The Pitfalls of Subsystem Integration: When Less Is More," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 659-676, February.
    5. Eberhard Feess & Michael Hoeck & Oliver Lorz, 2009. "International Technology Transfers and Competition," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 1038-1052, November.
    6. Zhao, Dan & Chen, Hongmin & Hong, Xianpei & Liu, Jingfang, 2014. "Technology licensing contracts with network effects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 136-144.
    7. Neelanjan Sen, 2014. ""Unilateral" technology licensing from an entrant to incumbent monopolist," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 1028-1037.
    8. Tina Kao, 2009. "Strategic Licensing And Sequential Innovations," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(4), pages 512-551, July.
    9. Arora, Ashish, 1999. "Exploring the internalization rationale for international investment: wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the worldwide chemical industry," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6430, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    10. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2008:i:5:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Gerard Llobet & Javier Suarez, 2010. "Entrepreneurial Innovation, Patent Protection and Industry Dynamics," Working Papers wp2010_1001, CEMFI.
    12. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2016. "Licensing under general demand and cost functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 673-680.
    13. Arijit Mukherjee & Aniruddha Bagchi, 2020. "Information Disclosure through Technology Licensing," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-8, September.
    14. Leonard F. S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee & Chenhang Zeng, 2020. "Does technology licensing matter for privatization?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(5), pages 1462-1480, September.
    15. Jiyun Cao & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2017. "Patent licensing in the presence of a differentiated good," Working papers 282, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    16. Che, XiaoGang & Yang, Yibai, 2012. "Patent protection with a cooperative R&D option," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 469-471.
    17. Santiago, Leonardo P. & Martinelli, Marcela & Eloi-Santos, Daniel T. & Hortac, Luciana Hashiba, 2015. "A framework for assessing a portfolio of technologies for licensing out," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 242-251.
    18. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    19. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2010. "Patent licensing, bargaining, and product positioning," ISER Discussion Paper 0775, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    20. Pedro Mendi & Rafael Moner-Colonques & José J. Sempere-Monerris, 2016. "Optimal know-how transfers in licensing contracts," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 121-139, June.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    licensing contract; Cournot competition; strategic effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D45 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Rationing; Licensing

    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:ijb:journl:v:3:y:2004:i:1:p:13-19. 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: Szu-Hsien Ho (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbfcutw.html .

    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.