¬ã°Q¤é´Á |
2009¦~2¤ë21¤é10:20 ~
13:00 |
¬ã°Q¦aÂI |
¥x¤jªÀ·|¬ì¾Ç°|¹q¤Æ±Ð«Ç |
ÃD¥Ø |
The relevance of bargaining for the
licensing of a cost-reducing innovation |
§@ªÌ |
Jose J. Sempere Monerris and Vincent J. Vannetelbosch
|
¤åÄm¥X³B |
Bulletin of Economic Research 53(2), 2001,101-115 |
³ø§i¤H |
©P¦Bº½ |
°Ñ¥[¤Hû |
¶ÀÂE¡BªL¿P²Q¡BÁé嚖³®¡B±ç¤åºa¡B±i¥Á©¾¡B¤Bi¤¯¡B±iÞ³´@¡B°¨¹D¡B³¯Þ·«Ì¡BÀ¹Ã¢®x¡B½²©úªÚ¡BªL¤j¶v¡B§õ´Â¥\¡B´¿ÀRªK¡B³\¦ËÚâ¡B³¯ª÷²±¡B³\¯ÀµØ¡B°ª°ê峯¡B³¯¥É®Ë¡B´^¥¿¯E¡B¤ý¬ý³Ç¡B¤ý¨ÎµX¡BÒ\¥ú»õ¡B©P«~¦°¡B©P¦Bº½¡B¤ý¥ú¥¿¡B³¯§»©ö |
ºKn |
In the context of a Cournot duopoly, this
paper studies the licensing of a cost-reducing innovation by means of three
possible allocation mechanisms: auction, fixed fee, and direct negotiation. The main result for this
paper is that, once the use of an arbitrary reserve price has been excluded,
it is no longer true that auction always yields higher profit to the patentee
than a fixed fee. Direct negotiation is superior to both an auction with a
non-arbitrary reserve price and a fixed fee. From the social point of view,
however, a public agency maximizing either the domestic or the world welfare
will recommend licensing through the fixed fee mechanism. Furthermore, the
paper main results are qualitatively robust to an alternative specification
where the selling of one license bring to the buyer not only advantages in
terms of cost but also the advantage of becoming the Stackelberg
leader in the market. |
³Æµù |
|