Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit and Component Licensing: Why $1is not $1

Gautier, Axel; Petit, Nicolas

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2954592

Download

Article (Scientific journals)

Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit and Component Licensing: Why $1is not $1

Gautier, Axel; Petit, Nicolas

2019 • In Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 15 (1), p. 690-717

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/230296

DOI
10.2139/ssrn.2954592

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

nhz008.pdf

Publisher postprint (621.37 kB)

Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Standard essential patents; Royalty negotiation; SSPPU

Abstract :

[en] The smallest salable patent pricing unit (SSPPU) is a valuation method used as a preliminary step toward the calculation of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory royalties for licenses over standard-essential patents (SEPs). Under SSPPU, royalties should reflect the value added to the smallest salable component implementing the patented invention. In this paper, we discuss policy-making proposals to convert SSPPU into a pricing rule that not only assists the assessment of SEPs’ added value but also forces the specification of royalties terms as a share of component costs in SEP licensing negotiations. We call this new rule SSPPU+ and we show that it distorts the distribution of surplus between SEP owners and implementers by laying down a revenue cap on standardized technologies. Therefore, a change in the royalty basis is not neutral and $1 is not $1. Furthermore, SSPPU+ imposes uniform pricing of SEPs across different industries and does not allow SEP owners to take advantage of complementarities between technologies. This pleads against a generalization of SSPPU+ at early standardization and negotiation stages.

Research center :

LCII - Liège Competition and Innovation Institute - ULiège

Disciplines :

Business & economic sciences: Multidisciplinary, general & others

Author, co-author :

Gautier, Axel ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > Economie industrielle

Petit, Nicolas ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit européen de la concurrence

Language :

English

Title :

Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit and Component Licensing: Why $1is not $1

Publication date :

2019

Journal title :

Journal of Competition Law and Economics

ISSN :

1744-6414

eISSN :

1744-6422

Publisher :

Oxford University Press, United Kingdom

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

690-717

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhz008

Available on ORBi :

