Commercialization Mechanisms for New Plant Varieties

  • Sherzod B. Akhundjanov
  • R. Karina Gallardo
  • Jill J. McCluskey
  • Bradley J. Rickard
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

Developing and marketing new varieties is essential for the long-term profitability of US crop producers. The ultimate goal of university breeding programs is to release improved plant varieties, either with superior quality or more efficient production management. For certain horticultural products, notably apples, plant breeders have developed several new differentiated varieties that have the capacity to be marketed with premium prices and that can compete on world markets. If these innovations are not commercialized or are commercialized in a suboptimal way, then the benefits of the research are greatly reduced. In this chapter, we use game theoretic analysis and an experimental auction to investigate the effects of contract exclusivity and payment structure on innovator and producer profits from a hypothetical new apple variety.

References

  1. Akhundjanov, S.B., K.R. Gallardo, J.J. McCluskey, and B.J. Rickard. 2017. Optimal Licensing of Plant Variety Patents: Benefiting both the Public University and the Industry. Working Paper, Washington State University.Google Scholar
  2. Alston, J.M., and P.G. Pardey. 2008. Public Funding for Research into Specialty Crops. HortScience 43 (5): 1461–1470.Google Scholar
  3. Alston, J.M., M.A. Andersen, J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey. 2010. Persistence Pays: US Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending. New York: Springer. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4419-0657-1.
  4. Arrow, K.J. 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, ed. R.R. Nelson. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bareuther, C.M. 2011. Washington Apples: Variety Report. Produce Business 27 (8): 42–50.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G.M., M.H. DeGroot, and J. Marschak. 1964. Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science 9 (3): 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bousquet, A., H. Cremer, M. Ivaldi, and M. Wolkowicz. 1998. Risk Sharing in Licensing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 16 (5): 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, S.K., and K.E. Maloney. 2009. Making Sense of New Apple Varieties, Trademarks and Clubs: Current Status. New York Fruit Quarterly 17 (3): 9–12.Google Scholar
  9. Cahoon, R.S. 2007. Licensing Agreements in Agricultural Biotechnology. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger, R.T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, J.A. Thomson, A.B. Bennett, K. Satyanarayana, G.D. Graff, C. Fernandez, and S.P. Kowalski. Ithaca: Bio Developments-International Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Choi, J.P. 2001. Technology Transfer with Moral Hazard. International Journal of Industrial Organization 19 (1–2): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fauli-Oller, R., and J. Sandonis. 2002. Welfare Reducing Licensing. Games and Economic Behavior 41 (2): 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galinato, S., and R.K. Gallardo. 2012. 2011 Cost Estimates of Establishing, Producing, and Packing Honeycrisp Apples in Washington. Washington State University Extension Factsheet FS062E.Google Scholar
  13. Gallardo, R.K., D. Nguyen, V. McCracken, C. Yue, J. Luby, and J.R. McFerson. 2012. An Investigation of Trait Prioritization in Rosaceous Fruit Breeding Programs. Hortscience 47 (6): 771–776.Google Scholar
  14. Gallini, N.T., and B.D. Wright. 1990. Technology Transfer Under Asymmetric Information. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Just. 1999. The Organization of Agricultural Research in Western Developed Countries. Agricultural Economics 21 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Just, R.E., and W.E. Huffman. 2009. The Economics of Universities in a New Age of Funding Options. Research Policy 38 (7): 1102–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamien, M.I., and Y. Tauman. 1986. Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent. Quarterly Journal of Economics 101 (3): 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamien, M.I., and Y. Tauman. 2002. Patent Licensing: The Inside Story. The Manchester School 70(1): 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamien, M.I., S.S. Oren, and Y. Tauman. 1992. Optimal Licensing of a Cost Reducing Innovation. Journal of Mathematical Economics 21 (5): 483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katz, M.L., and C. Shapiro. 1986. How to License Intangible Property. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 101 (3): 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehnert, R. 2010. Not so sweet tangle: Minnesota growers sue over club agreement. Good Fruit Grower (August 2010): 8–9. Available at: http://www.goodfruit.com/Good-Fruit-Grower/August-2010/Not-so-sweet-shytangle/.
  22. Li, C., and J. Wang. 2010. Licensing a Vertical Product Innovation. The Economic Record 86 (275): 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milkovich, M. 2011. Litigants Settle SweeTango Dispute. Fruit Grower News (November 2011).Google Scholar
  24. Mussa, M., and S. Rosen. 1978. Monopoly and Product Quality. Journal of Economic Theory 18 (2): 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muto, S. 1993. On Licensing Policies in Bertrand Competition. Games and Economic Behavior 5 (2): 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rickard, B.J., T.J. Richards, and J. Yan. 2016. University Licensing of Patents for Varietal Innovations in Agriculture. Agricultural Economics 4: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saracho, A.I. 2002. Patent Licensing Under Strategic Delegation. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 11 (2): 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sen, D. 2005. On the Coexistence of Different Licensing Schemes. International Review of Economics and Finance 14 (4): 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sen, D., and Y. Tauman. 2007. General Licensing Schemes for Cost-Reducing Innovation. Games and Economic Behavior 69: 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shapiro, C. 1985. Patent Licensing and R&D Rivalry. American Economic Review 75(2): 25–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sherzod B. Akhundjanov
    • 1
  • R. Karina Gallardo
    • 2
  • Jill J. McCluskey
    • 3
  • Bradley J. Rickard
    • 4
  1. 1.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Puyallup Research and Extension CenterWashington State UniversityPuyallupUSA
  3. 3.Washington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  4. 4.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations