Search results

The aim of this work is to investigate the risk of anti competitive behaviour implied by temporary groups of service providers. The point bears policy implications as local authorities, following European Union directives, have stressed the role of such alliances in the public procurement of services. We first summarize the fragmented literature on temporary horizontal alliances in public works and services. We then deal with a case study on local public transport in order to evaluate the performance of temporary groups of service providers. The coopetitive perspective is finally discussed as an explanation stressing that, within firms’ groups, both processes of value creation and value sharing take place.

We study how different rules for allocating litigation costs impact on royalty negotiation when a non-practicing patent holder asserts its patent against a product developer.

A theoretical framework is proposed which distinguishes between three legal-cost allocation systems: the American system, where each party bears its own costs; the British system, where the loser incurs all costs; and the system favoring the defendant, where the defendant pays its own costs if it loses and nothing otherwise. The model considers both flat lawyer fees and contingency fees.

We first determine conditions under which, in the assumed contexts, the American system is preferable to the British one. Successively, we show that the less usual system favoring the defendant proves to be an interesting alternative.

In this way, in addition to extend the standard model of patent holdup, we furnish an analytical treatment of recent legislative proposals, such as the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act of 2013.