Profit-enhancing know-how disclosure: A strategic view∗

Noriaki Matsushima† and

Susumu Ogawa

Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University
April 30, 2008

Abstract
In general, the disclosure of know-how and technological knowledge could harm the disclosing
firm. Firms, however, often share their know-how freely and yet enhance their profits. We provide
a theoretical framework and a new insight into know-how disclosure. We consider a multiproductoligopolistic market in which an incumbent firm that can disclose its cost-reducing know-how andseveral new entrants exist. Each firm supplies products in two separate markets. The incumbent
firm has already allocated its production resources to one market (market A) and discloses its
know-how concerning production in market A. We show that the disclosure of know-how forcost reduction can enhance the profit of the incumbent (the disclosing) firm. Using the disclosed
know-how, the entrants can produce for a low cost in market A and allocate their production
resources to the other market. As a result, competition in market A is less severe than that in thecase in which the incumbent does not disclose its know-how. We also provide several extensionsof the basic scenario.

JEL classification codes: L13, M21, D21
Key words: know-how, disclosure, resource allocation, multiproduct firms∗ We thank Takanori Ago, Masahiro Ashiya, Ikuo Ishibashi, Toshihiro Matsumura, Hiroshi Mukunoki, for helpfulcomments and suggestions. We especially thank Manabu Mizuno for his helpful tasks and suggestions. We also thankthe seminar participants at Kobe University, Shinshu University, Toyama University, and User Innovation Conference
2007 (Copenhagen). We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young
Scientists from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Needless to say, we are responsible for any
remaining errors.
†

Correspondence author: Noriaki Matsushima, Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University,
2-1 Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe, Hyogo 657-8501, Japan. Phone: +81-78-803-6981. Fax: +81-78-803-6977. E-mail:nmatsush@kobe-u.ac.jp1

1

Introduction

1.1

Motivation and related papers

Basically, disclosure of know-how and technological knowledge is beneficial from the viewpoint of social
welfare. Such behavior, however, could rebound on the disclosing firm. To encourage the disclosureof know-how or knowledge related to production efficiency improvement, the governments of many
countries ensure exclusive rights of innovators through patent laws, and innovators can license theirknow-how or technological knowledge to firms and institutes. In the literature of know-how disclosure,therefore, the following two topics are discussed with great interest: (1) how to licence (see Kamien
and Tauman (1984, 1986), Katz and Shapiro (1985, 1986), and Muto (1993), among others) and (2)how to protect innovators (see Gilbert and Shapiro (1990), Klemperer (1990), Denicolò and Franzoni(2004) and other special issues of the RAND Journal of Economics (see Saloner (1990)) as well as
Scotchmer (2004)).
On the other hand, some researchers point out that innovating firms often do not sell or license
their innovation but instead freely reveal the details of their innovation to rival firms. For instance, vonHippel (1988) points out that rival firms in the steel mini-mill industry routinely exchanged technicalinformation, and he proposes a theory of know-how sharing based on the idea that it reduces costs(see also von Hippel and Schrader (1996)).1
In the literature of economics, some researchers discuss the profitability of freely revealing knowledge related to production technologies (e.g. cost-reducing higher skills). We now concentrate on
three papers that treat revelations of technical information to all the players in the market. This typeof revelation is also discussed in our paper and is the main concern of this study.
In his examination of the history of technical advances in England’s Cleveland district during
the nineteenth century, Allen (1983, pp.18–20) provides three situations in which the revelation oftechnical information might be profitable. One of them is as follows. If the production process
involves a natural resource that commands a rent, and if the invention lowers the firms’ processing
costs of only that portion of the resource with certain characteristics, then the owners of those firms
1 Eaton and Eswaran (2001) construct a model based on the idea of von Hippel (1988).

2

might benefit from releasing technical information.2
In the R&D literature, De Fraja (1993) considers an R&D tournament in which two firms invest
until an innovation occurs.3 In his model, when the payoff of the loser is close to that of the winner, thefirms disclose their knowledge concerning R&D investments because disclosure shortens the expected
duration of the R&D competition and reduces investment costs.
Free revelation of knowledge and know-how is observed in the information technology industry.4
As pointed out by Mustonen (2005), some firms create competition by supporting open-source communities, in which programs are substituted for another firm’s programs. Based on the idea of Lerner andTirole (2002), Mustonen (2005) develops an analytical model in which a copyright firm and a copyleft(open-source) community compete in a program market and shows that the copyright firm makes its
program compatible with that of the copyleft community and supports the copyleft community if the
network effect of the program is weak.
In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework to show a new insight into know-how disclosure
related to production technologies. An incumbent firm that can disclose its cost-reducing know-how
and several new entrants exist. If the incumbent firm discloses its know-how, all entrants learn it, andtheir production costs decrease. Under some conditions, through the disclosure, the incumbent firm
can achieve a higher profit.
We now explain the basic setting of our model. We consider a multiproduct oligopolistic market.
An incumbent firm that can disclose its cost-reducing know-how and several new entrants exist. Eachfirm supplies its products in two separate markets, A and B. Each multiproduct firm has to allocate
its production resource for the markets. If a firm allocates its resource for market A, it can produce
a lower marginal cost in market A, but it has to incur a higher marginal cost in market B.5 The
2 The remaining situations are as follows. (1) If the world is characterized by competition among firms in different

regions with different relative factor prices, each region can lower its costs and raise resource rents relative to otherregions by practicing collective invention and broadcasting technical information. (2) Output and profits would begreater if the existing regime of trade secrets were replaced by a new regime of free information exchange. Based on
one of the possibilities listed by Allen (1983), Cowan and Jonard (2003) developed a formal model that accounts forthe dynamics of knowledge and collective invention and demonstrated that a communication network structure has astrong influence on system performance.
3 In the context of an R&D race, Bar (2006) considers the strategic publishing of research findings.
4 See Kende (1998), Raymond (1999), and Lerner and Tirole (2002)
5 This setting is somewhat similar to the spatial discrimination model, in which firms choose their locations.

3Forincumbent firm has already allocated its resources to market A and discloses its know-how concerning
production in market A. From such disclosure, the entrants can economize on their production inmarket A. In our paper, we assume that the disclosed know-how is more effective for an entrant that
allocates its resources to market B (called type B) than for one that allocates its resources to market
A (called type A). In the literature on R&D, as the efficiency of a product improves, the marginal
effect of cost-reducing activities decreases. We now apply these steps to our settings. In market A,
type A is more efficient than type B. Therefore, the benefit from know-how disclosure for type A issmaller than for type B.6
Such resource allocations are commonly observed in many industries. For instance, if in theautomobile industry, the “market” is represented by car size, resource allocation by a firm may indicatethat the firm produces small cars efficiently and large cars inefficiently. In the consumer electronics
industry, possible interpretations of the “market” include televisions, refrigerators, and electronicovens, and a resource allocation by a firm could be interpreted as its ability to produce televisions
efficiently while being unable to produce electronic ovens efficiently.
From the model, we show that the disclosure of know-how for the purpose of cost reduction canenhance the profit of the incumbent (disclosing) firm. That is, it is possible that revealing technicalinformation could be profitable. We now show the intuition behind this result. First, suppose thatthe incumbent does not disclose its know-how. In this case, some entrants allocate their resources
to market A, while others allocate theirs to market B. The number of firms that allocate theirresources to market A is nearly equal to that of firms that allocate to market B. Now, suppose thatthe incumbent discloses its know-how. Using the disclosed know-how, each entrant can produce its
product at a low marginal cost in market A. Allocating their resources to market A is ineffective forthe entrants. Know-how disclosure induces some entrants to change the allocation patterns of theirresources, which mitigates the competition in market A because the number of tough competitors inmarket A (firms allocating their resources to market A) decreases because of know-how disclosure.
discussions of the spatial discrimination model, see Hamilton, Thisse, and Weskamp (1989), Anderson and Neven (1991),
Pal (1998), and Matsushima (2001), among others.
6 To clarify the analysis, we assume that the benefit of know-how disclosure for type A is sufficiently small. In thelatter part of the introduction, we provide the intuition behind the result based on this assumption.

