IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-677071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of Patented Product Features

Author

Listed:
  • Greg M. Allenby
  • Jeff Brazell
  • John R. Howell
  • Peter E. Rossi

Abstract

Ultimately, patents have value to the extent to which the product features enabled by the patents have economic value in the marketplace. Products that are enhanced by inclusion of patented features should generate incremental profits. Incremental profits can be assessed by considering demand for products with patented features and contrasting that demand with demand for the same product without the patented features. Profit calculations must be based on valid estimates of demand as well as assumptions about how competitive forces affect demand via computation of market equilibria. A conjoint survey can be used to estimate demand. Recently, conjoint methods have been applied in the patent setting, but the measures of value used are purely demand based and do not involve equilibrium profit calculations. We illustrate our method using the market for digital cameras and show that current methods can overstate the value of a patent.

Suggested Citation

  • Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/677071
    DOI: 10.1086/677071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677071
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677071
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/677071?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber, 2012. "Reference-dependent valuations of risk: Why willingness-to-accept exceeds willingness-to-pay," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 19-44, February.
    4. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    5. Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1989. "The Welfare Analysis of Product Innovations, with an Application to Computed Tomography Scanners," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(2), pages 444-479, April.
    6. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    7. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    8. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    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. Chryssoula Pentheroudakis & Justus A. Baron, 2016. "Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases," JRC Research Reports JRC104068, Joint Research Centre.
    2. YiChun Miriam Liu & Jeff D. Brazell & Greg M. Allenby, 2022. "Non-linear pricing effects in conjoint analysis," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 397-430, December.
    3. Sofia B. Villas‐Boas & Céline Bonnet & James Hilger, 2021. "Random Utility Models, Wine and Experts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 663-681, March.
    4. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Kim, Jin-Hyuk & Leung, Tin Cheuk, 2021. "Eliminating digital rights management from the E-book market," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    6. Baron, Justus, 2020. "Counting standard contributions to measure the value of patent portfolios - A tale of apples and oranges," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3).
    7. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    8. Hiller, R. Scott & Savage, Scott J. & Waldman, Donald M., 2018. "Using aggregate market data to estimate patent value: An application to United States smartphones 2010 to 2015," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-31.

    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. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    2. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    3. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    4. Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, 2003. "Omitted Product Attributes in Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 9452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    6. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2021. "Foundations of Demand Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2301, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim & Martin O'Connell, 2018. "Income effects and the welfare consequences of tax in differentiated product oligopoly," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 305-341, March.
    8. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2009. "Products and Productivity," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(4), pages 681-709, December.
    9. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    10. Kidokoro, Yukihiro, 2016. "A micro foundation for discrete choice models with multiple categories of goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 54-72.
    11. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2007. "Discrete Choice Models With Multiple Unobserved Choice Characteristics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1159-1192, November.
    12. Satoshi Nakano & Kazuhiko Nishimura, 2013. "Welfare gain from quality and price development in the Japan’s LCD TV market," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 889-908, September.
    13. Langford, Richard P. & Gillingham, Kenneth, 2023. "Quantifying the benefits of the introduction of the hybrid electric vehicle," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Ziying Yang & Manping Tang, 2019. "Welfare Analysis of Government Subsidy Programs for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and New Energy Vehicles in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(2), pages 911-937, October.
    15. Laura Grigolon, 2021. "Blurred boundaries: A flexible approach for segmentation applied to the car market," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 1273-1305, November.
    16. Robert Donnelly & Francisco J.R. Ruiz & David Blei & Susan Athey, 2021. "Counterfactual inference for consumer choice across many product categories," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 369-407, December.
    17. Baek, Ji Sun, 2016. "Effect of the Introduction of High-speed Trains on Consumer Welfare," KDI Journal of Economic Policy, Korea Development Institute (KDI), vol. 38(1), pages 23-52.
    18. Antonio M. Bento & Lawrence H. Goulder & Emeric Henry & Mark R. Jacobsen & Roger H. von Haefen, 2005. "Distributional and Efficiency Impacts of Gasoline Taxes: An Econometrically Based Multi-market Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 282-287, May.
    19. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    20. Badruddoza, Syed & Amin, Modhurima & McCluskey, Jill, 2019. "Assessing the Importance of an Attribute in a Demand SystemStructural Model versus Machine Learning," Working Papers 2019-5, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/677071. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.