Assessment of Innovation Effects of Mergers

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Assessment of Innovation Effects of Mergers The adequate consideration of innovation effects of mergers in merger review was, and still is, one of the most controversially discussed issues between antitrust scholars. In this connection the question has been rai...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
1. Verfasser: Kern, Benjamin René
Beteiligte: Kerber, Wolfgang (Prof. Dr.) (BetreuerIn (Doktorarbeit))
Format: Dissertation
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Philipps-Universität Marburg 2015
Wirtschaftspolitik
Ausgabe:http://dx.doi.org/10.17192/z2015.0132
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:PDF-Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

1. Kerber, W. (1994): German Market Process Theory, in: Boettke, P. J. (Ed.), The Edward Elgar Com- panion to Austrian Economics, Aldershot: Edward Elgar 1994, pp. 500-507.


2. Qiu, L. D. (1997): On the Dynamic Efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot Equilibria, Journal of Economic Theory, 75, pp. 213‐229.


3. FTC (2009a): Horizontal Merger Guidelines Review Project (Workshop on December 3, 2009, tran- script)


4. Teece, D. J., G. Pisano, A. Shuen (1997): Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18:7, pp. 509–533.


5. Dasgupta, P., J. E. Stiglitz (1980): Uncertainty, Industrial Structure, and the Speed of R&D, The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 1-28.


6. Ahuja, G., R. Katila (2001): Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study, Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 197–220.


7. Newbert, S. L. (2007): Empirical Research on the Resource-Based View of the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestion for Future Research, Strategic Management Journal 28, pp.121-146.


8. Park, W. G., R. Sonenshine (2012): Impact of Horizontal Mergers on Research and Development and Patenting: Evidence from Merger Challenges in the U.S., Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12, pp. 143-167.


9. Sacco, D., A. Schmutzler (2011): Is there a U‐shaped Relation between Competition and Investment?, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29, pp. 65‐73.


10. Yin, X., E. Zuscovitch (1998): Is Firm Size Conducive to R&D Choice? A Strategic Analysis of Product and Process Innovations, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, pp. 243‐262.


11. Montgomery, A. A. (1995): Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm. Towards a Syn- thesis, Boston, Mass. et al.: Kluwer.


12. Rubinfeld, D. L., J. Hoven (2001): Innovation and Antitrust Enforcement, in: Ellig, J. (Ed.), Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues, Cambridge University Press, pp. 65-94.


13. Harty, R.P. (2010): Federal Antitrust Enforcement Priorities Under the Obama Administration, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 1, pp. 52-61.


14. Stucke, M.E., A.P. Grunes (2012): The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger: What Might Have Been?, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 3, pp. 196-205.


15. Aghion, P. et al. (2005): Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 2, pp. 701-728.


16. Aghion, P. et al. (2001): Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step‐by‐Step Innovation, Review of Economic Studies, 68, pp. 467‐492.


17. Barney, J. B. (1991): Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, pp.99-120


18. Schmutzler, A. (2010): Is Competition Good for Innovation? A Simple Approach to an Unresolved Question, Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics, Vol. 5, pp. 355-428.


19. Shapiro, C. (2010): The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines: From Hedgehog to Fox in Forty Years, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 77, pp. 701-759.


20. Ceccagnoli, M. (2005): Firm Heterogeneity, Imitation, and the Incentives for Cost Reducing R&D Ef- fort, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 53, pp. 83‐100.


21. Crane, D. A. (2012b): The Obama Justice Department's Merger Enforcement Record: A Reply to Baker and Shapiro, Stanford Law Review Online, 65, pp. 41-46.


22. Katz, M. L., H. A. Shelanski (2007b): Merger Analysis and the Treatment of Uncertainty: Should we expect better? Antitrust Law Journal, 74, pp. 537-574.


23. Christiansen, A., W. Kerber (2006): Competition Policy with Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of " Per Se Rules vs. Rule of Reason " , Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2, pp. 215–244.


24. Scherer, F. M., D. Ross (1990): Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 3 rd Ed., Bos- ton, Houghton-Mifflin.


25. Stewart, M. B. (1983): Noncooperative Oligopoly and Preemptive Innovation without Winner-take‐all, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, pp. 681‐694.


26. Loury, G. C. (1979): Market Structure and Innovation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 93, pp. 395-410.