4

The decrease in the number of competitors is beneficial for the incumbent firm. Of course, know-how
disclosure reduces the production costs of entrants in market A who allocate their resources to market
B. This is harmful for the incumbent firm. These are trade-offs. In our model, if the incumbent firm
sets the degree of know-how disclosure appropriately, the former positive effect dominates the latter
negative one. Therefore, revealing technical information may be profitable.
In the model, know-how disclosure can harm entrants who allocate resources to market B. As mentioned earlier, know-how disclosure reduces production costs of entrants into market A who allocate
their resources to market B, which is beneficial for them. On the other hand, know-how disclosure
induces some entrants to change the allocation patterns of their resources. It enhances the competitionin market B because the number of tough competitors in market B (firms allocating their resources
to market B) increases because of know-how disclosure. These are trade-offs. In this sense, the profits
of the entrants who allocate their resources to market B are seen as the flip side of the profit of theincumbent. The result implies that the incumbent firm may disclose its know-how in its industry asa payoff-enhancing entry deterrent.
Signaling and disclosure elements have been analyzed by economics researchers.7 Some of these
discuss knowledge disclosure to all market participants, which is also discussed in our paper.
Bhattacharya and Ritter (1983) discuss a situation in which an asymmetrically informed agent
is motivated to communicate a privately known attribute. To raise external financing in the capital
market, the informed agent has to disclose technological information of direct usefulness to competitors. The firm, therefore, faces a trade-off between reducing the value of its informational advantage
and raising finance on better terms that reflect its innovation prospects. The main concern in theirpaper is knowledge disclosure as a credible persuasive device, and this mechanism is quite different
from that in our paper.
Anton and Yao (2004) discuss how much of an innovation should be disclosed and how much should
be kept secret.8 An innovating firm has private information about an invention that enables firms
7 See for instance, Okuno-Fujiwara, Postlewaite, and Suzumura (1990) and Anton and Yao (1994).
8 Anton and Yao (2003) also consider the strategic transmission of enabling information. There is potential value toan innovator firm in signaling a strong capability via a disclosure that transfers technical knowledge to a competitor.
They show a positive relation between the degree of knowledge transfer and the efficiency of the innovator.

5to reduce their marginal costs. The innovating firm decides whether to protect via patent and how
much of the invention to disclose. They show that in a large innovation range, the innovator eschews
a patent and partially discloses its knowledge.
The paper proceeds as follows. The next subsection provides a quantitative example of our basicmodel. Section 2 discusses the case of a Japanese supermarket chain. Section 3 outlines the basicmodel. Section 4 presents results, and Section 5 extends the basic model. Finally, Section 6 offerssome concluding remarks. The proofs of the paper are presented in the supplementary material on
the author’s web site (http://norick.sakura.ne.jp/research/pend.pdf).

1.2

Quantitative example

We now provide a quantitative example to clarify the mechanism of our main results.
There are four multiproduct firms. Firm I is the incumbent firm, and firms 1, 2, and 3 areentrants. Each firm supplies its products in two separated markets, A and B. Market i is for producti (i = A, B). Let pi denote the price of the production in market i (i = A, B), and let qi denote its
quantity. The demand functions in markets A and B for the products are represented by qA = 1 − pA
and qB = 1 − pB , respectively. In each market, the firms compete in quantity.
Each multiproduct firm supplies its products to the markets. Each has to locate in one of themarkets. Each firm can produce its product without costs in the market in which it locates, while it
has to incur a constant marginal cost t to produce its product in the other market. To ensure positive
quantities supplied by each firm, we assume that t < 1/4. We can interpret “market” as varieties ofgoods, and the point of a firm’s location as the firm’s most efficient sector.
Firm I has already located at A, that is, it has already allocated its resources to product A. The
other firms decide where to locate. Before they choose their locations, firm I decides whether todisclose its know-how concerning product A. If it discloses its know-how, a firm locating at B can
produce product A with a constant marginal cost τ (< t) (τ is a positive constant). That is, know-how
disclosure by firm I reduces the marginal costs of the rivals. The disclosure helps entrants making
units of product A. By controlling the amount of information concerning the product that it efficiently
produces, firm I is able to control the level of τ .

6

The game runs as follows. In the first stage, firm I decides whether to disclose its know-how
concerning product A. If it decides to disclose, it sets the level of τ . In the second stage, given thedecision of firm I, firms 1, 2, and 3 decide where to locate. In the third stage, given the locations of
the firms, each firm decides on the quantities to supply to the markets.
Before we discuss the main concern, we show the result of n-firm quantity (Cournot) competition.
Let ci (i = 1, . . . , n) be the constant marginal cost of firm i. When the (inverse) demand function isp = 1 − Q (p: price; Q: the aggregate industry output), the profit of firm i (πi ) is:
πi =

(1 +

Pn

2
j=1 cj − (n + 1)ci ).
(n + 1)2

We consider two cases: (i) firm I does not disclose its know-how, and (ii) firm I discloses its know-how.
We now discuss the locations of firms.
When firm I does not disclose its know-how, the following location pattern is a unique equilibriumoutcome: 2 firms (including firm I) locate at A, and two firms locate at B. Under the location pattern,each firm’s profit is:
πA = πB =(1 + 2t)2(1 + 2t − 5t)2
2 − 2t + 13t2
+
=
.
25
25
25

(1)

When firm I discloses its know-how and sets the value of τ at τ = t − t2 , the following location
pattern is the unique equilibrium outcome: firm I locates at A, and the other three firms locate at
B. Under this location pattern, each firm’s profit is:
d
πA

=

d
πB

=

(1 + 3(t − t2 ))2(1 + t − 5t)2
2 − 2t + 19t2 − 18t3 + 9t4
+
=
,
25
25
25
(1 + 3(t − t2 ) − 5(t − t2 ))2(1 + t)2
2 − 2t + 9t2 − 8t3 + 4t4
+
=
.
25
25
25

(2)

The discussion turns now to the difference in firm I’s profit when it discloses its know-how and when
it does not. From (1) and (2), the difference is as follows:dπA− πA =

3t2 (2 − 6t + 3t2 )> 0, (t < 1/4).
25

That is, the disclosure of its know-how is beneficial for firm I. A lower value of τ (< t) induces achange in the location of one entrant firm. In our model, the cost-reducing know-how has an effect7

on the specialization strategies (location strategies) of entrant firms. Through know-how disclosure,locating at B is more profitable for entrant firms, so the number of firms in market A is smaller thanin market B. The competition condition in market A becomes less competitive. Note that if thenumber of firms in the markets is fewer than four, know-how disclosure does not function becausesuch a locational distortion does not matter.

