License and entry strategies for an outside innovator in duopoly with combination of royalty and fixed fee under vertical differentiation

Hattori, Masahiko and Tanaka, Yasuhito (2017): License and entry strategies for an outside innovator in duopoly with combination of royalty and fixed fee under vertical differentiation.

Abstract

We consider a choice of options for an innovating firm in duopoly under vertical differentiation to enter the market with or without licensing its technology for producing a higher quality good to the incumbent firm using a combination of a royalty per output and a fixed license fee, or to license its technology without entry. With general distribution function of consumers' taste parameter and cost function we will show that when the innovating firm licenses its technology to the incumbent firm without entry, the optimal royalty rate per output is zero with negative fixed fee, and when the innovating firm enters the market with a license to the incumbent firm, its optimal royalty rate is positive with positive or negative fixed fee. Also we show that when cost function is concave, the optimal royalty rate is one such that the incumbent firm drops out of the market; and when cost function is strictly convex, there is an internal solution of the optimal royalty rate under duopoly.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: duopoly, royalty, fixed license fee, vertical differentiation
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D43 - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection; L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

References

Bonanno, G. and Haworth, B., Intensity of competition and the choice between product and process innovations, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16, pp. 495-510, 1998.

Boone, J. (2001), ``Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate,'' International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, pp.705-726.

Chen C.-S. (2016), ``Endogenous market structure and technology licensing,'' Japanese Economic Review, forthcoming.

Creane, A., Chiu, Y. K. and Konishi, H. (2013), ``Choosing a licensee from heterogeneous rivals,'' Games and Economic Behavior, 82, pp. 254-268.

Dixit, A. (1986), ``Comparative statics for oligopoly, '', International Economic Review, 27, pp. 107-122

Duchene, A., Sen, D. and Serfes, K. (2015), ``Patent licensing and entry deterrence: The role of low royalties,'' Economica, 82, pp. 1324-1348.

Hattori, M. and Tanaka, Y. (2015), ``Subsidy or tax policy for new technology adoption in duopoly with quadratic and linear cost functions,'' Economics Bulletin, 35, pp. 1423-1433.

Hattori, M. and Tanaka, Y. (2016a), ``Subsidizing new technology adoption in a Stackelberg duopoly: cases of substitutes and complements,'' Italian Economic Journal, 2, pp. 197-215.

Hattori, M. and Tanaka, Y. (2016b), ``License or entry with vertical differentiation in duopoly,'' Economics and Business Letters, 5, pp. 17-29.

Hattori, M. and Tanaka, Y. (2017), ``Robustness of subsidy in licensing with outside innovator: General demand and cost functions,'' mimeograph.

Kabiraj, T. (2004), ``Patent licensing in a leadership structure,'' The Manchester School, 72, pp.188-205.

Kamien, T. and Tauman, Y. (1986), ``Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, pp.471-492.

Kamien, T. and Tauman, Y. (2002), ``Patent licensing: the inside story,'' The Manchester School, 70, pp.7-15.

Katz, M. and Shapiro, C. (1985), ``On the licensing of innovations,'' Rand Journal of Economics, 16, pp. 504-520.

La Manna M. (1993), ``Asymmetric Oligopoly and Technology Transfers,'' Economic Journal, 103, pp.436-443.

Liao, C. and Sen, D. (2005), ``Subsidy in licensing: optimality and welfare implications,'' The Manchester School, 73, pp.281-299.

Matsumura, T., Matsushima, N. and Cato, S. (2013), ``Competitiveness and R\&D competition revisited,'' Economic modelling, 31, pp.541-547.

Mussa, M. and Rosen, S., ``Monopoly and product quality'', Journal of Economic Theory, 18, pp. 130-156, 1978. Pal, R. (2010), ``Technology adoption in a differentiated duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand,'' Research in Economics, 64, pp. 128-136.

Rebolledo, M. and J. Sandon\'is (2012), ``The effectiveness of R\&D subsidies,'' Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, pp. 815-825.

Seade, J. K., ``The stability of Cournot revisited,'' Journal of Economic Theory, 15, pp. 15-27.

Sen, D. and Stamatopoulos, G. (2016) ``Licensing under general demand and cost functions,'' European Journal of Operations Research, 253, pp. 673-680.

Sen, D. and Tauman, Y. (2007), ``General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing Innovation,'' Games and Economic Behavior, 59, pp.163-186.

Tanaka, Y. (2001), ``Profitability of price and quantity strategies in a duopoly with vertical product differentiation'', Economic Theory, 17, pp.693-700.

Watanabe N. and Muto, S. (2008), ``Stable profit sharing in a patent licensing game: general bargaining outcomes,'' International Journal of Game Theory, 37, pp.505-523.

Wang, X. H. and Yang, B. Z. (2004), ``On technology licensing in a Stackelberg duopoly,'' Australian Economic Papers, 43, pp. 448-458.