27. Kamien, M. I., N. L. Schwartz (1976): On the degree of rivalry for maximum innovative activity, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, pp. 245‐260.


28. Harris, C., J. Vickers (1987): Racing with Uncertainty, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 54, pp.1-21.


29. Gilbert, R., D. L. Rubinfeld (2010): Revising the Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Lessons from the EU and the U.S., Competition Policy Center, University of California Berkeley (February 2010).


30. Culbertson, J. D., W. F. Mueller (1985): The Influence of Market Structure on Technological Perfor- mance in the Food-Manufacturing Industries, Review of Industrial Organization, 2, pp.40-54.


31. Link, A. N., J. Lunn (1984): Concentration and the Returns to R&D, Review of Industrial Organization, 1, pp. 232-239.


32. Hovenkamp, H. (2011): Harm to Competition Under the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, Review of Industrial Organization, 39, pp. 3-18.


33. Hylton, K. N. (2011): Brown Shoe versus the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, Review of Industrial Or- ganization, 39, pp. 95-106.


34. Fudenberg, D. et al. (1983): Preemption, Leapfrogging and Competition in Patent Races, European Economic Review, Vol. 22, pp. 3-31.


35. Kern, B. R. (2014): Innovation Markets, Future Markets, or Potential Competition: How should Compe- tition Authorities account for Innovation Competition in Merger Reviews?, World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 37, pp. 137-206.


36. Drexl, J. (2012): Anti-Competitive Stumbling Stones on the Way to a Cleaner World: Protecting Com- petition in Innovation without a Market, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 8, pp. 507-543.


37. DOJ/FTC (2010): Horizontal Merger Guidelines', available at HTTP://WWW.FTC.GOV/OS/2010/08/100819HMG.PDF (Dec. 13, 2012).


38. Baxter, W. F. (1985): The Definition and Measurement of Market Power in Industries Characterized by Rapidly Developing and Changing Technologies, Antitrust Law Journal 53, pp. 717-732.


39. Lang, J. T. (1997): European Community Antitrust Law: Innovation Markets and High Technology In- dustries, 20 Fordham International Law Journal, 20 (3), pp. 717-818.


40. Kerber, W., N. Saam (2001): Competition as a Test of Hypotheses: Simulation of Knowledge- generating Market Processes, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASSS), Vol. 4, No. 3, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/3/2.html (Oct. 6, 2014).


41. Sidak, J. G., D. J. Teece (2009): Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 5(4), pp. 581–631.


42. Besen, St. M., St. D. Kletter, S. X. Moresi, St. C. Salop, J.R. Woodbury (2012): An Economic Analy- sis of the AT&T-T-Mobile Wireless Merger, Journal of Competition Law & Economics 9, pp. 23 -47.


43. De Man, A.-P., G. Duysters (2005): Collaboration and Innovation: A Review of the Effects of Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances on Innovation, Technovation, 25, pp.1377-1387.


44. Cloodt, M., J. Hagedoorn, H. van Kranenburg (2006): Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries, Research Policy, 35, pp. 642–654.


45. Polder, M., E. Veldhuizen (2012): Innovation and Competition in the Netherlands: Testing the Inverted‐ U for Industries and Firms, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12, pp. 67‐91.


46. Gilbert, R., D. Newbery (1982): Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly, The American Economic Review, 72, 3, pp. 514-526.


47. Reinganum, J. F. (1983): Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly, American Economic Review, 73, pp. 741‐748.


48. D'Aspremont, C., A. Jacquemin (1988): Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillo- vers, The American Economic Review, 78, pp. 1133-1137.


49. Angelmar, R. (1985): Market Structure and Research Intensity in High-Technological-Opportunity In- dustries, Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, pp. 69-79.


50. Lunn, J. (1986): An Empirical Analysis of Process and Product Patenting: A Simultaneous Equation Framework, Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, pp. 319-330.


51. Easterbrook, F. H. (1992): Ignorance and Antitrust, in: Jorde, T. M., D. J. Teece (Eds.). Antitrust, Inno- vation, and Competitiveness. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 119-136.


52. Rosch, J. T. (2009): Antitrust Regulation of Innovation Markets. Remarks of J. Thomas Rosch, Com- missioner, Federal Trade Commission, ABA Antitrust Intellectual Property Conference, Berkeley CA; Februar 5, 2009.