2

The case of a Japanese supermarket chain

2.1

Background

Commonly, a firm would never disclose its know-how. However, there are firms that act in a mannerthat differs from this common practice. For example, it is known that Kansai Supermarket (hereinafterreferred to as KSP), a regional supermarket chain in Japan, actively disclosed its own know-how topotential rivals between 1970 and 1985, which was a growth period for the supermarket industry inJapan.
KSP, a regional chain, was established in 1959. As the “Kansai” in its name indicates, KSP is aretailer with stores only in the Kansai region, which includes Osaka and Hyogo. In March 2004, thefirm had gross sales of approximately 102 billion yen, from a total of 51 stores.
It has been widely acknowledged by the industry and academic societies that KSP was a pioneerin Japan in the establishment of the supermarket business (Ishihara (1998)). Until KSP began toinnovate, it was believed that the job of controlling the freshness of such perishable foods as vegetables
and fish could only be performed by specialized craftsmen. In the 1970s, KSP analyzed the tacitknowledge possessed by craftsmen, broke down that knowledge, standardized it and put it into amanual. As a result, it became possible for KSP to realize a sales space in which even part-timeworkers, for low labor costs, could maintain freshness at the same level as that achieved by craftsmen.
It has been recognized in the industry that these activities by KSP were revolutionary, evidenced
by the fact that 91 articles about the activities of KSP appeared in the same monthly trade journal
Hanbai Kakushin, which means Revolution in Retailing in Japanese, between 1971 and 1984.

8

2.2

Know-how disclosure

The period from 1970 to 1985, when KSP was actively innovative, was the time that the supermarket
industry was established in Japan and was also a period of growth for the industry. Figure 1 shows
the fluctuations in the number of stores and gross sales amounts from 1975 to 1985 for Maruetsu andLife (both major supermarket chains), Okuwa (which operates on about the same scale as KSP) and
KSP.
[Insert Figure 1 about here.]
The gross sales per store are the only data available by which to compare the business results
for the stores at the time—and in comparing these data, we find from Figure 2 that KSP’s businessresults surpassed those of other firms.
[Insert Figure 2 about here.]
What we wish to draw attention to here is the fact that KSP, a supermarket chain that had
developed cutting-edge know-how, actively disclosed this to other firms in the same industry, including
its rivals. Rather than limiting itself to disclosing know-how through the above-mentioned magazine
articles, the firm actively disclosed it through the activities of a business exchange group. It has beenreported that a maximum of 77 supermarket firms participated in this group to absorb the know-how
of KSP (Mizuno (2005)).
This case example is very interesting for a number of reasons. First is the fact that the know-howthat KSP disclosed was at the cutting edge of the industry at the time. Second is the timing by which
KSP disclosed its know-how as it was developed. Third is the fact that among the firms to whom
KSP disclosed its know-how were rival supermarkets who had stores in the same geographical area.
The final reason is the fact that those firms spared no effort to obtain the know-how in question.
Innovation-related information such as know-how is sometimes difficult to transfer (von Hippel (1994)
and Ogawa (1998)). Thus, KSP not only allowed those firms to observe its stores and lent them
manuals but also sometimes even dispatched its own employees to instruct employees of the otherfirms and brought employees from the other firms into its own stores for a number of years in order
to transmit know-how to them.
9It would be difficult to understand the above-mentioned actions of KSP from the viewpoint thatknow-how that is unique to one’s own firm should be protected. However, that is only if one assumes
that the firm in question is a single-product firm that only handles one product. The moment one
assumes that the firm in question handles two or more products, it becomes possible for that firm tocreate a favorable situation for itself by disclosing its know-how to its rivals.
The KSP case presented here is not categorized into patterns concerning positive effects of knowhow disclosure (see Section 1.1). In the case of KSP, there are no reciprocities of know-how amongfirms, KSP has no input sectors or upstream firms, and there is no production complementarity or
network externality among KSP and other retailers. From the discussion above, we cannot say that
there are no effects of cost saving or signaling. This matter is discussed in Section 6.

2.3

Further observations

As mentioned above, the following is clarified by the analysis in this paper. That is, assuming that afirm handles more than one product, it may be possible for that firm to create a competitive advantage
for itself by disclosing know-how to its rivals. If a firm discloses to a rival know-how regarding a certain
product, it means that the rival to whom the disclosure is made will be in possession of know-how about
the product in question—and it will therefore think it reasonable to allocate management resources
to another product. As a result, the firm to whom the disclosure has been made will no longer sinkmanagement resources into the same product field as the firm that has disclosed know-how, enabling
the discloser to maintain its competitive advantage.
The analysis findings given above have also been observed in the case example of KSP, discussed
above. It has been reported that some of the rival firms to whom know-how about the managementof perishable foods was disclosed by KSP took action to differentiate themselves by selecting goods,
including deluxe imported goods and prepared food, among others (Ogawa, August 1, 2005; interviews
with the President of KSP).

10

3The model

There are n multiproduct firms. Firm I is the incumbent firm, and firms 1, 2, . . ., n − 1 are entrants.
Each firm supplies its products in two separate markets, A and B. Market i is for product i (i = A, B).
Let pi denote the price of the production in market i (i = A, B), and let qi denote its quantity. The
demand functions in markets A and B for the products are represented by qA = 1−pA and qB = 1−pB ,respectively. In each market, the firms compete in quantity.
Each multiproduct firm supplies its products to the markets. Each of them has to locate in one of
the markets. The incumbent can produce its product without costs in the market in which it locates,
while it has to incur a constant marginal cost c + t to produce its product in the other market. Each
entrant incurs a constant marginal cost c in the market in which it locates, while it has to incur aconstant marginal cost c + t to produce its product in the other market. That is, the incumbent
firm is more efficient than the entrants in the market in which it locates. As discussed in the former
section, KSP is a pioneering firm in its most advantageous market and has considerable know-how
about production. The assumption is congruent with the facts.
We can interpret “market” as varieties of goods and the point of a firm’s location as the firm’s
most efficient sector.9 For example, in the automobile industry, “space” represents car size, and afirm’s location indicates that the firm produces small cars efficiently but large cars inefficiently. In the
consumer electronics industry, possible interpretations of “space” include televisions, refrigerators, andelectric ovens, and a firm’s location could be interpreted as its ability to produce televisions efficiently
and its inability to produce electronic ovens efficiently.10
Firm I has already located at A, that is, it has already allocated its resources to product A. The
other firms decide where to locate. Before choosing their locations, firm I decides whether to disclose
its know-how concerning product A. If it does, a firm locating at B can produce product A with aconstant marginal cost c + τ (τ ∈ [0, t]). That is, know-how disclosure by firm I reduces the marginal
9 In a spatial price discrimination model, Matsushima and Matsumura (2003) use the interpretation.

We can alsointerpret the marginal cost t as a transport cost to supply the market in which it does not locate.
10 This interpretation is similar to those of Eaton and Schmitt (1994) and Norman and Thisse (1999).

flexible manufacturing systems (FMS), they use spatial price discrimination models.

