International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 505–523 | Cite as

Stable profit sharing in a patent licensing game: general bargaining outcomes

  • Naoki WatanabeEmail author
  • Shigeo Muto
Original Paper


By considering coalition structures formed by an external licensor of a patented technology and oligopolistic firms, we investigate licensing agreements that can be reached as bargaining outcomes under those coalition structures. The following results hold in a generalized patent licensing game. The core for a coalition structure is always empty, unless the grand coalition forms. We give a necessary and sufficient condition for the nonemptiness of the core (for the grand coalition). If the number of licensees that maximizes licensees’ total surplus is greater than the number of existing non-licensees, each symmetric bargaining set for a coalition structure is a singleton, and the optimal number of licensees that maximizes the licensor’s revenue is uniquely determined.


Licensing Coalition structure Bargaining set Core 

JEL Classification

C71 D45 D43 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aumann RJ, Drèze M (1974) Cooperative games with coalition structures. Int J Game Theory 3: 217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1964) The bargaining set for cooperative games. In: Dresher M, Shaply LS, Tucker AW (eds) Advances in game theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 443–476Google Scholar
  3. Davis M, Maschler M (1965) The kernel of a cooperative game. Naval Res Logist Q 12: 223–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis M, Maschler M (1967) Existence of stable payoff configurations for cooperative games. In: Schubik M (eds) Essays in Mathematical Economics in honor of Oskar Morgenstern. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 39–52 (abstract appeared in 1963 in Bulletin of American Mathematical Society 69, 106–108)Google Scholar
  5. Driessen T, Muto S, Nakayama M (1992) A cooperative game of information trading: the core, the nucleolus and the kernel. ZOR Methods Models Oper Res 36: 55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kamien MI, Oren SS, Tauman Y (1992) Optimal licensing of cost-reducing innovation. J Math Econ 21: 483–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kamien MI, Tauman Y (1984) The private value of a patent: a game theoretic analysis. J Econ Suppl 4: 93–118Google Scholar
  8. Kamien MI, Tauman Y (1986) Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent. Q J Econ 101: 471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kamien MI, Tauman Y, Zhang I (1988) Optimal license fees for a new product. Math Soc Sci 16: 77–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) On the licensing of innovation. Rand J Econ 16: 504–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) How to license intangible property. Q J Econ 101: 567–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maschler M, Peleg B (1966) A Characterization, existence proof and dimension bounds for the kernel. Pac J Math 18: 289–328Google Scholar
  13. Muto S (1987) Possibility of relicensing and patent protection. Euro Econ Rev 31: 927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Muto S (1990) Resale-proofness and coalition-proof Nash equilibria. Games Econ Behav 2: 337–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Muto S (1993) On licensing policies in Bertrand competition. Games Econ Behav 5: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muto S, Nakayama M, Potters J, Tijs S (1989) On Big Boss games. Econ Stud Quart 39: 303–321Google Scholar
  17. Nakayama M, Quintas L (1991) Stable payoffs in resale-proof trades of information. Games Econ Behav 3: 339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peleg B (1967) Existence theorem of for the bargaining set \({\mathcal{M}_{1}^{i}}\) . In: Schubik M (eds) Essays in Mathematical Economics in honor of Oskar Morgenstern. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 53–56 (the abstract appeared in 1963 in Bulletin of American Mathematical Society 69, 109–110)Google Scholar
  19. Schmeidler D (1969) The nucleolus of a characteristic function game. SIAM J Appl Math 17: 1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sempere-Monerris J, Vannetelbosch J (2001) The relevance of bargaining for the licensing of a cost-reducing innovation. Bull Econ Res 53: 101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sen D (2005) Fee versus royalty reconsidered. Games Econ Behav 53: 141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen D, Tauman Y (2007) General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovations. Games Econ Behav 59: 163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shapley L, Schubik M (1967) Ownership and the production function. Q J Econ LXXXI: 88–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tauman Y, Watanabe N (2007) The Shapley value of a patent licensing game: the asymptotic equivalence to non-cooperative results. Econ Theory 30: 135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thrall RM, Lucas WF (1963) n-person games in partition function form. Naval Res Ligist Q 10: 281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watanabe N, Muto S (2006) Licensing agreements as bargaining outcomes: general results and two examples. Adv Math Econ 8: 433–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watanabe N, Tauman Y (2003) Asymptotic properties of the Shapley value of a patent licensing game. mimeo., Kyoto UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Systems and Management, Graduate School of Systems and Information EngineeringUniversity of TsukubaTsukuba, IbarakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Social Engineering, Graduate School of Decision Science and TechnologyTokyo Institute of TechnologyMeguro, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations