---

Journal of Applied Nonlinear Dynamics 11(4) (2022) 805--815 | DOI:10.5890/JAND.2022.12.003

Fl\'{a}vio Ferreira, Oana R. Bode

Polytechnic Institute of Porto, School of Hospitality and Tourism, Applied Management Research Unit (UNIAG), R. D. Sancho I, 981, 4480-876 Vila do Conde, Portugal

Babec{s}-Bolyai University, Faculty of Business, Horea Str., No 7, 400174, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

In the present paper we consider a differentiated-good Stackelberg model, when the follower firm engages in an R$\&$D process that gives an endogenous cost-reducing innovation. The aim is two-fold: the first is to study the case when there is a technology transfer between the innovator and the non-innovator firm based on a fixed-fee licensing contract, and the second is to study the case when there is a technology transfer between the innovator and the non-innovator firm based on a two-part tariff licensing contract. The main result of the paper is that the degree of the differentiation of the goods is the key factor in the decisions of the innovator firm, influencing its licensing strategy. In particular, we find that for the innovator firm is better a fixed-fee or a two-part tariff licensing contract than no-licensing, even if the innovation is drastic. In the case of a fixed-fee licensing, the main variables of this duopoly model increase with the differentiation of the goods all the time. It turns out that in the case of a two-part tariff licensing, this conclusion does not fit all the time. The findings of this paper extend the literature on contract auctions when the innovating firm has different options for licensing its innovation.

References

1. [1]	Ferreira, F. and Bode, O.R. (2013), Licensing endogenous cost-reduction in a differentiated Stackelberg model, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 18(2), 308-315. \\ http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1007570412002900.

2. [2]

   Ferreira, F.A. (2011), Licensing in an international competition with differentiated goods, Nonlinear Dynamics of Complex Systems: Application in Physical, Biological and Financial Systems, Editors: J.A. Tenreiro Machado, Dumitru Baleanu, Albert Luo. Springer Science + Business Media, Llc. New York, 295-305.

3. [3]	Filippini, L. (2005), Licensing contract in a Stackelberg model, The Manchester School, 73(5), 582-598.

4. [4]	Fosfuri, A. and Roca, E. (2004), Optimal licensing strategy: Royalty or fixed-fee?, International Journal of Business and Economics, 3(1), 13-19.

5. [5]	Kabiraj, T. (2005), Technology transfer in a Stackelberg structure: licensing contracts and welfare, The Manchester School, 73(1), 1-28.

6. [6]	Lin, P. and Saggi, K. (2002), Product differentiation, process R$\&$D, and the nature of market competition, European Economic Review, 46(1), 201-211.

7. [7]	Zuniga, M.P. and Guellec, D. (2009), Who licenses out patents and why? Lessons from a business survey, \\ http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/16/42477187.pdf; [accessed 12.10.2011].

8. [8]	Kitagawa, T., Masuda. Y.. and Umezawa, M. (2018), Impact of technology development costs on licensing form in a differentiated Cournot duopoly, International Journal of Economic Theory, 1-14.

9. [9]	Kabiraj, A. and Kabiraj, T. (2017), Tariff induced licensing contracts, consumers' surplus and welfare, Economic Modelling, 60, 439-447.

10. [10]	Hong, X., Lu, Q., Xu, L., Govindan, K.. and Meidute, I. (2015), Licensing strategy for a stochastic R$\&$D firm in a differentiated Cournot duopoly model, Engineering-Economics, 26(5), 478-488.

11. [11]	Goel, R.K. (1990), Innovation, market structure, and welfare: a Stackelberg model, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 30, 40-53.

12. [12]	Goel, R.K. (1999), On contracting for uncertain R$\&$D, Managerial and Decision Economics, 20, 99-106.

13. [13]	Colombo, S. and Filippini, L. (2015), Patent licensing with Bertrand competitors, The Manchester School, 83(1), 1-16.

14. [14]	Martin, M.S. and Saracho, A.I. (2016), Patent strength and optimal two-part tariff licensing with a potential rival incorporating ad valorem royalties, Economics Letters, 143, 28-31.

15. [15]	Fan, C., Jun, B.H., and Wolfstetter, E.G. (2018), Per unit vs. ad valorem royalty licensing, Economics Letters, 170, 71-75.

16. [16]	Hsu, J., Liu, L., Wang, X.H.. and Zeng, C. (2019), Ad valorem versus per-unit royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model, The Manchester School, 87, 890-901.

17. [17]	Yan Q. and Yang, L. (2018), Optimal licensing in a differentiated Bertrand market under uncertain R$\&$D outcomes and technology spillover, Economic Modelling, 68, 117-126.

18. [18]	Wang, L.F.S. and Zeng, C. (2019), Licensing, entry, and privatization, International Review of Economics $\&$ Finance, 62(C), 230-239.

19. [19]	Niu, S. (2018), Price and quantity competition in an asymmetric duopoly with licensing, Journal of Public Economic Theory, 20, 896-913.

20. [20]	Li, C. and Ji, X. (2010), Innovation, licensing, and price vs. quantity competition, Economic Modelling, 27, 746-754.

21. [21]	Ferreira, F. and Bode, O.R. (2017), Licensing by royalties in a differentiated Stackelberg model when the follower is the innovator, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1863, 050002; DOI: 10.1063/1.4992199.

22. [22]	Bode, O.R., Ferreira, F. and Ferreira, F.A. (2021), Comparison between different licensing schemes in a Stackelberg model when the follower is the innovator, Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 21, 301-309.