IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/econwp/qt59x0t6tv.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should Good Patents Come in Small Packages? A Welfare Analysis of Intellectual Property Bundling

Author

Listed:
  • Gilbert, Richard J
  • Katz, Michael L

Abstract

Intellectual property owners often hold the rights to several patents, each of which is essential to make or use a product. We compare the welfare properties of package licenses, under which a licensee pays the same fee regardless of the number of technologies licensed, with component licenses, under which each technology is licensed separately and there is no quantity discount. A central finding is that a long-term package license can induce incentives to invent around patents and invest in complementary assets that are closer to their socially optimal levels than are those induced by a long-term component license. We also identify settings in which a short-term license is a partial substitute for a package license and a prohibition on package licensing induces parties to adopt contracts that result in less efficient complementary investment because of hold-up.

Suggested Citation

  • Gilbert, Richard J & Katz, Michael L, 2007. "Should Good Patents Come in Small Packages? A Welfare Analysis of Intellectual Property Bundling," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt59x0t6tv, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:econwp:qt59x0t6tv
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/59x0t6tv.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1994. "Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 190-209, March.
    2. King, John T., 2003. "The sale of unprotected inventions under alternative models of contracting behavior," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 57-77, January.
    3. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    4. Beggs, A. W., 1992. "The licensing of patents under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 171-191, June.
    5. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2004. "Efficient Patent Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 691-711, June.
    6. Schankerman, Mark & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "Damages and Injunctions in Protecting Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 199-220, Spring.
    7. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2002. "The Sale of Ideas: Strategic Disclosure, Property Rights, and Contracting," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(3), pages 513-531.
    8. Lanjouw, Jean O & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Tilting the Table? The Use of Preliminary Injunctions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 573-603, October.
    9. William James Adams & Janet L. Yellen, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 90(3), pages 475-498.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jeon, Haejun, 2019. "Patent protection and R&D subsidy under asymmetric information," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 332-354.
    3. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," 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 641-678, Elsevier.
    4. Jeon, Haejun, 2019. "Licensing and information disclosure under asymmetric information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 314-330.
    5. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Patent Thickets and the Market for Innovation: Evidence from Settlement of Patent Disputes," CEP Discussion Papers dp0889, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. Gilbert, Richard J. & Katz, Michael L., 2011. "Efficient division of profits from complementary innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 443-454, July.
    7. Hong, Xianpei & Zhou, Menghuan & Gong, Yeming, 2021. "Dilemma of quality information disclosure in technology licensing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(2), pages 543-557.
    8. 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.
    9. Deepak Hegde & Hong Luo, 2018. "Patent Publication and the Market for Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 652-672, February.
    10. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2010. "Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 472-503, September.
    11. David Martimort & Jean‐Christophe Poudou & Wilfried Sand‐Zantman, 2010. "Contracting For An Innovation Under Bilateral Asymmetric Information," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 324-348, June.
    12. Almeida Costa, Luis & Dierickx, Ingemar, 2002. "Licensing and bundling," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 251-267, February.
    13. Gary Dushnitsky, 2010. "Entrepreneurial Optimism in the Market for Technological Inventions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 150-167, February.
    14. Pedro Mendi, 2007. "Contractual implications of international trade in tacit knowledge," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(9), pages 1173-1183.
    15. Lepp l , Samuli, 2013. "Arrow's paradox and markets for nonproprietary information," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2013/2, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    16. Marx, Matt & Hsu, David H., 2015. "Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1815-1826.
    17. Schankerman, Mark & Galasso, Alberto, 2008. "Patent Thickets, Judicial Enforcement and the Market for Innovation: Theory and Evidence from Patent Litigation," CEPR Discussion Papers 6946, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Mario Calderini & Giuseppe Scellato, 2004. "Intellectual property rights as strategic assets: the case of european patent opposition in the telecommunication industry," KITeS Working Papers 158, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Jul 2004.
    19. Alberto Galasso, 2007. "Broad Cross-License Agreements andPersuasive Patent Litigation: Theory andEvidence from the Semiconductor Industry," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 45, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    20. Hong Luo, 2014. "When to Sell Your Idea: Theory and Evidence from the Movie Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3067-3086, December.

    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:cdl:econwp:qt59x0t6tv. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibbrkus.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.