Managing technology licensing for stochastic R&D: from the perspective of an enterprise information system

Enterprise information technology (IT) plays an important role in technology innovation management for high-tech enterprises. However, to date most studies on enterprise technology innovation have assumed that the research and development (R&D) outcome is certain. This assumption does not always hold in practice. Motivated by the current practice of some IT industries, we establish a three-stage duopoly game model, including the R&D stage, the licensing stage and the output stage, to investigate the influence of bargaining power and technology spillover on the optimal licensing policy for the innovating enterprise when the outcome of R&D is uncertain. Our results demonstrate that (1) if the licensor has low (high) bargaining power, fixed-fee (royalty) licensing is always superior to royalty (fixed-fee) licensing to the licensor regardless of technology spillover; (2) if the licensor has moderate bargaining power and technology spillover is low (high) as well, fixed-fee (royalty) licensing is superior to royalty (fixed-fee) licensing; (3) under two-part tariff licensing and the assumption of licensors with full bargaining power, if a negative prepaid fixed fee is not allowed, two-part tariff licensing is equivalent to royalty licensing which is the optimal licensing policy; if negative prepaid fixed fee is allowed, the optimal policy is two-part tariff licensing.

[1]  Reiko Aoki,et al.  Patent licensing with spillovers , 2001 .

[2]  Paul Germeraad The Changing Role of R&D , 2001 .

[3]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  How Rapidly Does New Industrial Technology Leak Out , 1985 .

[4]  Lihui Lin,et al.  Network Effects and Technology Licensing with Fixed Fee, Royalty, and Hybrid Contracts , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Jay Pil Choi,et al.  Technology Transfer with Moral Hazard , 1996 .

[6]  M. Dahan,et al.  The role of information , 2006 .

[7]  Yair Tauman,et al.  Licensing of a quality-improving innovation , 2008, Math. Soc. Sci..

[8]  Tarun Kabiraj Technology Transfer in a Stackelberg Structure: Licensing Contracts and Welfare , 2005 .

[9]  K. Rockett Choosing the Competition and Patent Licensing , 1990 .

[10]  D. Teece,et al.  Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics , 1997 .

[11]  Luca Lambertini,et al.  The role of information , 2011 .

[12]  Bert De Reyck,et al.  Milestone Payments or Royalties? Contract Design for R&D Licensing , 2008, Oper. Res..

[13]  Z. Griliches The Search for R&D Spillovers , 1991 .

[14]  Technology Transfer in a Duopoly with Horizontal and Vertical Product Differentiation , 2011 .

[15]  Ling Li,et al.  Effects of enterprise technology on supply chain collaboration: analysis of China-linked supply chain , 2012, Enterp. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Wen‐Jung Liang,et al.  Licensing Under Network Externalities , 2012 .

[17]  Jin-Li Hu,et al.  The Optimal Licensing Strategy of an Outside Patentee in Vertically-Related Markets , 2013 .

[18]  X. Wang Fee versus royalty licensing in a differentiated Cournot duopoly , 2002 .

[19]  Changying Li,et al.  Licensing a Vertical Product Innovation , 2010 .

[20]  Anil Arya,et al.  Outsourcing, vertical integration, and price vs. quantity competition☆ , 2008 .

[21]  L. Filippini,et al.  Licensing Contract in a Stackelberg Model , 2005 .

[22]  N. Erkal,et al.  Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries , 2005 .

[23]  Xianpei Hong,et al.  Technology licensing contracts with network effects , 2014 .

[24]  Andrea Fosfuri,et al.  Managing Licensing in a Market for Technology , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[25]  Kuang-Cheng Andy Wang,et al.  Patent licensing under cost asymmetry among firms , 2013 .

[26]  S. Poddar,et al.  On Patent Licensing in Spatial Competition , 2004 .

[27]  A. Mukherjee,et al.  Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market , 2010 .

[28]  Flávio Ferreira,et al.  Licensing endogenous cost-reduction in a differentiated Stackelberg model , 2013, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul..

[29]  Debapriya Sen,et al.  Fee versus royalty reconsidered , 2005, Games Econ. Behav..

[30]  A. Beggs The licensing of patents under asymmetric information , 1992 .

[31]  Giorgos Stamatopoulos,et al.  Drastic innovations and multiplicity of optimal licensing policies , 2009 .

[32]  X. Wang,et al.  On Technology Licensing in a Stackelberg Duopoly , 2004 .

[33]  Enrico Pennings,et al.  Tariffs, Licensing and Market Structure , 2006 .

[34]  Tarun Kabiraj Patent Licensing in a Leadership Structure , 2004 .

[35]  U. Sinha,et al.  Patent Licensing from a High-Cost Firm to a Low-Cost Firm , 2010 .

[36]  Munirul H. Nabin,et al.  Licensing under Vertical Product Differentiation: Price vs. Quantity Competition , 2014 .

[37]  X. Wang,et al.  Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model , 1998 .

[38]  Inés Macho-Stadler,et al.  The Role of Information in Licensing Contract Design , 1996 .

[39]  Juan Song,et al.  Technology licensing in a vertically differentiated duopoly , 2009 .

[40]  Brian D. Wright,et al.  Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information , 1990 .

[41]  Joe Cecil,et al.  Information systems for enterprise integration, interoperability and networking: theory and applications , 2013, Enterp. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Xianpei Hong,et al.  The Optimal Licensing Contract in a Differentiated Stackelberg Model , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.