advertisement

advertisement

Information about Licensing non linear technologies

Technis slides for webseminar by Dr. George Stamatopoulos

advertisement

Literature status • Kamien & Tauman (1984, 1986), Katz & Shapiro (1985, 1986): seminal works in strategic patent licensing • vast expansion (product diﬀerentiation, asymmetric inform, location choices, del- egation, Stackelberg, etc) • however, all works build on linear tech- nologies (exceptions: Sen & Stamatopou- los 2008, Mukherjee 2010) 2

Aim of current work • analyze optimal licensing under (more) general cost functions • derive optimal two-part tariﬀ policies • identify impact of non-constant returns on royalties/diﬀusion 3

Snapshot of the model • cost-reducing innovation • Cournot duopoly • incumbent innovator • super-additive or sub-additive cost func- tions 4

• super-additivity: weaker notion than con- vexity (decreasing returns to scale) • sub-additivity: weaker notion than con- cavity (increasing returns to scale) 5

Main ﬁndings • super-additivity: all innovations are li- censed • sub-additivity: only ”small” innovations are licensed • royalties are higher under concavity/sub- additivity • interplay between super-additivity and royalties produces a paradox 6

I. Market • N = {1, 2} set of ﬁrms • qi quantity of ﬁrm i, q1 + q2 = Q • p = p(Q) price function • C0(q) initial technology (for both ﬁrms) 7

II. Post-innovation • ﬁrm 1 innovates (not part of the model) • Cε(q) post-innovation cost funct, ε > 0 • Cε(q) < C0(q), any q > 0 • either exclusive use of new technology or also sell to ﬁrm 2 • two-part tariﬀ policy (r, α): ﬁrm 2 pays rq2 + α (royalties and fee) 8

IV. Three-stage game stage 1: ﬁrm 1 decides whether to sell new technology or not. If it sells, it oﬀers a policy (r, α) stage 2: ﬁrm 2 accepts or rejects the oﬀer stage 3: ﬁrms compete in the market we look for sub-game perfect equilibrium outcome of this game 9

• focus on super-additive and sub-additive cost functions Deﬁnition Cε is super-additive if Cε(q + q ) > Cε(q) + Cε(q ) If inequality reverses, Cε is sub-additive. • convexity ⇒ super-additivity • concavity ⇒ sub-additivity 10

• analyze both drastic and non-drastic in- novations • drastic innovation: ﬁrm 2 cannot sur- vive in the market without new technol- ogy •non-drastic innovation: ﬁrm 2 survives without new technology 11

VI. Drastic innovations Proposition 1 Consider a drastic innova- tion. If the cost function is sub-additive, licensing does not occur. Proposition 2 Consider a drastic innova- tion. If the cost function is super-additive, licensing occurs. The optimal policy has positive royalty and fee. 12

Remarks on Propositions 1 and 2 • drastic innovation+sub-additivity lead to monopoly • drastic innovation+super-additivity lead to duopoly • Faul´ı-Oller and Sandon´ıs (2002): dras- tic innovation + product diﬀerentiation +constant returns lead to duopoly too 13

VI. Non-drastic innovations (diﬀusion) • F(q) ≡ C0(q)−Cε(q) innovation function • H(q) = F (q) F(q)/q elasticity of innovation function at q. Proposition 3a Consider a non-drastic innovation. Assume that H(q2) ≤ 1. Then licensing occurs. 14

Remark on Proposition 3a Condition H(q) ≤ 1 can hold under either super-additive or sub-additivity • C0(q) = cq + bq2 • Cε(q) = (c − ε)q + bq2 • H(q) = 1, for positive and negative b 15

VII. Non-drastic innovations (optimal mechan.) Proposition 3b Consider a non-drastic innovation. If Cε is concave, the optimal policy has only royalty. • in order to exploit increasing returns, ﬁrm 1 needs to produce high quantity • charge the highest royalty, so that rival’s quantity is low and own quantity is high 16

Proposition 3c If Cε is convex, the opti- mal policy has: (i) only royalty, if ε suﬃciently low (ii) both royalty and fee, if ε suﬃciently high (⇒ not a complete characterization) • high royalty raises ﬁrm 1’s output and its marginal cost • lower incentive to charge high royalty 17

VIII. The linear-quadratic case • Cε(q) = (c − ε)q + bq2/2 • b > 0 super-additivity • p = a − Q • licensing always occurs 18

Observation 1 The optimal royalty, r(b, ε), is decreasing in b. • high b ⇒ high marginal cost • by charging a lower royalty, ﬁrm 2 pro- duces more • hence ﬁrm 1 stays in more eﬃcient pro- duction zone • inverse relation between r and b has an interesting implication 19

Observation 2 There exist ranges of ε and b such that: • industry output increases when marginal cost (expressed by b) increases • market price decreases when marginal cost increases • surprising/interesting result? 20

Intuition • Q = Q(b, r(b, ε)) industry output dQ db = ∂Q ∂b <0 + ∂Q ∂r <0 ∂r(b, ε) ∂b <0 • in certain ranges, the positive eﬀect dom- inates • in these ranges price falls when marginal cost increases 21

Many electrochemical processes are non-linear, ... Nonlinear Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (NLEIS) ... that allow for rapid licensing by ...

Read more

METHODS FOR PREDICTING STABILITY OF NON-LINEAR ... Available for further development or licensing (exclusive or non ... Natural Resource Technologies

Read more

LICENSING COMPLEMENTARY ... of essential patents license their technologies non ... firms will set non-linear royalty schemes so as to eliminate ...

Read more

Multi-Photon Microscopy System Configured for Multiview Non-Linear Optical Imaging ... Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, J.D. ... Find Technologies.

Read more

Stanford Linear Acceleraror Center Jan Tulk jtulk@slac.stanford.edu ... Licensing Contacts ... Breakthrough technologies and scientific innovation often ...

Read more

Technologies are described herein for providing a non-linear presentation canvas. A non-linear presentation canvas is provided. The non-linear presentation ...

Read more

INEOS Technologies is the number one non-captive technology licensor for its Polyethylene, Polypropylene, Expandable Polystyrene and Vinyls processes

Read more

## Add a comment