The Transaction Cost Benefits of Electronic Patent Licensing Platforms: A Discussion at the Example of the PatentBooks Model

Ghafele, Roya and Gibert, Benjamin (2011): The Transaction Cost Benefits of Electronic Patent Licensing Platforms: A Discussion at the Example of the PatentBooks Model.

Abstract

Current mechanisms to compensate inventors and improve legal access to their inventions remain ineffective. Manufacturers encounter significant transaction costs in the process of licensing the multitude of patent rights implicated in their products. High-technology product manufacturing requires access to a diverse pool of technologies that are owned by different organizations all over the world. The transaction costs of licensing these disparate rights are inhibiting unlicensed manufacturers in emerging economies from entering important markets and simultaneously limiting the revenue patent owners can generate from non-exclusive licenses. As communications technologies improve, innovative licensing mechanisms are emerging that can help firms avoid many of these transaction costs. Search and information costs, bargaining and decision costs, enforcement costs and adjustment costs all limit the value generated from licensing transactions. These costs are particularly severe for smaller firms that lack complementary assets to develop their products, lack experience with licensing and do not have large human and financial resources to invest in negotiation outcomes. The transaction costs of licensed manufacturing increase exponentially when having to license multiple rights among disparate rightsholders in a global market. By identifying, grouping, and valuing different rights into a single license, PatentBooks, an illustration of an electronic patent licensing platform, reduces search and information transaction costs. Firms instantaneously identify appropriate license rights from all over the globe without investing considerable resources in hundreds of discrete negotiations. Patent owners are able to generate greater non-exclusive licensing revenue from manufacturers than they could by licensing their rights in isolation. In doing so, they permit firms of all sizes and nationalities to generate more returns from technology and accelerate innovation by facilitating access to valuable inventions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Transaction cost economics, patent Licensing, patent archives, electronic trading platforms
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M2 - Business Economics > M21 - Business Economics

