Jostling for advantage or not: Choosing between patent portfolio races and ex ante licensing

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 225-245

  Siebert, Ralph ^a   von Graevenitz, Georg ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Hold up problem; Innovation; Licensing; Patent race; Patent thicket; Research joint ventures

Indexed keywords

EID: 74849127633     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2004. A.I.P.L.A. response to the October 2003 Federal Trade Commission report: To promote innovation: The proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Working paper, AIPLA.
2. Beath J., Katsoulacos Y., and Ulph D. Strategic R&D policy. The Economic Journal 99 (1989) 74-83
3. Bessen, J., Maskin, E., 2000. Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. Working Paper 00-01, MIT Deptartment of Economics.
4. Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., van Reenen, J., 2005. Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Discussion Paper 3916, CEPR.
5. Clark, D.J., Konrad, K.A., April 2005. Fragmented property rights, R&D and market structure. Working Paper 4, University of Tromso, Department of Economics and Management.
6. Davis L. Licensing strategies of the new intellectual property vendors. California Management Review 50 February (2) (2008) 6-30
7. Federal Trade Commission, October 2003. To promote innovation-the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Report, GPO.
8. Green J.R., and Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation. Rand Journal of Economics 25 1 (1995) 20-33
9. Grindley P.C., and Teece D.J. Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review 39 2 (1997) 8-41
10. Hall B.H., Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics 36 1 (2005) 16-38
11. Hall B.H., and Ziedonis R. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. Rand Journal of Economics 32 1 (2001) 101-128
12. Jaff A.B. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms' patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review 76 (1986) 984-1001
13. Jaff A.B. The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy 29 (2000) 531-557
14. Katsoulacos Y., and Ulph D. Endogenous spillovers and the performance of research joint ventures. Journal of Industrial Economics 46 3 (1998) 333-357
15. Lanjouw J.O., and Schankerman M. Protecting intellectual property rights: are small firms handicapped?. The Journal of Law and Economics 47 XLVII (2004) 45-74
16. Leisch, F., 2002. Sweave: Dynamic generation of statistical reports using literate data analysis. In: Härdle, W., Rönz, B., (Eds.), Compstat 2002. Proceedings in Computational Statistics. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 575-580, http://www.stat.uni-muenchen.de/leisch/Sweave.
17. Lemley M. Rational ignorance at the patent office. Northwestern University Law Review 95 4 (2001) 1-39
18. Lerner J., Strojwas M., and Tirole J. The design of patent pools: the determinants of licensing rules. Rand Journal of Economics 38 3 (2001) 610-625
19. Lerner J., and Tirole J. Efficient patent pools. American Economic Review 94 3 (2004) 691-711
20. Lichtenthaler U. The drivers of technology licensing: an industry comparison. California Management Review 49 4 (2007) 67-89
21. Loury G.C. Market structure and innovation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 93 August (3) (1979) 395-410
22. Nti K.O. Comparative statics of contests and rent-seeking games. International Economic Review 38 February (1) (1997) 43-59
23. Parchomovsky G., and Wagner R.P. Patent portfolios. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 November (1 (2005) 1-77
24. Quillen J.C.D., Webster O.H., and Eichmann R. Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. patent and trademark office-extended. Federal Circuit Bar Journal 12 1 (2003) 35-55
25. R Development Core Team 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0 http://www.R-project.org.
26. Reinganum J.F. The timing of innovation: Research, development and diffusion. In: Schmalensee R., and Willig R.D. (Eds). Handbook of Industrial Organization. vol. 1 (1989), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands 850-908
27. Schankerman, M., Noel, M., 2006. Strategic patenting and software innovation, Discusion Paper 5701, CEPR.
28. Scotchmer S. Innovation and Incentives (2005), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
29. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standardsetting. In: Jaffe A.B., Lerner J., and Stern S. (Eds). Innovation Policy and the Economy. vol. 1 (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 119-150
30. Shapiro, C., 2003. Antitrust limits to patent settlements. Rand Journal of Economics 34 (2), 391-411.
31. Siebert, R., von Graevenitz, G., Jan 2008. Does licensing resolve hold up in the patent thicket? Discussion Papers in Business Administration 2104, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
32. Somaya, D., 2003. Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation, Strategic Management Journal 24 (1), 17-38.
33. von Graevenitz, G., Wagner, S., Harhoff, D., 2008. Incidence and growth of patent thickets -the impact of technological opportunities and complexity. Discussion Paper 6900, CEPR.
34. Wooldridge J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross-section and Panel Data (2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
35. Ziedonis, R. H., 2004. Don't fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science 50 (6), 804-820.