53. Ellig, J., D. Lin (2001): A Taxonomy of Dynamic Competition Theories, in: Ellig, J., Dynamic Competi- tion and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, pp. 16-44.


54. DOJ/FTC (2006): Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines. March 2006.


55. Carlton, D.W. (2010): Comment on Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission's Proposed Horizontal Merger Guidelines, mimeo.


56. Shapiro, C. (2012): Competition and Innovation: Did Arrow Hit the Bull's Eye?, in: Lerner, J., S. Stern (Eds.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 361-404.


57. Hayek, F. A. v. (1978): Competition as a Discovery Procedure, in: von Hayek, F. A. (Ed.), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 179-190.


58. Motta, M. (2004): Competition Policy. Theory and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


59. Linge, G. (2008): Competition Policy, Innovation, and Diversity, Marburg: Tectum.


60. Thompson, M. W. (2004): Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson Genzyme Corporation's Acquisition of Novazyme Pharmaceuticals Inc., File No. 021-0026, available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-closes-its-investigation-genzyme- corporations-2001-acquisition-novazyme-pharmaceuticals-inc./thompsongenzymestmt.pdf (Oct. 6, 2014).


61. Arrow, K. J. (1962): Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources to Invention', in Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Economic Activity, Princeton University Press, pp. 609-626.


62. Baker, J. B., C. Shapiro (2012): Evaluating Merger Enforcement During the Obama Administration, Stanford Law Review Online 65, pp. 28-34.


63. Cohen, W. M. (2010): Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance. Hand- books in Economics, Volume 01, Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier, pp. 129-213.


64. Grimpe, C., K. Hussinger (2007): Firm Acquisition and Technology Strategy: Corporate versus Private Equity Investors, ZEW Discussion Papers No. 07-066.


65. Scherer, F. M. (1965): Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity and the Output of Patented Inventions, The American Economic Review, 55, pp. 1097-1125.


66. EU Commission (2004): Guidelines on the Assessment of Horizontal Mergers, OJ (2004) / C 31/03.


67. Crane, D. A. (2012a): Has the Obama Justice Department Reinvigorated Antitrust Enforcement? Stan- ford Law Review Online, 65, pp. 13-20.


68. DOJ/FTC (1992, rev. 1997): Horizontal Merger Guidelines, (rev. 1997), available at HTTP://WWW.JUSTICE.GOV/ATR/PUBLIC/GUIDELINES/HMG.PDF (Dec. 13, 2012).


69. Gilbert, R. J., S. C. Sunshine (1995): Incorporating Dynamic Efficiency Concerns in Merger Analysis: The Use of Innovation Markets, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 63, pp. 569-601.


70. Landman, L. B. (1999), Innovation and the Structure of Competition: Future Markets in European and American Law, Part I-III, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Vol. 81, pp. 728-881.


71. Davis, R. W. (2003): Innovation Markets and Merger Enforcement: Current Practice in Perspective, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 71, pp. 677-703.


72. 67 For example, Kent (2011) favours the "future market" concept in comparison with the innovation market concept in his analysis of pharmaceutical merger cases.


73. Scherer, F. M. (1967): Market Structure and the Employment of Scientists and Engineers, American Economic Review, 57, pp. 524-531.


74. Feng, K. (2012): Patent-Related Mergers and Market Definition under the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines: The Need to Consider Technology and Innovation Markets, T. Jefferson Law Review, 34, pp. 197-224.


75. Lin, P., K. Saggi (2002): Product Differentiation, Process R&D, and the Nature of Market Competition, European Economic Review, 46, pp. 201‐211.


76. AAI (2010): Proposed Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Views of the American Antitrust Institute (June 4, 2010).


77. Balto, D. A., S. A. Sher (2004): Refining the Innovation Focus: The FTC's Genzyme Decision, 18 (2) Antitrust pp. 28-33.


78. AMC (2007): Report and Recommendations. Antitrust Modernization Commission, April 2007.


79. Katz, M. L., C. Shapiro (1987): Research‐and‐Development Rivalry with Licensing or Imitation, Ameri- can Economic Review, 77, pp. 402‐420.


80. Kern, B. R., M. Ackermann (2014): Shedding Some Light on the Dark Matter of Competition: Insights from the Strategic Management & Organizational Science Literature for the Consideration of Di- versity Aspects in Merger Review, MAGKS -Joint Discussion Paper Series In Economics, No.05- 2014, available at http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/magkspapers/05- 2014_ackermann.pdf (Feb. 9, 2014).


81. Muris, T. J. (2004), Statement of Chairman Timothy J. Muris in the matter of Genzyme/Novazyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc., File No. 021-0026, available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-closes-its-investigation-genzyme- corporations-2001-acquisition-novazyme-pharmaceuticals-inc./murisgenzymestmt.pdf (Oct. 6, 2014).


82. Morse, H. M. (2001): The Limits of Innovation Markets, Antitrust & Intellectual Property, Vol. 2, pp. 22- 35.


83. Hitt, M. J, R. E. Hoskisson, R. A. Johnson, D. D. Moesel (1996): The market for corporate control and firm innovation, Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp.1084-1119.


84. Rapp, R. T. (1995): The Misapplication of the Innovation Market Approach to Merger Analysis, Anti- trust Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 19-47.


85. Higgins, M. J., D. Rodriguez (2006): The outsourcing of R&D through acquisition in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Financial Economics, 80, pp. 351–383.


86. Mansfield, E., et al. (1977): The Production and Application of New Industrial Technologies, New York.


87. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934): The Theory of Economic Development. A Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Cred- it, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


88. Cohen, W. M., S. Klepper (1992): The Trade off Between Form Size and Diversity in the Pursuit of Technological Progress, Small Business Economics 4, pp. 1-14.


89. Carrier, M. A. (2008): Two Puzzles Resolved: Of the Schumpeter-Arrow Stalemate and Pharmaceuti- cal Markets, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 93, pp. 393-450.


90. Nelson, R. R. (1961): Uncertainty, Learning, and the Economics of Parallel R and D Efforts, Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, pp. 351-364.


91. Kerber, W., U. Schwalbe (2008): Economic Principles of Competition Law, in: Hirsch, G., F. Montag, F.-J. Säcker (Eds.), Competition Law: European Community Practice and Procedure -Article-by- article Commentary, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2008, pp. 202-393.


92. Kerber, W. (2011): Competition, Innovation and Maintaining Diversity Through Competition Law, in: Drexl, J. et al. (Eds.), Economic Approaches to Competition Law: Foundations and Limitations, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 173-201.


93. AAI (2011): The Effect of AT&T's Acquisition of T-Mobile is Likely to Substantially Lessen Competition, White Book, Washington, D.C.


94. Ginsburg, D. H., J. D. Wright (2012): Dynamic Analysis and the Limits of Antitrust Institutions, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 78, pp. 1-21.


95. Kent, B. (2011): Innovation Market Theory and Practice: An Analysis and Proposal for Reform, Com- petition Policy International, 7, pp. 159-189.


96. Kern, B. R., J. M. Mantilla Contreras (2014): Mergers and the Incentives to Undertake Product Orient- ed R&D: First Steps Towards an Assessment Approach, MAGKS -Joint Discussion Paper Series In Economics, No.17-2014, available at http://www.uni- marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/magkspapers/17-2014_kern.pdf (Jul. 17, 2014)


97. Carlton, D. W. (2007): Does Antitrust Need to be Modernized?, Journal of Economic Perspectives 21, pp. 155-176.


98. Baker, J. B. (2007): Beyond Schumpeter vs. Arrow: How Antitrust Fosters Innovation, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 74, pp. 575‐602.


99. Boone, J. (2000): Competitive Pressure: The Effects on Investments in Product and Process Innova- tion, The RAND Journal of Economics, 31, 3, pp. 549-569.


100. Hay, G. A. (1995): Innovations in Antitrust Enforcement, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 7-17.


101. Gilbert, R. J. (2008b): Innovation Markets after Genzyme/Novazyme, GCP The Online Magazine For Global Competition Policy (January 2008), available at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=richard_gilbert (Aug. 7, 2013).


102. Gilbert, R. J. (2008a): Competition and Innovation, in: Collins, W. D. (Ed.), Issues in Competition Law and Policy 1, Chicago: American Bar Association, Antitrust Section, pp. 577-600.


103. Baker, J. B. (2008): " Dynamic Competition" Does not Excuse Monopolization, Competition Policy In- ternational 4 (2), pp. 243-251.


104. Kovacic, W. E. (2009): Assessing the Quality of Competition Policy: The Case of Horizontal Merger Enforcement, Competition Policy International, 5, pp. 129-150.


105. Evans, D., K. Hylton (2008): The Lawful Acquisition and Exercise of Monopoly Power and its Implica- tions for the Objectives of Antitrust, Competition Policy International, Vol. 4, pp. 203-241.


106. Nelson, R. R., (1995): Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change, Journal of Economic Literature, 33, pp. 48-90.


107. Vives, X (2008): Innovation and Competitive Pressure, Journal of Industrial Economics, 56, pp. 419‐ 469.


108. Gilbert, R. J., W. K. Tom (2001): Is Innovation King at the Antitrust Agencies?: The Intellectual Proper- ty Guidelines Five Years Later, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 69, pp. 43-86.


109. Stahl, J. C. (2010): Mergers and Sequential Innovation: Evidence from Patent Citations, Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Re- serve Board, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201012/201012pap.pdf (Oct. 6, 2014).


110. Harbour, P. J. (2004): Dissenting Statement of Pamela J. Harbour Genzyme Corporation's Acquisition of Novazyme Pharmaceuticals Inc., File No. 021-0026, available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/418511/harbourgenzymestmt.pdf (Aug. 20, 2013).


111. Doraszelski, U. (2003): An R&D Race with Knowledge Accumulation, RAND Journal of Economics, 34, pp. 20‐42.


112. Yao, D. A, S. S. DeSanti (1992): Innovation Issues under the 1992 Merger Guidelines, Antitrust Law Journal, 61, pp. 505-521.


113. Hoerner, R. J. (1995), Innovation Markets: New Wine in old Bottles?, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 49-73.


114. Beckner, C. F., S. C. Salop (1999): Decision Theory and Antitrust Rules. Antitrust Law Journal 67, pp. 41-76.


115. DOJ/FTC (1995): Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm#t323 (Oct. 24, 2013).


116. James, A. D., L. Georghiou, J. S. Metcalfe (1998): Integrating technology into merger and acquisition decision making, Technovation, 18, pp. 563-573.


117. Metcalfe, S. J. (1998): Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, London and New York: Routledge.


118. Gilbert, R. J. (2006): Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation De- bate?, in: Jaffe, A. B. et al. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 6, MIT Press, pp. 159- 215.


119. Levin, R. C., P. C. Reiss (1984): Tests of a Schumpeterian Model of R&D and Market Structure, in: Griliches, Z. (Ed.): R&D, Patents, and Productivity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 175- 208.


120. Scott, J. T. (1984): Firm versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity, in: Griliches, Z. (Ed.): R&D, Pa- tents, and Productivity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 233-240.


121. Hall, B. H., E. Berndt, R. C. Levin (1990): The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, 3, pp.85-124.


122. Dutta, P. K, S. Lach, A. Rustichini (1995): Better Late Than Early: Vertical Differentiation in the Adop- tion of a New Technology, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 4, pp. 563-589.


123. Evans, D., R. Schmalensee (2002): Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries, NBER Working Paper No. 8268, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w8268.pdf (Oct. 6, 2014).


124. Carlton, D. W., R. H. Gertner (2003): Intellectual Property, Antitrust and Strategic Behavior, in Jaffe, A. B. et al. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 3, MIT Press, pp. 29-59.


125. Tang, J. (2006): Competition and innovation behavior, Research Policy, 35, pp. 68-82.


126. Reinganum, J. F. (1989): The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development, and Diffusion, Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1, pp. 849‐908.


127. Teece, D. J. (1986): Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy 15, pp. 285-305.


128. Pleatsikas, C., D. Teece (2001): The analysis of market definition and market power in the context of rapid innovation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, pp. 665–693.


129. Boone, J. (2001): Intensity of Competition and the Incentive to Innovate, International Journal of Indus- trial Organization, 19, pp. 705-726.


130. Ornaghi, C. (2009): Mergers and Innovation in Big Pharma, International Journal of Industrial Organi- zation, 27, pp. 70–79.


131. Bonanno, G., B. Haworth (1998): Intensity of Competition and the Choice between Product and Pro- cess Innovation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16, pp. 495-510.


132. Kern, B. R., R. Dewenter, W. Kerber (2014): Empirical Analysis of the Assessment of Innovation Ef- fects in U.S. Merger Cases, MAGKS -Joint Discussion Paper Series In Economics, No.50-2014, available at http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/magkspapers/50-2014_kerber.pdf (Sep. 20, 2014).