Formulas for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty determination

This paper takes an axiomatic approach to determining “Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory” (“FRAND”) royalties for intellectual property (“IP”) rights. Drawing on the extensive game theory literature on “surplus sharing/cost sharing” problems, I describe specific formulas for determining license fees that can be derived from basic fairness principles. In particular, I describe the Shapley Value, the Proportional Sharing Rule and the Nucleolus. The Proportional Sharing Rule has the advantage that it is the only rule that is invariant to mergers and splitting of the IP owners. I also explain why, at times, there may be no acceptable to solution. Further, I contrast these rules with the Efficient Component Pricing Rule (“ECPR”) suggested by Baumol and Swanson. Unlike, the ECPR, the rules identified in this paper can uniquely determine license fees when there is more than one owner of essential IP, and also incorporate various notions of fairness and equity.FRAND, Royalty Rates, Intellectual Property

Sequential auction and auction design

Often an auction designer has the option of selling, or purchasing, those lots available in one auction or a sequence of auctions. In addition, bidder opportunities will not be static, in part due to arrival of information, but also because bidders can face deadlines for making decisions. This paper examines the optimal decision about how to divide what is available over time.sequential auctions

Cost-allocation principles for pipeline capacity and usage

This paper applies principles f rom game theory to the problem o f allocating the cost o f a shared facility, such as a pipeline. The theory o f cooperative games s t r ongl y suggest s t hat no method e x i s t s for allocating costs that wi l l achieve all major policy goals. We apply results from the theory o f cooperative games a n d principles o f cost allocation to assess some c o mmo n l y adopted rules for allocating costs and def i ni ng u n i t charges. Mos t notably, the postage-stamp toll is f o u n d to fail a mi ni mal set o f commonly applied principles.cost allocation; pipeline

Abuse of Dominance and Licensing of Intellectual Property

We examine the impact of the licensing policies of one or more upstream owners of essential intellectual property (IP hereafter) on the variety offered by a downstream industry, as well as on consumers and social welfare. When an upstream monopoly owner of essential IP increases the number of licenses, it enhances product variety, adding to consumer value, but it also intensifies downstream competition, and thus dissipates profits. As a result, the upstream IP monopoly may want to provide too many or too few licenses, relatively to what maximizes consumer surplus or social welfare.\ud With multiple owners of essential IP, royalty stacking increases aggregate licensing fees and thus tends to limit the number of licensees, which can also reduce downstream prices for consumers. We characterize the conditions under which these reductions in downstream prices and variety is beneficial to consumers or society

Evolving Technologies and Standards Regulation

Spectrum regulation necessarily involves some regulation of the technology that licensees can use. One commonly stated assertion is that a mandated single standard, the solution followed by the EU for 2G wireless, is a successful model for spectrum regulation. We argue that a single standard leads to a free riding problem, and thus to a significant decrease in marginal incentives for R&D investment. In this context, keeping two separate standards may be a necessary evil to sustain a high level of R&D expenditures. We also provide conditions such that a non-standardization equilibrium is better for consumers and for society as a whole

A multi-regional model of electric resource adequacy

The paper analyzes the determinants of optimal electric capacity and contrasts these with the requirements typically applied in a multi-regional model. We first analyze the relationship between usual reliability criteria such as the value of lost load and the targeted probability of failure, on the one hand, and the conditions that define optimal level of capacity on the other. Secondly, we characterize the social gains from energy trading between two interconnected regions that differ in terms of technologies or demand. Market mechanisms are sufficient to reach the first best allocation, irrespective of the correlation between national demand levels, provided that firms have no market power and fully internalize the value of lost load due to power rationing when supplies are inadequate. Thirdly, we explain the impact of various compensation mechanisms such as capacity payments when producers face a regulatory capacity constraint

Allocating essential inputs

Regulators must often allocate essential inputs, such as spectrum rights, transmission capacity or airport landing slots, which can transform the structure of the downstream market. These decisions involve a trade-off, as provisions aimed at fostering competition and lowering prices for consumers, also tend to limit the proceeds from the sale of the inputs. We first characterize the optimal allocation, from the standpoints of consumer and total welfare. We then note that standard auctions yield substantially different outcomes. Finally, we show how various regulatory instruments can be used to implement the desired allocation

Abuse of Dominance and Licensing of Intellectual Property

We examine the impact of the licensing policies of one or more upstream owners of essential intellectual property (IP hereafter) on the variety offered by a downstream industry, as well as on consumers and social welfare. When an upstream monopoly owner of essential IP increases the number of licenses, it enhances product variety, adding to consumer value, but it also intensifies downstream competition, and thus dissipates profits. As a result, the upstream IP monopoly may want to provide too many or too few licenses, relatively to what maximizes consumer surplus or social welfare. With multiple owners of essential IP, royalty stacking increases aggregate licensing fees and thus tends to limit the number of licensees, which can also reduce downstream prices for consumers. We characterize the conditions under which these reductions in downstream prices and variety is beneficial to consumers or society

Allocating essential inputs

Regulators must often allocate essential inputs, such as spectrum rights, transmission capacity or airport landing slots, which can transform the structure of the downstream market. These decisions involve a trade-off, as provisions aimed at fostering competition and lowering prices for consumers, also tend to limit the proceeds from the sale of the inputs. We first characterize the optimal allocation, from the standpoints of consumer and total welfare. We then note that standard auctions yield substantially different outcomes. Finally, we show how various regulatory instruments can be used to implement the desired allocation