IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v9y2013i4p905-929..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Cooperates In Standards Consortia—Rivals Or Complementors?

Author

Listed:
  • Justus Baron
  • Tim Pohlmann

Abstract

Formal standard development is increasingly supplemented by standards consortia: informal and less inclusive alliances, in which firms coordinate standard-related research and development (“R&D”) and streamline standard development. In order to cast light on the economic function of these consortia, this article provides empirical evidence on the standards related to informal consortia, and on the R&D contributions of members and outsiders. We find that standards related to consortia are characterized by a more fragmented ownership of intellectual property rights (“IPR”) and a strong degree of technological rivalry. We also find that among the firms contributing to a standard, technological specialists are less likely to be member of a consortium. Companies are more likely to be members of the same consortium with companies specializing in R&D that is substitutable rather than complementary to their own patent portfolio. One possible interpretation of these findings is that a main benefit of standards consortia is to reduce the cost of standard development by eliminating wasteful R&D duplication and settling conflicts of interest upfront to formal standardization.

Suggested Citation

  • Justus Baron & Tim Pohlmann, 2013. "Who Cooperates In Standards Consortia—Rivals Or Complementors?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 905-929.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:9:y:2013:i:4:p:905-929.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nht034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & Eggers, Felix & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Competing Standard-Setting Organizations: A Choice Experiment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    2. Meurs, Henk & Sharmeen, Fariya & Marchau, Vincent & van der Heijden, Rob, 2020. "Organizing integrated services in mobility-as-a-service systems: Principles of alliance formation applied to a MaaS-pilot in the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 178-195.
    3. Gaurav Kankanhalli & Alan Kwan, 2024. "Bargaining power in the market for intellectual property: Evidence from licensing contract terms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 109-173, March.
    4. Jiaming Jiang & Rajeev K. Goel & Xingyuan Zhang, 2020. "IPR policies and determinants of membership in Standard Setting Organizations: a social network analysis," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 129-154, December.
    5. Justus Baron & Jorge Contreras & Martin Husovec & Pierre Larouche, 2019. "Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights," JRC Research Reports JRC115004, Joint Research Centre.
    6. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    7. Teubner, Lisa K. & Henkel, Joachim & Bekkers, Rudi, 2021. "Industry consortia in mobile telecommunications standards setting: Purpose, organization and diversity," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    8. Lampert, Hodaya & Wettstein, David, 2020. "Patents and pools in pyramidal innovation structures," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    9. Dai, Haiwen & Qualls, William J. & Zhu, You, 2024. "Win, lose, or draw? Forecasting the outcome of a race toward a dominant formal standard with machine learning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation

    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:jcomle:v:9:y:2013:i:4:p:905-929.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/jcle .

    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.