11

To explaincosts of the rivals. The disclosure helps entrants making units of product A.
[Insert Table 1 here.]
The range of τ indicates the ability of the incumbent firm to make the entrants locating in market
B more competitive. As discussed in von Hippel (1994) and Ogawa (1998), innovation-related information such as know-how is sometimes difficult to transfer. Because of this difficulty, we assume thatthe value of τ cannot be negative.11
We have assumed that the effect of knowledge disclosure is asymmetric. The disclosed know-how
is effective only for the entrants locating in market B. In other words, nonspecialists in product A
can use the disclosed know-how, but specialists cannot use it. We now discuss examples related to ourassumption of cost-reducing know-how disclosure. We believe these examples to be somewhat similar
to our model setting.
We now consider a lecture on an intermediate microeconomic analysis (information found, forinstance, in an intermediate microeconomics textbook). The lecture is not useful for economists,
who already understand the topic, but it is useful for noneconomists. Therefore, this lecture is
redundant and ineffective for economists, and any improvement in their productivity is negligible.
However, it would provide additional knowledge and be effective for noneconomists, and improvementsin their productivity would be significant. In our model, firms locating at A correspond to theeconomists mentioned above, and firms locating at B correspond to the noneconomists. The knowhow disclosure by the incumbent firm corresponds to the lecture on intermediate microeconomic
analysis. If a disclosure of knowledge is similar in character to the lecture, our setting is plausible.12
We now provide another example.13 Consider the competition between Microsoft and Apple in
the operating system (OS) market. First, suppose that an upgrade of the Macintosh operating system
11 We admit that we assume disclosure to market A to be zero.

We mention the justification for this assumption
later. If we assume that the marginal cost of the entrant firms locating in market A decreases by the disclosure, theanalysis becomes more complicated.
12 Of course, we can make a counterexample of knowledge transfer.

Consider a seminar on advanced research inmathematical economics. The seminar is not useful for noneconomists but is useful for economists. The seminar may
inspire them to undertake new research papers. The noneconomists, however, can neither understand the seminar nor
take away any ideas. This type of knowledge transfer is unsuitable for our model.
13 This example is mentioned in Shaffer and Zettelmeyer (2002).

12

occurs and the new user interface is even easier to use than previously. The improvement in thecustomer interface is related to the concerns of Apple’s core consumers. Second, suppose that changes
in Apple’s networking support now enable Macs to be better integrated into PC networks. The
compatibility with prevailing PC standards is for the sake of consumers who care relatively more
about compatibility and who are thus more likely to prefer Windows (Apple’s noncore consumers).
The latter type of quality improvement is related to the cost reduction (know-how disclosure) in ourmodel. The noncore consumers are somewhat similar to the firms locating in market B (firms not
specializing in the disclosed technology).
We now discuss the relation between the activity by KSP and the effect of the know-how disclosure.
KSP disclosed know-how in several ways. The first was interviews published in trade journals (introduction in journals) and the second was presentation through lectures. Know-how made available
through journals and lectures was often information relating to visual items such as product line-up
and store layout. While the know-how disseminated via these two methods contributed to the increaseof productivity throughout the entire supermarket industry, such know-how was common knowledge
for firms dealing mainly in fresh food14 . This example is similar to the first one mentioned above.
The game runs as follows. In the first stage, firm I decides whether to disclose its know-how
concerning product A. If it decides to disclose, it sets the level of τ (τ ∈ [0, t]). In the second stage,
given the decision of firm I, n firms decide where to locate. In the third stage, given the locations of
the firms, each firm decides on the quantities to supply to the markets.
14 KSP also transferred know-how by accepting employees for OJT. In this case, firms that sent employees wereable to absorb hidden know-how of KSP, invisible property that cannot be obtained through store visits. Such knowhow contributed to competitive advantage in the fresh food sections of firms having absorbed the know-how. A large
number of firms that sent employees to obtain such know-how were newcomers from outside the industry. In contrast,

many firms that had already had know-how concerning food sales were satisfied with know-how acquired through trade
journals and lectures and did not send their employees for OJT. Such firms came to allocate resources with a focus on
delicatessen and processed food operations rather than fresh food (the relationship between the efficiency and allocationof resources will be discussed briefly in Section 5.3). Moreover, firms acquiring know-how through all three of thesemethods (mainly newly entered firms) had come to deal with the same selection of goods as KSP. For manufacturers,
this meant that supermarkets that had acquired know-how from KSP would purchase the same products that they were
supplying to KSP. KSP was, therefore, able to use this leverage to negotiate the price of products with manufacturesand succeeded in procuring products at lower prices. This result is consistent with the assumption of the model (SeeMizuno and Ogawa, 2004).

13

4

ResultWe now show the main results of the paper. Before we discuss our main concern, we show the resultof n-firm quantity (Cournot) competition.15 Let ci (i = 1, . . . , n) be the constant marginal cost of
firm i. When the (inverse) demand function is p = 1 − Q (p: price; Q: the aggregate industry output),the profit of firm i (πi ), Q, and consumer surplus (CS) are:Pn
Pn
Pn
(1 + j=1 cj − (n + 1)ci )2(n − j=1 cj )2
n − j=1 cj
πi =, CS =, Q=.
(n + 1)2
n+1
2(n + 1)2

(3)

In the following two subsections, we consider two cases: (1) firm I does not disclose its know-how,and (2) firm I discloses its know-how. We now discuss the locations of firms.

4.1

Nondisclosure of know-how

Suppose that the incumbent and k entrant firms locate at A, and n − (k + 1) firms locate at B
(k = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1). The profit of the incumbent firm (denoted as πI (k, t)), the profit of the entrant
firm locating at A (denoted as πA (k, t)), and the profit of the firm locating at B (denoted as πB (k, t))are:πI (k, t) ==πA (k, t)==πB (k, t)==(1 + (n − 1)c + ((k + 1) × 0 + (n − k − 1)t) − (n + 1) × 0)2(n + 1)2(1 + nc + ((k + 1)t + (n − k − 1) × 0) − (n + 1)(c + t))2+(n + 1)2(1 + (n − 1)c + (n − k − 1)t)2(1 − c − (n − k)t)2+,(n + 1)2(n + 1)2(1 + (n − 1)c + ((k + 1) × 0 + (n − k − 1)t) − (n + 1)c)2(n + 1)2(1 + nc + ((k + 1)t + (n − k − 1) × 0) − (n + 1)(c + t))2+(n + 1)2(1 − 2c + (n − k − 1)t)2(1 − c − (n − k)t)2+,2(n + 1)(n + 1)2(1 + (n − 1)c + ((k + 1) × 0 + (n − k − 1)t) − (n + 1)(c + t))2(n + 1)2(1 + nc + ((k + 1)t + (n − k − 1) × 0) − (n + 1)c)2+(n + 1)2(1 − c + (k + 1)t)2(1 − 2c − (k + 2)t)2+.
2(n + 1)(n + 1)2

15 The method for deriving the result is discussed in Shy (1995, pp.126–127).

14

(4)

(5)

(6)

If πA (k, t) ≥ πB (k − 1, t), the firms locating at A have no incentive to move to B. If πB (k, t) ≥πA (k + 1, t), the firms locating at B have no incentive to move to A. Therefore, if the inequalities
hold, the location pattern in which k entrants locate at A is an equilibrium outcome. From theinequalities, we have the condition:
R − 1 ≤ k ≤ R, where R ≡

n−1
c
− .
2
2t

The value of k depends on whether n is odd or even. We derive the following condition (note that,when R is an integer, there exist two integers that satisfy the inequalities. In this case, we assume
that k = R − 1).
Lemma 1 If the following condition mentioned in (7) holds, the following location pattern is a uniqueequilibrium outcome: the incumbent and k entrant firms locate at A, and n − k − 1 firms locate at B.
 n
 2 −hk=if c ∈ [(2h − 3)t, (2h − 1)t) and n is even (h = 2, 3, . . .),if c ∈ (0, t) and n is even (h = 1),


n−1


−h


2


(7)
if c ∈ [2(h − 1)t, 2ht) and n is odd, (h = 2, 3, . . .),if c ∈ (0, 2t) and n is odd (h = 1).

