An empirical examination of patent holdup

Journal of Competition Law and Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 549-578

  Galetovic, Alexander ^a   Haber, Stephen ^b   Levine, Ross ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Colombia)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941757021     PISSN: 17446414     EISSN: 17446422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joclec/nhv024     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. See Oliver E. Williamson, Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size, 75 J. P Ol. e Con. 123 (1967);
2. Oliver E. Williamson, Transaction-Cost Economies: The Governance of Contractual Relations, 22 J.L. & Econ. 233 (1979);
3. Benjamin Klein, Robert G. Crawford & Armen A. Alchian, Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process, 21 J.L. & Econ. 297 (1978);
4. Paul L. Joskow, Vertical Integration and Long-Term Contracts: The Case of Coal-Burning Electric Generating Plants, 1 J.L. Econ. & Org. 33 (1985);
5. Paul L. Joskow, Asset Specificity and the Structure of Vertical Relationships: Empirical Evidence, 4 J.L. Econ. & Org. 95 (1988);
6. Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration, 94 J. Pol. Econ. 691 (1986).
7. See Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting, in 1 Innovation Policy and The Economy 119 (Adam Jaffe, Josh Lerner & Scott Stern eds., Mit Press 2001);
8. Daniel G. Swanson & William J. Baumol, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power, 73 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2005);
9. Joseph Farrell, John Hayes, Carl Shapiro & Theresa Sullivan, Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-Up, 74 Antitrust L.J. 603 (2007);
10. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007);
11. Joseph S. Miller, Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: Rand Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 Indus. L. Rev. 351 (2007).
12. See Einer Elhauge, Do Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Lead to Systematically Excessive Royalties, 4 J. Competition L. & Econ. 535 (2008);
13. Bernhard Ganglmair, Luke M. Froeb & Gregory J. Werden, Patent Hold-Up and Antitrust: How a Well-Intentioned Rule Could Retard Innovation, 60 J. Indus. Econ. 249 (2012);
14. Richard A. Epstein, F. Scott Kieff& Daniel F. Spulber, The Ftc, Ip, and SSOs: Government Hold-Up Replacing Private Coordination, 8 J. Competition L. & Econ. 1 (2012).
15. Richard Schmalensee, Standard-Setting, Innovation Specialists and Competition Policy, 57 J. Indus. Econ. 526 (2009);
16. J. Gregory Sidak, Patent Holdup and Oligopsonistic Collusion in Standard-Setting Organizations, 5 J. Competition L. & Econ. 123 (2009);
17. F. Scott Kieff& Anne Layne-Farrar, Incentive Effects from Different Approaches to Holdup Mitigation Surrounding Patent Remedies and Standard-Setting Organizations, 9 J. Competition L. & Econ. 1091 (2013).
18. Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar & Jorge A. Padilla, Competing Away Market Power? An Economic Assessment of Ex Ante Auctions in Standard Setting, 4 Eur. Competition J. 443 (2008);
19. Jonathan M. Barnett, From Patent Thickets to Patent Networks: The Legal Infrastructure of the Digital Economy (Stanford Univ. Hoover Inst., Working Paper No. 15001, 2014).
20. Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Demystifying the Right to Exclude: of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions, 31 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 593 (2008);
21. Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, The Aftermath of eBay v. MercExchange, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 631 (2007);
22. Douglas Ellis, John Jarosz, Michael Chapman & L. Scott Oliver, The Economic Implications (and Uncertainties) of Obtaining Permanent Injunctive Relief After eBay v. MercExchange, 17 Fed. Cir. B.J. (2007);
23. Benjamin H. Diessel, Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-eBay, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 305 (2007);
24. Rebecca A. Hand, eBay v. MercExchange: Looking at the Cause and Effect of a Shift in the Standard for Issuing Patent Injunctions, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 461 (2007);
25. John M. Golden, "Patent Trolls" and Patent Remedies, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 2111 (2007)
26. Leslie T. Grab, Equitable Concerns of eBay v. Mercexchange: Did the Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection Against Patent Trolls?, 8 N.C. J. L. & Tech. 81 (2006);
27. Miranda Jones, Permanent Injunction, A Remedy by Any Other Name Is Patently Not the Same: How eBay v. MercExchange Affects the Patent Right of Non-Practicing Entities, 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1035 (2007);
28. Richard B. Klar, Ebay Inc. V. Mercexchange, L.L.C.: The Right to Exclude Under U.S. Patent Law and the Public Interest, 88 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 852 (2006);
29. Richard B. Klar, The United States Supreme Court's Decision in eBay v. MercExchange: How Irreparable the Injury to Patent Injunctions?, 14 Widener L. Rev. 239 (2008);
30. Paul M. Mersino, Patents, Trolls, and Personal Property: Will eBay Auction Away a Patent Holder's Right to Exclude?, 6 Ave Maria L. Rev. 307 (2007);
31. Jeremy Mulder, The Aftermath of eBay: Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases, 22 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 67 (2007);
32. George M. Newcombe, Jeffrey E. Ostro, Patrick E. King & Gabriel N. Rubin, Prospective Relief for Patent Infringement in a Post-eBay World, 4 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 549 (2008);
33. Robert I. Reis, Rights and Remedies Post eBay v. MercExchange-Deep Waters Stirred, 2 Akron Intell. Prop. J. 133 (2008);
34. Doug Rendleman, The Trial Judge's Equitable Discretion Following eBay v. MercExchange, 27 Rev. Litig. 63 (2008);
35. Neal Solomon, Analysis of the "Four-Factor Test" in Patent Cases Post-eBay (JUNE 11, 2010) (unpublished manuscript), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1623978;
36. Mitchell G. Stockwell, Implementing eBay: New Problems in Guiding Judicial Discretion and Enforcing Patent Rights, 88 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 747 (2006);
37. Yixin H. Tang, The Future of Patent Enforcement After eBay v. MercExchange, 20 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 235 (2006).
38. J. Gregory Sidak, Holdup, Royalty Stacking, and the Presumption of Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement: A Reply to Lemley and Shapiro, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 714 (2008);
39. J. Gregory Sidak, The Meaning of Frand, Part Ii: Injunctions, 11 J. Competition L. & Econ. 201 (2015).
40. Oliver E. Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting 47 (Free Press 1985).
41. Stephen H. Haber, Armando Razo & N Oel Maurer, The Politics of Property Rights: P Olitical Instability, C Redible Commitments, and Economic Growth In Mexico, 1876-1929 at 236-84 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2003).
42. David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, Testing Static Oligopoly Models: Conduct and Cost in the Sugar Industry, 1890-1914, 29 Rand J. Econ. 355 (1998);
43. Timothy F. Bresnahan, Empirical Studies in Industries with Market Power, in 2 Handbook of Industrial Organization (Richard Schmalensee & Robert D. Willig eds., North-Holland 1989).
44. W. E. G. Salter, Productivity and Technical Change (Cambridge Univ. Press 1960).
45. Nicholas Oulton & Mary O'Mahony, Productivity and Growth: A Study of British Industry, 1954-1986 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1994).
46. John W. Kendrick & Elliot S. Grossman, Productivity In The United States: Trends and Cycles (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 1980).
47. William D. Nordhaus, Baumol's Disease: A Macroeconomic Perspective, 8 B. E. J. Macroeconomics 1 (2008).
48. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Price Indexes for Pce: Source Data (Bureau Econ. Analysis 2014), https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/pce:deflators_faq_new_stub.xls.
49. Mary Kokoski, Keith Waehrer & Patricia Rozaklis, Using Hedonic Methods for Quality Adjustment in the Cpi: The Consumer Audio Products Component (1999) (unpublished manuscript), http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiaudio.htm.
50. See International Monetary Fund, Producer Price Index Manual: Theory and Practice 261-63 (Int'l Monetary Fund 2004).
51. See Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, How Bls Measures Price Change for Personal Computers and Peripheral Equipment In The Consumer Price Index (June 26, 2008);
52. Dave Wasshausen & Brent R. Moulton, The Role of Hedonic Methods in Measuring Real Gdp in the United States (2007) (unpublished manuscript), http://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/hedonicGdp.pdf.