References

Aoki, R., et S. Nagaoka. 2004. « The consortium standard and patent pools ». The Economic Review 55 (4): 345–356. Aoki, Reiko, et Aaron Schiff. 2010. « Intellectual property clearinghouses: The effects of reduced transaction costs in licensing ». Information Economics and Policy 22 (3) (juillet): 218-227. doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.01.001. Arora, A. 1995. « Licensing tacit knowledge: intellectual property rights and the market for know-how ». Economics of innovation and new technology 4 (1): 41–60. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri, et A. Gambardella. 2001. « Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy ». Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (2): 419. Arora, A., et A. Fosfuri. 2003. « Licensing the market for technology ». Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 52 (2): 277–295. Arthur, W. B. 1994. « Positive feedbacks in the economy ». McKinsey Quarterly: 81–81. ———. 2000. Myths and realities of the high-tech economy. Dans Talk given at Credit Suisse First Boston Though Leader Forum, Santa Fe Institute. Besen, Stanley M., Sheila N. Kirby, et Steven C. Salop. 1992. « An Economic Analysis of Copyright Collectives ». Virginia Law Review 78 (1) (février 1): 383-411. Borod, R. S. 2005. « An update on intellectual property securitization ». The Journal of Structured Finance 10 (4): 65–72. Buckley, Peter J, et Malcolm Chapman. 1997. « The perception and measurement of transaction costs ». Cambridge Journal of Economics 21 (2): 127-145. Calabresi, Guido, et A. Douglas Melamed. 2007. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Dans Economic Analysis of the Law, 19-33. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470752135.ch3. Caves, R. E, H. Crookell, et J. P Killing. 1983. « THE IMPERFECT MARKET FOR TECHNOLOGY LICENSES* ». Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics 45 (3): 249–267. Chesbrough, H. 2006. « Emerging secondary markets for Intellectual Property ». Research Report to National Center for Industrial Property Information and Traning (NCIPI). Choi, J.P. 2003. Patent pools and cross licensing in the shadow of patent litigation. CES. Coase, R. H. 1937. « The Nature of the Firm ». Economica 4 (16): 386-405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x. Coase, Ronald H. 2007. The Problem of Social Cost. Dans Economic Analysis of the Law, 1-13. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470752135.ch1. Cooter, Robert, et Thomas Ulen. 2007. Law and Economics. 5e éd. Prentice Hall. David J., Teece. 2000. « Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: the Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context ». Long Range Planning 33 (1) (février 1): 35-54. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00117-X. Detkin, P. N. 2007. « Leveling the Patent Playing Field ». John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. Foray, D., et B.A. Lundvall. 1996. « The knowledge-based economy ». From the economics of knowledge to the learning» Employement and growth in the knowledge-based economy, OCDE Documents, Paris: 11–34. Gilbert, R.J. 2004. « Antitrust for patent pools: A century of policy evolution ». Stanford Technology Law Review 2004. Gould, D. M, et W. C Gruben. 1996. « The role of intellectual property rights in economic growth ». Journal of Development Economics 48 (2): 323–350. Handke, C., et R. Towse. 2007. « Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies ». International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 38 (8): 937–957. Hansen, Gerd, et Albrecht Schmidt Bischoffshausen. 2007. « Economic Functions of Collecting Societies-Collective Rights Management in the Light of Transaction Cost-and Information Economics ». Harris, Richard G. 2001. « The knowledge-based economy: intellectual origins and new economic perspectives ». International Journal of Management Reviews 3 (1): 21-40. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00052. Heller, M. A, et R. S Eisenberg. 1998. « Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research ». Science 280 (5364): 698. Jarosz, J., R. Heider, C. Bazelon, C. Bieri, et P. Hess. 2005. « Patent Auctions: How Far Have We Come? » ORGANIZATION 21: 23. Kim, Y.J., et N.S. Vonortas. 2003. « Strategy and Cost in Technology Licensing ». Unpublished manuscript. The George Washington University. Kossovsky, N. 2002. « Fair value of intellectual property: An options-based valuation of nearly 8,000 intellectual property assets ». Journal of Intellectual Capital 3 (1): 62–70. Kossovsky, N., B. Brandegee, et J. C Giordan. 2004. « Using the Market to Determine IP’s Fair Market Value ». Research-Technology Management 47 (3): 33–42. Kretschmer, Martin, George Michael Klimis, et Roger Wallis. 2001. « Music in Electronic Markets ». New Media & Society 3 (4): 417-441. Kwan, Y.K., et E.L.C. Lai. 2003. « Intellectual property rights protection and endogenous economic growth ». Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 27 (5): 853–873. Layne-Farrar, A., et J. Lerner. 2011. « To join or not to join: examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules ». International Journal of Industrial Organization 29 (2): 294–303. Libecap, Gary. 1989. Contracting For Property Rights. Mard, M. J, S. Hyden, et J. S Rigby Jr. 2000. « Intellectual property valuation ». The Financial Valuation Group. Mazzoleni, R., et R. R Nelson. 1998. « The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate ». Research policy 27 (3): 273–284. McClure, I. D. « Commoditizing Intellectual Property Rights: The Practicability of a Commercialized and Transparent International IPR Market and the Need for International Standards ». Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal 6: 1. Merges, R. P. 1999a. « Intellectual property rights, input markets, and the value of intangible assets ». Draft, February. Merges, R.P. 1999b. « Institutions for intellectual property transactions: the case of patent pools ». University of California at Berkeley Working Paper. Millien, R., et R. Laurie. 2007. « ASummary OF ESTABLISHED & EMERGING IP BUSINESS MODELS ». Monk, A. H. B. 2009. « The emerging market for intellectual property: drivers, restrainers, and implications ». Journal of Economic Geography 9 (4) (février): 469-491. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbp003. Park, Walter, et Juan Carlo Ginarte. 1997. « Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth ». Contemporary Economic Policy 15 (3): 51-61. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00477.x. Posner, R.A. 2004. « Transaction Costs and Antitrust Concerns in the Licensing of Intellectual Property ». J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 4: i. Reilly, R. F, et R. P Schweihs. 2004. The handbook of business valuation and intellectual property analysis. McGraw-Hill. Schneider, P.H. 2005. « International trade, economic growth and intellectual property rights: A panel data study of developed and developing countries ». Journal of Development Economics 78 (2): 529–547. Serrano, C. J. 2006. The market for intellectual property: Evidence from the transfer of patents. University of Minnesota. Shapiro, C. 2001. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. MIT Press. Sneed, K. A, et D. K.N Johnson. 2009. « Selling ideas: The determinants of patent value in an auction environment ». R&D Management 39 (1): 87–94. Somaya, D., et D. Teece. 2001. « Combining Patent Inventions in Multi-Invention Products: Transactional Challenges and Organizational Choices ». University of California at Berkeley Working Paper. Teece, D.J., et E.F. Sherry. 2003. « Standards Setting and Antitrust ». Minneso 87. Teece, David J. 1986. « Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy ». Research Policy 15 (6) (décembre): 285-305. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2. Thurow, L. C. 1997. « Needed: a new system of intellectual property rights ». Harvard Business Review 75: 94–107. Williamson, Oliver. 1979. « Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations ». Journal of Law and Economics 22 (2): 233-261. Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York, NY.