The location pattern is quite natural. As the number of firms in a location (market) increases, theintensity of competition in that market is enhanced. The intensity of competition in the other market
diminishes. The numbers of firms in each market are balanced. However, if the cost advantage ofthe incumbent firm, which is reflected by the value of c, becomes significant, several entrants avoid
market A because the incumbent is the tough competitor. The number of firms locating in market B
is larger than that in market A.
From (3), consumer surplus (denote as CSn ) is:CSn (k, t) =(n − ((n − 1)c + (n − k − 1)t))2(n − (nc + (k + 1)t))2+.
2
2(n + 1)2(n + 1)2

(8)

From (4), (5), (6), and (8), social welfare (denote as SWn ) is:SWn (k, t)= CSn (k, t) + πI (k, t) + kπA (k, t) + (n − k − 1)πB (k, t)2=

22n(n + 2) − 2(n + 2)(2n − 1)c + (4n + 4n − 5)c2(n + 1)215(9)

[2n(n + 2) − 2(3n2 − (2k − 3)n − 3(k + 1))c]t2(n + 1)2
2[(4k + 5)n − 2(2k 2 + k − 2)n − 6(k + 1)2 ]t2+.
2(n + 1)2−

4.2

Disclosure of know-how

Suppose that the incumbent and k entrant firms locate at A, and n − (k + 1) firms locate at B
(k = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1). The profit of the incumbent firm (denoted as πI (k, τ )), the profit of the entrant
firm locating in A (denoted as πA (k, τ )), and the profit of the firm locating in B (denoted as πB (k, τ ))are:
πI (k, τ ) =πA (k, τ ) =πB (k, τ ) =(1 + (n − 1)c + (n − k − 1)τ )2(1 − c − (n − k)t)2+,2(n + 1)(n + 1)2(1 − 2c + (n − k − 1)τ )2(1 − c − (n − k)t)2+,2(n + 1)(n + 1)2(1 − 2c − (k + 2)τ )2(1 − c + (k + 1)t)2+.
2(n + 1)(n + 1)2

(10)
(11)
(12)

Suppose that k entrants (k is denoted in (7)) locate in market A before the know-how is disclosed.
We now show the condition that the disclosure of know-how induces one of the k entrants to locate
in market B.
If πA (k − 1, τ ) > πB (k − 2, τ ), the firms locating in A have no incentive to move to B. If
πB (k − 1, τ ) > πA (k, τ ), the firms locating in B have no incentive to move to A. Therefore, if τ is in
the following range, the location pattern in which k −1 entrants locate at A is an equilibrium outcome.
We have the following lemma.
Lemma 2 Suppose that k entrants (k is denoted in (7)) locate in market A before the know-how is

16

disclosed. If τ is in the following range, k − 1 entrants locate in A: Ãp−(1 − 2c) + (1 − 2c)2 + 4h((1 − c)t − (h + 1)t2 )



,


2h


#

p


−(1 − 2c) + (1 − 2c)2 + 4(h − 1)((1 − c)t − ht2 )





2(h − 1)







if c ∈ ((2h − 3)t, (2h − 1)t] and n is even






Ã
#
p


2 + 4((1 − c)t − 2t2 ) t(1 − c − t)

−(1
−
2c)
+
(1
−
2c)


,
2
1 − 2cτ∈if c ∈ (0, t) and n is even and h = 1






Ã

p



−(1 − 2c) + (1 − 2c)2 + 2(2(h + 1) − 1)(1 − c)t − (4(h + 1)2 − 1)t2


,


2(h + 1) − 1


#

p



−(1 − 2c) + (1 − 2c)2 + 2(2h − 1)(1 − c)t − (4h2 − 1)t22h − 1if c ∈ (2(h − 1)t, 2ht], and n is odd.
where:

 n

−h



 2
k=
n−1


−h


2


(13)

if c ∈ [(2h − 3)t, (2h − 1)t) and n is even (h = 2, 3, . . .),if c ∈ (0, t) and n is even (h = 1),
if c ∈ [2(h − 1)t, 2ht) and n is odd, (h = 2, 3, . . .),if c ∈ (0, 2t) and n is odd (h = 1).

On the range described in (13), the highest value of τ is the most profitable for the incumbent firm.
Therefore, the incumbent firm sets the value of τ as follows:p−(1 − 2c) + (1 − 2c)2 + 4(h − 1)((1 − c)t − ht2 )





2(h − 1)






if c ∈ ((2h − 3)t, (2h − 1)t] and n is even
τe =



t(1 − c − t)





1 − 2c
if c ∈ (0, t) and n is even and h = 1p−(1 − 2c) + (1 − 2c)2 + 2(2h − 1)(1 − c)t − (4h2 − 1)t2τo =2h − 1(14)(15)

if c ∈ (2(h − 1)t, 2ht], and n is odd.
In this case, the profits of the firms are (τ is in (14) or (15)):πI (k − 1, τ )=(1 + (n − 1)c + (n − k)τ )2(1 − c − (n − k + 1)t)2+,
2(n + 1)(n + 1)217(16)

πA (k − 1, τ )=πB (k − 1, τ )=(1 − c − (n − k + 1)t)2(1 − 2c + (n − k)τ )2+,(n + 1)2(n + 1)2(1 − 2c − (k + 1)τ )2(1 − c + kt)2+.
(n + 1)2(n + 1)2

(17)
(18)

As shown in Table 1, locating in B is cost advantageous for firms. Firms locating in B are able tosupply products to market A at a low marginal cost (τ ), which is smaller than t, but firms locatingin A have to incur the higher marginal cost t to supply their products to market B. As the value ofτ decreases, the cost advantage is more significant. Given a location pattern in which k entrant firms
locate in market A, as the value of τ decreases, to obtain the cost advantage, one of the firms thatwould locate in A moves from A to B. Therefore, under the level of τ in (14) or (15), a firm changes
its location from A to B.
From (3), consumer surplus (denoted as CS(k − 1, τ )) is (τ is in (14) or (15)):
CS(k − 1, τ ) =(n − ((n − 1)c + (n − k)τ ))2(n − (nc + kt))2+.
2(n + 1)2
2(n + 1)2

(19)

From (16), (17), (18), and (19), social welfare (denoted as SW (k − 1, τ )) is (τ is in (14) or (15)):
SW (k − 1, τ )= CS(k − 1, τ ) + πI (k − 1, τ ) + (k − 1)πA (k − 1, τ ) + (n − k)πB (k − 1, τ )
=

4.3

(20)

n(n + 2) − (n − 1)(2(n + 2) − (3n + 5)c)c2(n + 1)2(n − k)(2(n + 2 − (3n + 5)c) − ((2k + 1)n + 3k + 2)τ )τ
−2(n + 1)2
2
n(n + 2)(1 − c) − 2k(n + 2)(1 − c)t + k(2n2 − 2(k − 2)n − (3k − 2))t2+.
2(n + 1)2

The incumbent firm

The discussion turns now to the difference in firm I’s profit when it discloses its know-how and when
it does not. From (4) and (16), we can derive the difference. Before we discuss the profitability ofknow-how disclosure, we define two symbols that represent the difference in firm I’s profit when it
discloses its know-how and when it does not. Jo (resp. Je ) is the difference when n is odd (resp.
even).
µJo (t, h) ≡Je (t, h) ≡

¶
µ
¶
n−1
n−1
πI
− (h + 1), τo − πI
− h, t ,
2
2
³n
´
³n
´
πI
− (h + 1), τe − πI
− h, t .
2
2
18