since 18 December 2018

Statistics

Number of views

150 (14 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

825 (12 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Ariely, D., Lowenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent Arbirariness: Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences. 118 The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1:73-104.
Basu, S. and Fernald, J. (2007). Information and communications technology as a general‐purpose technology: evidence from US industry data. German Economic Review 8.2: 146-173.
Belgum, K.D. (2014). The Next Battle Over FRAND: The Definition of FRAND Terms and Multi-Level Licensing. 39 Journal of the Intellectual Property Law Section 'New Matter 2.
Belleflamme, P. and M. Peitz (2015). Industrial organization Markets and Strategies, Cambridge University Press.
Bergman, Oscar, Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M. and Svensson, C. (2010). Anchoring and cognitive ability. Economics Letters 107.1: 66-68.
Blair, R.D. and Cotter, T.F. (2005). Intellectual Property: Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bresnahan, Timothy and Trajtenberg, Manuel. (1995). General Purpose Technologies: Engines of Growth, Journal of Econometrics 65.1: 83-108.
Cabral, L. and Kretschmer, T. (2006). 10 Standards battles and public policy. Standards and public policy: 329-344.
Crafts, Nicholas. (2004). Steam as a general purpose technology: a growth accounting perspective. The Economic Journal 114.495: 338-351.
David, Paul A. and Wright, Gavin. (1999). General purpose technologies and surges in productivity: Historical reflections on the future of the ICT revolution. University of Oxford.
Egyedi, T. M. (1999). Institutional Dilemma in ICT Standardisation: Co-ordinating the Diffusion of Technology?. Information technology standards and standardization: A global perspective: 48-62.
Fogel, R.W. (1979). Notes on the social saving controversy. The Journal of Economic History 39.01: 1-54.
Furnham, Adrian, and Hua Chu Boo. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40.1: 35-42.
Galetovic, A., Haber, S. and Levine, R. (2015). An empirical investigation of patent holdup, Journal of competition law & economics 11(3): 549-578.
Galinsky, Adam and Mussweiler, Thomas. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 657-669.
Gambardella, Alfonso and Giarratana, Marco S. (2013). General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Research Policy 42.2: 315-325.
Gambardella, Alfonso, and McGahan, Anita M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long range planning 43.2: 262-271.
Gandal, N., Salant, D. and Waverman, L. (2003). Standards in wireless telephone networks." Telecommunications Policy 27.5: 325-332
Goldscheider, Robert, Jarosz, John and Mulhern, Carla. (2002). Use Of The 25 Per Cent Rule In Valuing IP. Les Nouvelles: 123-133.
Hastie, R., Schkade, D.A. and Payne, J.W. (1999). Juror judgment in civil cases: effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior 23(4): 445-470.
Elhanan Helpman and Manuel Trajtenberg. A time to sow and a time to reap: Growth based on general purpose technologies. No. w4854. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1994
Kamien, M. and Y. Tauman. (1986) Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101.3: 471-492.
Kappos, David J. and Michel, Paul R. (2017) The Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit: Observations on Its Origins, Development, and Future, https://www.thenaplesroundtable.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/The-Smallest-Salable-Patent-Practicing-Unit-and-Observations-on-Its-Origins-Development-and-Future-by-David-J.Kappos-and-Paul-R.-Michel.pdf.
Kattan, J., Ordover, J. and Shampine, A. (2016). FRAND and the smallest saleable unit, CPI Antitrust Chronicle: 1-8.
Katznelson, R. (2016). The IEEE controversial policy on Standard Essential Patents - the empirical record since adoption, Mimeo.
KPMG International, Profitability and royalty rates across industries: Some preliminary evidence, 2012, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/09/gviprofitability.pdf.
Lemley, M.A. and Shapiro, C. (2007). Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking. Texas Law Review. Vol. 85: 1991-2049.
Lipsey, R.G., Carlaw, K.I. and Bekar, C.T. (2005). Economic transformations: general purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. OUP Oxford.
Llobet, G. and Padilla, J. (2016). The optimal scope of the royalty base in patent licensing. Journal of Law and Economics, 59(1): 45-74.
Marti, M.W. and Wissler, R.L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: the effects of anchors on personal injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied 6: 91-103.
Moser, P., and Nicholas, T. (2004). Was electricity a general purpose technology? Evidence from historical patent citations. The American Economic Review 94.2: 388-394.
Pandelaere, M., Briers, B. and Lembregts, C. (2011). How to make a 29% increase look bigger: The unit effect in option comparisons. Journal of Consumer Research, 38: 308-322.
Petit, N. (2016) The Smallest Salable Patent-Pricing unit (“SSPPU”) experiment, General purpose technologies and the Coase theorem, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2734245.
Pijnacker Hordijk, E. (2002) Excessive Pricing under EC Competition Law: An Update in the Light of 'Dutch Developments, in Barry E. Hawk (ed.) 2001 Fordham Corporate Law Institute, 463-496.
Putnam, J. and William, T. (2016). The Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit (SSPPU): Theory and Evidence, https://ssrn.com/abstract=28535617.
Razgaitis, R. (2007). Pricing the Intellectual Property of Early-Stage Technologies: A Primer of Basic Valuation Tools and Considerations”, in A. Krattiger et al, Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices, Volumes 1 and 2: 813-860.
Rosenberg, N. and Trajtenberg, M. (2004). A general-purpose technology at work: The Corliss steam engine in the late-nineteenth-century United States. The Journal of Economic History 64.01: 61-99.
San Martin, M. and Saracho, A. (2010). Royalty licensing. Economic letters: 1-4.
Sidak, G.J. (2015). Bargaining Power and Patent Damages, Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 19: 1-31.
Sidak, G. J. (2013). The meaning of FRAND, part I: Royalties. Journal of competition law & economics 9(4): 931-1055.
Simonson, I., and Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers' willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of consumer research 31.3: 681-690.
Stark, R. J. (2015). Debunking the Smallest Salable Unit theory, CPI Antitrust Chronicle 7: 1-10.
Stasik, E. (2010) Royalty Rates and Licensing Strategies for Essential Patents on LTE (4G) Telecommunications Standards, Les Nouvelles, 114-119.
Snyder, M. (2016) SSPPU: A Tool for Avoiding Jury Confusion, The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 17 Number 1.
Teece, D. (2015) Are the IEEE Proposed Changes to IPR Policy Innovation Friendly?, Working paper, Tusher center for management of intellectual capital.
Teece, D. (1994). Telecommunications in transition: Unbundling, reintegration, and competition. Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 1: 47-78.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157: 1124-1131.
Woyke, E. (2014). The Smartphone: Anatomy of an Industry, The New Press.
Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M. and Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?. The Journal of Technology Transfer 33.3: 315-329.