A Comparative Analysis of Patent Assertion Entities in Markets for Intellectual Property Rights

References

• Argyres NS, Liebeskind JP (2002) Governance inseparability and the evolution of US biotechnology industry. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 47(2):197–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Ceccagnoli M (2006) Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management Sci. 52(2):293–308.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Ceccagnoli M, Cohen WM (2008) R&D and the patent premium. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 26(5):1153–1179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2004) Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Barzel Y (1997) Economic Analysis of Property Rights (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bekkers R, Iversen E, Blind K (2006) Patent pools and non-assertion agreements: Coordination mechanisms for multi-party IPR holders in standardization. Paper for the EASST 2006 Conf., Lausanne, Switzerland, August.Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer M (2012) The direct costs from NPE disputes. Law and Economics Research Paper 12–34, Boston University School of Law, Boston.Google Scholar
• Blumberg A, Sydell L (2011) When patents attack! This American Life (July 22), http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack.Google Scholar
• Chien CV (2010) From arms race to marketplace: The new complex patent ecosystem and its implications for the patent system. Hastings Law J. 62(December):297–356.Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cotropia CA (2009) Modernizing patent law’s inequitable conduct doctrine. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 24(2):723–783.Google Scholar
• Coughlan AT (1987) Distribution channel choice in a market with complementary goods. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 4(2):85–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duhigg C, Lohr S (2012) The patent, used as a sword. New York Times (October 7), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
• Eisenberg RS (2011) Patent costs and unlicensed use of patented inventions. University of Chicago Law Rev. 78(1):53–69.Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice (2012) Transcript Patent Assertion Entities Activities Workshop, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Fischer T, Henkel J (2012) Patent trolls on markets for technology—An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Res. Policy 41(9):1519–1533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A (2006) The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management J. 27(12):1141–1158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galasso A, Schankerman M, Serrano CJ (2013) Trading and enforcing patent rights. RAND J. Econom. 44(2):275–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giarratana MS (2013) General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Res. Policy 42(2):315–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Hsu DH, Stern S (2002) When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND J. Econom. 33(4):571–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert RJ (2004) Antitrust for patent pools: A century of policy evolution. Stanford Tech. Law Rev., No. 3, http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/04_STLR_3.Google Scholar
• Hagiu A, Yoffie DB (2013) The new patent intermediaries: Platforms, defensive aggregators, and super-aggregators. J. Econom. Perspectives 27(1):45–65.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
• Jacobides MG (2005) Industry change through vertical disintegration: How and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Acad. Management J. 48(3):465–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi AM, Nerkar A (2011) When do strategic alliances inhibit innovation by firms? Evidence from patent pools in the global optical disc industry. Strategic Management J. 32(11):1139–1160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenney RW, Klein B (1983) The economics of block booking. J. Law Econom. 26(3):497–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampe R, Moser P (2010) Do patent pools encourage innovation? Evidence from the nineteenth-century sewing machine industry. J. Econom. History 70(4):898–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Merges RP (1998) The control of technology alliances: An empirical analysis of the biotechnology industry. J. Indust. Econom. 46(2):125–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Strojwas M, Tirole J (2007) The design of patent pools: The determinants of licensing rules. RAND J. Econom. 38(3):610–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ludlow T, Thumm M, Girones A (2008) Backing up the claim: Reverse engineering enables successful patent licensing. Nouvelles—J. Licensing Executives Soc. 43(2):102–105.Google Scholar
• Mack K (2006) Reforming inequitable conduct to improve patent quality: Cleansing unclean hands. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 21(1):147–175.Google Scholar
• Masten SE (1988) Legal basis for the firm, A. J. Law, Econom., Organ. 4(1):181–198.Google Scholar
• McDonough JF (2006) The myth of the patent troll: An alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy. Emory Law J. 56:189–228.Google Scholar
• Merges RP (1994) Of property rules, coase, and intellectual property. Columbia Law Rev. 94(8):2655–2673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1990) Bargaining costs, influence costs, and the organization of economic activity. Alt JE, Shepsle KA, eds. Perspectives on Positive Political Economy (Cambridge University Press, New York), 57–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• North DC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• PRNewswire (2013) Bayer CropScience and Monsanto enter into cross-licensing agreements for next-generation and enabling technologies. Accessed May 15, 2013, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bayer-cropscience-and-monsanto-enter-into-cross-licensing-agreements-for-next-generation-and-enabling-technologies-203185651.html.Google Scholar
• Reitzig M, Henkel J, Heath C (2007) On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey–unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed.” Res. Policy 36(1):134–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98(5):S71–S102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management J. 22(4):287–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Jaffe A, Lerner J, Stern S, eds. Innovation Policy and the Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 119–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2012) Patent strategy and management an integrative review and research agenda. J. Management 38(4):1084–1114.Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(6):285–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1979) Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. J. Law Econom. 22(2):233–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1991) Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):269–296.Crossref, Google Scholar