If this is positive, that is, Jo (t, h) > 0 (or Je (t, h) > 0), the disclosure of its know-how is beneficial forfirm I. We have the following propositions. Propositions 1 and 2 (resp. 3 and 4) are related to thecase in which n is odd (resp. even).
Proposition 1 Suppose that c < 2t (h = 1) and that n is odd and larger than or equal to 5. Thereexists t̄ such that Jo (t, 1) = 0. For any t ∈ (c/2, t̄), the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent
firm.
Proposition 2 Suppose that 2t ≤ c < 4t (h = 2) and that n is odd and larger than or equal to 7. If n
and c satisfy J(c/2, 2) > 0, for any t ∈ (c/4, c/2], the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent
firm, otherwise there exists t̄0 such that Jo (t, 2) = 0, and for any t ∈ (c/4, t̄0 ), the disclosure increases
the profit of the incumbent firm.
Proposition 3 Suppose that c ∈ (0, t) and that n is even and larger than or equal to 4. The disclosure
increases the profit of the incumbent firm.
Proposition 4 Suppose that c ∈ (t, 3t) and that n is even and larger than or equal to 6. If Je (c, 2) > 0,
for any t ∈ [c/3, c), the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent firm. Otherwise, there existst̄00 such that Je (t, 2) = 0, and for any t ∈ (c/3, t̄00 ), the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent
firm.
As the value of τ decreases, the cost advantage of firms locating in B is enhanced. In other words,
the disadvantage of the firm disclosing its know-how is enhanced by the decrease in the level of τ .
Based on this property, some may believe that such know-how disclosure is obviously harmful for thedisclosing firm. In our model, however, another view has been provided.
This view is that know-how disclosure induces some firms to change their plans for location (“specialized” products). As mentioned in Lemma 2, these firms change their specialized product fromproduct A to product B. The change mitigates the competition in market A and is beneficial for thefirm disclosing its know-how. This view is not discussed in the literature of know-how disclosure, thus
constituting a new insight into the issue.
As in Propositions 1, 2, and 4, if c is large, know-how disclosure that reduces the costs of its rivals
is effective for the incumbent firm. In other words, when the incumbent firm has a cost advantage,
19

such know-how disclosure tends to be beneficial. We provide two examples, in which c = 1/100 andc = 1/20.
[Insert Figure 3 here.]

We now discuss the case in which h is larger than two. After tedious calculus, we find that, given
the value of c and n, as the value of h increases, the condition that the disclosure enhances profitof the incumbent firm tends to hold (see the supplementary material). Note that h is related to thevalue of t. As the value of h increases, the value of t decreases. That is, as the value of t becomes
smaller, the condition tends to hold.
[Insert Figures 4a and 4b here.]
We now show the mechanism by which the disclosure is profitable when c is large. The know-how
disclosure has the following effects: (1) an improvement in efficiency of firms locating in market B, (2)a decrease in the number of firms in market A. The first effect is negative and the second is positive
for the incumbent firm. The significance of those effects depends on the values of t, c, and n.
Before we explain the relation between the two effects and the values of t, c, and n, we consider
an n + 1 firms Cournot oligopoly with cost asymmetries. We now suppose that the marginal costof the incumbent firm is zero, those of n − k entrant firms locating at A are c, and those of k
entrant firms locating at B are c + t. We can easily find that the profit of the incumbent firm is
πG ≡ (1 + nc + kt)2 /(n + 2)2 . By disclosure, k and t change to k + 1 and τ (t, c), where τ is a functionof t and c (see equations (14) and (15)). We can explain those changes as follows:∆πG=((k + 1)τ (t, c) − kt))(2 + 2nc + kt + (k + 1)τ (t, c))> 0.
(n + 2)2

Using ∆πG , we evaluate the effects of the increments in t, c, and n.
We first show that, given that the value of t is not small in the range in which k entrant firms
locate in market B, as the value of t increases, the positive effect of know-how disclosure diminishes.
Note that this logic holds true if the increment in t does not change the initial location pattern (see20the discussion in Section 4.1). When we differentiate ∆πG with respect to t, there are two effects
related to the increment in t:∂∆πG
2k(1 + nc + kt) 2(k + 1)(1 + nc + (k + 1)τ (t, c)) ∂τ (t, c)
=−
.
+
∂t
(n + 2)2(n + 2)2∂t
The first term is the effect of the increment in t itself. The second term is the effect of the incrementin τ caused by the increment in t.
We now mention the intuition behind the result that the first term is negative. When t is small,entrant firms locating in market B have already been tough competitors in market A. Although thecompetitiveness of these entrant firms is improved by the disclosure, the magnitude of the improvement is not very significant. When t is large, entrant firms locating in market B have not yet been
competitors in market A. Following the disclosure, however, those entrant firms can easily accessmarket A. That is, by the disclosure, these entrant firms emerge as competitors in market A. The“entries” have significant impact.16
The second term reflects the fact that the level of τ increases in the value of t. This is a positiveeffect on the value of ∆πG because a higher value of τ keeps the market A less competitive. We now
show the relation between τ and t. Differentiating τ in (14) or (15) with respect to t twice, we findthat τ is a concave function in t. That is, as the value of t increases, the positive effect on the valueof ∆πG is less effective.
Those two terms present a trade-off. When t is small (resp. large), the latter positive (resp. theformer negative) effect dominates. That is, ∆πG is concave with respect to t. In this setting, we canshow that when t is sufficiently small, ∆πG is not small, but when t is large enough, ∆πG is small (theproofs of the propositions related to the incumbent firm’s profit are closely related to the explanation).
Therefore, when t is large enough, the disclosure is not so effective.
Secondly, we show that as the value of c increases, the positive effect of the know-how disclosure
is enhanced. Note that the logic holds true if the increment in c does not change the initial location
16 Using a simple Cournot duopoly with asymmetric costs and a linear demand (p = 1 − Q), we can also explain
the mechanism. We now suppose that the marginal cost of the efficient (inefficient) firm is zero (t). The profit of theefficient firm is (1 + t)2 /9. Differentiating it with respect to t, we have 2(1 + t)/9. That is, the higher the value of t,
the more significant the marginal effect of the increment (also the decrement) in t. This is similar to the discussion in

the main text.

21

pattern. When we differentiate ∆πG with respect to c, there are two effects related to the incrementin c:2n((k + 1)τ (t, c) − kt))c 2(k + 1)(1 + nc + (k + 1)τ (t, c)) ∂τ (t, c)
∂∆πG
=
> 0.
+
∂c
(n + 2)2(n + 2)2∂c
Differentiating τ in (14) or (15) with respect to c, we find that τ is increasing in c. Considering
these two effects, we find that ∆πG is increasing with respect to c. The higher the efficiency of theincumbent firm, (the larger the value of c), the more effective the per-unit price change, because thequantity supplied by the firm is larger when efficiency is greater (c is larger). By the disclosure, theincumbent firm reduces the number of firms in market A, and then the price in the market increases.
Therefore, the positive effect of the disclosure becomes significant as the value of c increases.
Finally, we shall discuss the effect of the increment in n. The increment in n affects both thenegative and the positive effects mentioned above: the efficiency improvement of firms locating inmarket B, and the decrease in the number of firms at market A. The effect of the increment in n
depends on how those two effects change. In this case, the former negative effect dominates the latterone. Differentiating ∆πG with respect to n, we can easily show this property. As the value of nincreases, the former negative effect of the decreases in the value of τ becomes significant because thenumber of firms who benefit from the efficiency improvement from the disclosure increases. On theother hand, as the value of n increases, the latter positive effect diminishes because the elimination of
one firm is not effective when the number of firms is large.

