Cross-Licensing in a Supply Chain with Asymmetric Manufacturers

References

• Arrow KJ (1962) Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources (The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Palgrave, London).Google Scholar
• August T, Shin H, Tunca TI (2013) Licensing and competition for services in open source software. Inform. Systems Res. 24(4):1068–1086.Link, Google Scholar
• August T, Shin H, Tunca TI (2018) Generating value through open source: Software service market regulation and licensing policy. Inform Systemes Res. 29(1):186–205.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhaskaran SR, Krishnan V (2009) Effort, revenue, and cost sharing mechanisms for collaborative new product development. Management Sci. 55(7):1152–1169.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhaskaran SR, Ramachandran K (2011) Managing technology selection and development risk in competitive environment. Production Oper. Management 20(4):541–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya S, Gaba V, Hasija S (2014) A comparison of milestone-based and buyout options contracts for coordinating R&D partnerships. Management Sci. 61(5):963–978.Link, Google Scholar
• Cabon-Dhersin ML, Lahmandi-Ayed R (2011) R&D organization: Cooperation or cross-licensing? Louvain Econom. Rev. 77(1):31–52.Google Scholar
• Cerver-Romero E, Ferreira JJ, Fernandes C (2020) A scientometric analysis of knowledge spillover research. J. Tech. Transfer. 45(3):780–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatterjee R, Chattopadhyay S, Kabiraj T (2019) When spillovers enhance r&d incentives. J. Quant. Econom. 17(4):857–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi JP (2010) Patent pools and cross-licensing in the shadow of patent litigation. Internat. Econom. Rev. 51(2):441–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crama P, De Reyck B, Taneri N (2016) Licensing contracts: Control rights, options, and timing. Management Sci. 63(4):1131–1149.Link, Google Scholar
• d’Aspremont C, Jacquemin A (1988) Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(5):1133–1137.Google Scholar
• De Bondt R (1997) Spillovers and innovative activities. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 15(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Bondt R, Henriques I (1995) Strategic investment with asymmetric spillovers. Can. J. Econom. 28(3):656–674.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fazli A, Shulman JD (2018) Implications of market spillovers. Management Sci. 64(11):4996–5013.Link, Google Scholar
• Feng Q, Lu LX (2013) Supply chain contracting under competition: Bilateral bargaining vs. stackelberg. Production Oper. Management 22(3):661–675.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fershtman C, Kamien MI (1992) Cross licensing of complementary technologies. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 10(3):329–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galasso A (2012) Broad cross-license negotiations. J. Econom. Management Strategy 21(4):873–911.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert SM, Cvsa V (2003) Strategic commitment to price to stimulate downstream innovation in a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 150(3):617–639.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert SM, Yu G, Xia Y (2007) The strategic effects of a merger upon supplier interactions. Naval Research Logist. 54(2):162–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grindley PC, Teece DJ (1997) Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif. Management Rev. 39(2):8–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the us semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):101–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu B, Hu M, Yang Y (2017) Open or closed? Technology sharing, supplier investment, and competition. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 19(1):132–149.Link, Google Scholar
• Hu B, Mai Y, Pekeč S (2020) Managing innovation spillover in outsourcing. Production Oper. Management 29(10):2252–2267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeon DS, Lefouili Y (2018) Cross-licensing and competition. RAND J. Econom. 49(3):656–671.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang B, Shi H (2018) Intercompetitor licensing and product innovation. J. Marketing. Res. 55(5):738–751.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2001) Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Sci. 47(1):1–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee J, Krishnan V, Shin H (2020) Business models for technology-intensive supply chains. Management Sci. 66(5):2120–2139.Link, Google Scholar
• Levin RC (1988) Appropriability, R&D spending, and technological performance. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(2):424–428.Google Scholar
• Li YB (2016) Antitrust Correction for Qualcomm’s SEPs Package Licensing and Its Flexibility in China. IIC-Internat. Rev. Intellect. Property Competition Law. 47(3):336–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAllister N (2015) EU to Qualcomm competitors: So how’s that competition going? The Register (May 9), https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/09/eu_to_qualcomm_competitors_so_hows_that_competition_going/.Google Scholar
• Nagaoka S, Kwon HU (2006) The incidence of cross-licensing: A theory and new evidence on the firm and contract level determinants. Res. Policy 35(9):1347–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Osborne C (2015) Qualcomm to pay China $1 billion in antitrust settlement: Report. ZDNet (February 9), https://www.zdnet.com/article/qualcomm-to-pay-china-1-billion-in-antitrust-settlement-report/.Google Scholar
• Özer Ö, Raz G (2011) Supply chain sourcing under asymmetric information. Production Oper. Management 20(1):92–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pastor M, Sandonís J (2002) Research joint ventures vs. cross licensing agreements: An agency approach. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 20(2):215–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plambeck EL, Taylor TA (2005) Sell the plant? The impact of contract manufacturing on innovation, capacity, and profitability. Management Sci. 51(1):133–150.Link, Google Scholar
• Plambeck EL, Taylor TA (2007) Implications of breach remedy and renegotiation design for innovation and capacity. Management Sci. 53(12):1859–1871.Link, Google Scholar
• Qi S (2019) Advertising, industry innovation, and entry deterrence. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 65:30–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sakamaki S, Nylen L (2019) How Qualcomm won in Japan. MLex in Washington (March 21), https://mlexmarketinsight.com/insights-center/editors-picks/antitrust/asia/how-qualcomm-won-in-japan.Google Scholar
• Singh N, Vives X (1984) Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly. RAND J. Econom. 15(4):546–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suzumura K (1992) Cooperative and noncooperative r&d in an oligopoly with spillovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 82(5):1307–1320.Google Scholar
• Ülkü S, Schmidt GM (2011) Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration. Production Oper. Management 20(1):16–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ülkü S, Toktay LB, Yücesan E (2005) The impact of outsourced manufacturing on timing of entry in uncertain markets. Production Oper. Management 14(3):301–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang J, Shin H (2015) The impact of contracts and competition on upstream innovation in a supply chain. Production Oper. Management 24(1):134–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang J, Wu X, Krishnan V (2018) Decision structure and performance of networked technology supply chains. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 20(2):199–216.Link, Google Scholar
• Watanabe S, Miyakawa H (2009) Japan challenges “essential” patent licenses under anti-monopoly act. Lexology (November 6), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=edc569d1-fcbb-4995-ae6a-139344ca6b7f.Google Scholar
• Xiao W, Xu Y (2012) The impact of royalty contract revision in a multistage strategic r&d alliance. Management Sci. 58(12):2251–2271.Link, Google Scholar
• Yang H (2019) Qualcomm to appeal record South Korean anti-trust fine. Reuters (December 3), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-southkorea/qualcomm-to-appeal-record-south-korean-anti-trust-fine-idUSKBN1Y807J.Google Scholar