IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/amlawe/v8y2006i3p476-522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary Between Antitrust Law and Patent Law

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen M. Maurer
  • Suzanne Scotchmer

Abstract

We address the patent/antitrust conflict in licensing and develop three guiding principles for deciding acceptable terms of license. Profit neutrality holds that patent rewards should not depend on the rightholder's ability to work the patent himself. Derived reward holds that the patentholder's profits should be earned, if at all, from the social value created by the invention. Minimalism holds that licenses should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve neutrality. We argue that these principles are economically sound and rationalize some key decisions of the twentieth century such as General Electric and Line Material. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2006. "Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary Between Antitrust Law and Patent Law," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 8(3), pages 476-522.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:8:y:2006:i:3:p:476-522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aler/ahl013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    2. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    3. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    4. Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques‐François Thisse, 1998. "Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    5. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    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. Choi, Jay Pil & Gerlach, Heiko, 2019. "Optimal cross-licensing arrangements: Collusion versus entry deterrence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Alberto BUCCI, 2004. "Economic growth in an enlarged Europe: the human capital and R&D dimensions," Departmental Working Papers 2004-22, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    3. Gerlagh, Reyer & Kverndokk, Snorre & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2014. "The optimal time path of clean energy R&D policy when patents have finite lifetime," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 2-19.
    4. Suarez, Javier & Llobet, Gerard, 2005. "Financing and the Protection of Innovators," CEPR Discussion Papers 4944, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Schankerman, Mark & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2005. "Still Looking for Lost Profits: The Case of Horizontal Competition," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt45r7776m, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    6. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    7. Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2010. "Patent Damages And Spatial Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 279-305, June.
    8. Llobet Gerard & Suarez Javier, 2012. "Patent Litigation and the Role of Enforcement Insurance," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 789-821, December.
    9. Gerlagh, Reyer & Kverndokk, Snorre & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Linking Environmental and Innovation Policy," Economic Theory and Applications Working Papers 37847, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Toker Doganoglu & Firat Inceoglu, 2014. "Licensing of a Drastic Innovation with Product Differentiation," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(3), pages 296-321, June.
    11. Gangopadhyay Shubhashis & Mallios Aineas & Sjögren Stefan, 2023. "Collusive Bidding, Competition Law, and Welfare," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 213-231, July.
    12. Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2004. "The Relationship Between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law: An Economic Approach," Economics Discussion Papers 2851, University of Essex, Department of Economics.

    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. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    2. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041, March.
    3. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
    6. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    7. Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2004. "The Relationship Between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law: An Economic Approach," Economics Discussion Papers 2851, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    8. Andreas Panagopoulos, 2004. "Patent Protection As A Stimulant for Risky Innovation. Could TRIPS be Counterproductive?," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 04/566, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    9. Yang, Xuebing, 2013. "Horizontal inventive step and international protection of intellectual property," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 338-355.
    10. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    11. Koo, Bonwoo & Wright, Brian D., 1999. "Dynamic implications of patenting for crop genetic resources:," EPTD discussion papers 51, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Grossmann, Volker, 2013. "Do cost-sharing and entry deregulation curb pharmaceutical innovation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 881-894.
    13. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    14. Ted O'Donoghue, 1998. "A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(4), pages 654-679, Winter.
    15. Krasteva, Silvana & Sharma, Priyanka & Wang, Chu, 2020. "Patent policy, imitation incentives, and the rate of cumulative innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 509-533.
    16. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, number 2009_041.
    17. Langinier, Corinne & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2002. "Economics of Patents: An Overview, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 2061, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Malte Mosel, 2011. "Big patents, small secrets: how firms protect inventions when R&D outcome is heterogeneous," Working Papers 105, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    19. repec:zbw:bofism:2009_041 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Scotchmer, suzanne, 1998. "The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt2s5174q8, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    21. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    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:oup:amlawe:v:8:y:2006:i:3:p:476-522. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/aler .

    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.