4.4

Entrants

In this subsection, we consider the effect of know-how disclosure on the profits of entrant firms. As
mentioned in Section 4.2, know-how disclosure enhances the efficiencies of the rival firms. At firstglance, it would be expected to increase the profits of the rivals locating in market B. In the model,
however, the converse holds.
In both the nondisclosure and the disclosure cases, the firms locating in the same market earn thesame profit levels (see the discussion in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, and the equations in (5), (6), (11), and(12)).
22

Entrants locating in A

We first calculate the change in the profits of entrants that locate inmarket A. Using πA (k, t) in (5) and πA (k − 1, τ ) in (11), we calculate the difference between the
profit in which the incumbent firm discloses its know-how and that in which it does not. After some
calculus, we have the following proposition.
Proposition 5 Suppose that c ∈ (0, 2t). There exists t̃ such that JoA (t, 1) = 0. For any t ∈ (c/2, t̃),the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent firm.
Proposition 6 Suppose that c ∈ (2t, 4t). There exists t̃0 such that JoA (t, 2) = 0. For any t ∈ (c/4, t̃0 ),the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent firm.
µJoA (t, h) ≡ πA

n−1
− (h + 1), τo
2

¶

µ
− πA

¶
n−1
− h, t .
2

Proposition 7 Suppose that c ∈ (0, t) and that n is even. The disclosure increases the profits of theentrant firms locating in A.
Proposition 8 Suppose that c ∈ (t, 3t) and that n is even. There exists t̃00 such that JeA (t, 2) = 0.
For any t ∈ (c/3, t̃00 ), the disclosure increases the profit of the incumbent firm.
JeA (t, h) ≡ πA

³n

´
³n
´
− (h + 1), τe − πA
− h, t .
2
2

As in the case of the incumbent firm, because of the disclosure, the profits of entrant firms locating
at A can increase.
We briefly discuss the case in which h is larger than two. We find that, given the value of cand n, even though the value of h increases, the condition that the disclosure enhances the profits
of the entrant firms does not hold (see the supplementary material). This is quite different from thecase of the incumbent firm. The difference stems from the difference between their marginal costs.
The marginal cost of the incumbent firm is zero in market A, but that of the entrant firms is c. As
mentioned in the former subsection, the cost advantage enhances the profitability of the know-how
disclosure. The entrant firms locating in market A, however, do not have such an advantage. This is
the reason for the difference between the incumbent firm and the entrant firms.

23

Entrants locating at B

We now calculate the change in the profits of entrants that locate inmarket B. Using πB (k, t) in (6) and πB (k − 1, τ ) in (12), we calculate the difference between the
profit in which the incumbent firm discloses its know-how and that in which it does not. We have thefollowing proposition.
Proposition 9 Suppose that c ∈ (2(h − 1)t, 2ht) and n is odd. The disclosure decreases the profits ofentrant firms locating in market B.
Proposition 10 Suppose that c ∈ [(2h − 3)t, (2h − 1)t) (when h = 1, c ∈ (0, t)) and n is even. The
disclosure decreases the profits of entrant firms locating in market B.
Because of the disclosure, a firm that would otherwise locate in A moves to B. This enhances thecompetition in market B. If the level of τ were small enough, the transport cost reduction (positive)
effect of the disclosure would dominate the negative effect of competition. In this case, however, thedisclosing firm sets the level of τ (see (14) or (15)) at an intermediate level. Therefore, the enhanced
competition harms the entrant firms locating in market B. In this sense, the profits of the entrantsthat allocate their resources to market B can be seen as the flip side of the profit of the incumbent. The
result implies that the incumbent firm may disclose its know-how in its industry as a payoff-enhancing
entry deterrent.

4.5

WelfareIn this subsection, because of its mathematical complexity, we only consider the cases in which h = 1,
that is, (i) n is odd and c < 2t, and (ii) n is even and c < t.
From (8), (9), (19), and (20), we can calculate the difference between CS(k − 1, τ ) and CS(k, t),
and that between SW (k−1, τ ) and SW (k, t). We calculate two cases in which c = 1/100 and c = 1/20.
The consumer surplus when know-how is disclosed is larger than that when it is not. On the other
hand, social welfare when the know-how is disclosed is larger than that when it is not if t is not large.
[Insert Figure 5 here.]
We now show the mechanism by which consumer surplus is increased by the disclosure. Supposethat a fixed amount of the product exists in the markets. Equal allocation of the product to markets A
24and B is the worst way from the perspective of consumer surplus because consumer surplus is convex
with respect to the quantity supplied. An asymmetric allocation of the product occurs because of therelocation induced by the disclosure. This asymmetric allocation increases consumer surplus.
We now show the mechanism by which social surplus is decreased by the disclosure when t islarge. From the viewpoint of social welfare, know-how disclosure has two effects. One is an efficiencyenhancing effect, and the other is a location-distorting effect. The former is positive, and the latteris negative. The positive effect is enhanced by the decreases in the level of τ because the efficiency
of firms locating in B improves. The negative effect stems from reduced competitiveness, which isinduced by the asymmetric location pattern, in market A. As the level of t increases, the competition
in A is weakened because the entrants locating in B become less aggressive than those in A.

5

Extension

In this section, we extend the basic model.

5.1

Interdependent demand

In this subsection, we consider a case in which the products in markets A and B are interdependent.
To consider this case, we set the inverse demand functions in the markets as follows:
pA = 1 − QA − γQB , pB = 1 − QB − γQA ,where Qi (i = A, B) is the total quantity supplied by the firms in market i (i = A, B), and γ is thedegree of product differentiation between the products. In the basic setting, we have assumed thatγ = 0, that is, the products are independent.
We now suppose that there exist an incumbent firm and four entrant firms, that is, 5 firms exist.
In this case, the incumbent firm and one entrant firm locate in market A, and the rest of the entrant
firms are located in market B.
Before the incumbent firm discloses its know-how, one entrant firm locates in A and three entrant
firms locate in B. We can easily show that the location pattern appears as an equilibrium outcome if
c < 2t.

25

We now suppose that the entrant firm locating in A moves to market B because of the disclosure.
We now show the condition that the entrant firm locating in market A under the nondisclosure casemoves to market B following the disclosure. The condition is:τγ ≡ Jγ − (1 − 2c − (1 − c − 2t)γ),pwhere Jγ ≡ (1 − 2c − (1 − c − 2t)γ)2 + t(2 − 2c − 3t − 2(1 − 2c)γ).
We now consider the relation between the degree of product differentiation and the profitability ofknow-how disclosure. Differentiating τγ with respect to γ, we have:∂τγ(1 − c − 2t)Jγ − {(1 − 2c)(1 − c − t) − (1 − c − 2t)2 γ}
=
.
∂γ
Jγ
After some calculus, we find that this is negative. As the degree of differentiation decreases, theincumbent firm sets the level of τ lower. Someone might consider that the disclosure of know-how
tends to be less profitable. This is in fact true.
To show the relation between the degree of differentiation and the profitability of know-how disclosure, we consider two cases: c = 1/200 and c = 1/50. The relation is shown in Figures 6 and 7.
From the figures, we find that the profitable area becomes large as the value of c increases and thatthe profitable range shrinks as the value of γ increases.
[Insert Figures 6 and 7 here.]
We now show the intuition behind the result. As the value of γ increases, the competition in market
B has a greater effect on the competition in market A because the degree of product differentiation
between the products is weaker. The converse also holds, that is, the competition in market A has agreater effect on the competition in market B. A lower value of τ is not so effective for firms locatingin market B because the increment in the quantities supplied in market A decreases the price inmarket B. Therefore, to induce an entrant firm that would locate in market A to locate in market B,
the incumbent firm sets the value of τ at a lower level. This is not beneficial for the incumbent.

5.2

Licensing

We allow the incumbent firm to determine the number of firms that acquire its technological knowhow. We suppose that c = 0 and the number of firms, n, is even. The incumbent firm charges several
26

firms a linear fee for its know-how. If a firm has the know-how, it can produce a product for market
A at the marginal cost c = 0, even though it locates in market B. The informed firm has to pay thelinear fee f qi to the incumbent firm, where q is the quantity supplied by the informed firm.
We now suppose that because of the licensing issue, n/2−m firms locate in market A, and n/2+m
firms locate in market B (m ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n/2 − 1}). The firms locating in B have the disclosed knowhow. The profit functions of the firms locating at A (B) are:
Ã
!
Ã
!
n
n
X
X
πI =
1−
qiA qiA + 1 −qiB − t qiB + f
i=1

Ã
πA

=

1−
Ã

πB

=

1−

n
X
i=1
n
X

!
qiA

i=1

Ã
qiA +

1−

Ã
qiA +

1−

i=1

qiA ,

i=n/2+m+1!
qiB − t qiB ,i=1!
qiA − f

n
X

n
X

n
X

!
qiB

qiB .

i=1

The quantities supplied by firms are:
2 + (n + 2m)f
2 − (n − 2m + 2)f, qbA =,
2(n + 1)2(n + 1)2 − (n + 2m + 2)t
2 + (n − 2m)tqaB =, qbB =.
2(n + 1)2(n + 1)qaA =The profits of the firms are:πI (n/2 + m)=

πA (n/2 + m)=

πB (n/2 + m)=

(2 + (n + 2m)f )2(2 − (n + 2m + 2)t)2+4(n + 1)2
4(n + 1)2
(n/2 + m)(2 − (n − 2m + 2)f )+,2(n + 1)(2 − (n + 2m + 2)t)2(2 + (n + 2m)f )2+,4(n + 1)2
4(n + 1)2
(2 − (n − 2m + 2)f )2(2 + (n − 2m)t)2+.
4(n + 1)2
4(n + 1)2

To keep the firms locating in market B from relocating, the following inequality must hold (note that,
if a firm that has a right to the know-how rejects the offer, it locates in market A):
πB (n/2 + m) ≥ πA (n/2 + m − 1) ⇔2n(t − f ) − (m − 1)f 2 − mt2≥ 0.
(n + 1)2

Considering the constraint, the incumbent sets f to maximize its profit πI (n/2 + m). The constraint27

is binding and the optimal level of f is:p 1 + 4(m − 1)t(1 −pmt) − 1 + 4(m − 1)t(1 − mt)2(m − 1) 1 + 4(m − 1)t(1 − mt)
f=


2
t−t

if m 6= 1,
if m = 1.

Note that, when m = 1, the per unit gain of the license is t − (t − t2 ) = t2 . This is the same as thevalue of τ discussed in the previous section. Although calculating the optimal number of m is noteasy, we can show a numerical example. When n = 20, the optimal number of m is 9(= n/2 − 1) if
and only if t ≤ 0.0442, otherwise (t ∈ (0.0442, 1/20]) it is 8 (note that, the inequality t < 1/n is thesufficient condition that the quantities supplied by the firms in each market are positive).

5.3

Asymmetric marginal costs

Thus far in the discussion, the marginal costs of entrant firms have had the same value. We now
introduce a cost asymmetry among the firms. The marginal cost of firm i is ci . li = 0 (resp. li = 1)
represents the situation that firm i locates in market A (resp. market B). The transport cost per unit
from A and B is t, and that from B to A is τ . Before the disclosure of know-how, t = τ . After thedisclosure, τ becomes smaller than t.
Given the locations of the firms, l1 , l2 , . . . , ln , the profit function of firm i is:Pn
Pn(1 + j=1 cj − (n + 1)ci − (n + 1)τ li + τ j=1 lj )2
πi =(n + 1)2Pn
Pc(1 + j=1 cj − (n + 1)ci − (n + 1)t(1 − li ) + t j=1 (1 − lj ))2+.
(n + 1)2
Because the profit function of firm i is convex with respect to li , the profit is maximized at li = 0 or
li = 1. We now denote the profit when firm i locates at li = 0 (resp. li = 1) as πi0 (resp. πi1 ). The
difference πi0 − πi1 is: n −2 1 +
πi0 − πi1 =

n
X





cj − (n + 1)ci  (t − τ ) − n(nt2 + (n − 2)τ 2 ) + 2(t2 + τ 2 )

j=1

X
j6=i

(n + 1)2

lj .

If this is positive, firm i locates at li = 0, otherwise, it does so at li = 1.
Suppose that all firms choose the same location li = 0 or li = 1 (i = 1, 2, . . . , n). When τ = t(that is, the know-how is not disclosed), the difference πi0 − πi1 does not depend on the marginal
28

costs of the firms. Therefore, efficiency does not affect the location choices of the firms. When τ < t(that is, the know-how is disclosed), the difference depends on the coefficient of (t − τ ), that is,Pn−2(1 + j=1 cj − (n + 1)ci ). As the value of ci (the last term in the coefficient of (τ − t)) decreases,
the coefficient decreases, and then πi0 −πi1 decreases. Therefore, relatively efficient firms tend to locate
in li = 1, and the converse holds. By the disclosure, inefficient entrant firms tend to locate in market
A where the incumbent has already located. From the perspective of the incumbent firm, knowledge
disclosure is beneficial.
As mentioned in footnote 14 in Section 3, firms entering the business from outside the industry had
sent employees to KSP in order to acquire know-how regarding the essential elements of competitive
advantage of KSP and utilize it for their own competitive advantage (as was mentioned before, it issomehow difficult to actually distribute the information due to information stickiness: see von Hippel(1994)). Meanwhile, many firms with some degree of food sales know-how acquired KSP’s know-how
through journals and lecture presentations only and came to devote management resources to productareas other than fresh food. We think that the fact has some consistency with the result.

5.4

Multiple incumbent firms

We now briefly discuss the case in which there is more than one incumbent firm. In this case, if thefollowing conditions hold, the results presented here would be preserved: (1) the disclosing firm has
a cost advantage, (2) the location pattern before entrant firms appear is optimal. Given these two
conditions, if entrant firms appear in the industry, the disclosure of know-how distorts the locationsof the entrant firms and is beneficial for the incumbent firm. As discussed above, the incumbent firm
benefits from only one firm’s location change. Therefore, we believe that our results above could beapplicable for broader situations because those two conditions are not very restrictive.

6

Concluding remarks

We have examined the positive effects of a firm disclosing its know-how to rival firms. Commonly,
firms do not disclose know-how to rival firms when it would give them a competitive advantage. Thisis because once a firm has disclosed its know-how, the rival firm will probably use that information29

to diminish the competitive advantage of the discloser. As a result, the firm that has disclosed theinformation might lose its competitive advantage. This is why it is assumed that a firm should neverdisclose its know-how.
However, a regional retail-chain has acted in a manner contrary to this common belief. KSP was aninnovator in supermarket operations and actively disclosed its own know-how to existing and potential
rivals between 1970 and 1985, which was a growth period for the supermarket industry in Japan.
On the basis of this observation, we provided a theoretical framework to explain such know-how
disclosure to rivals. We showed that a firm could create a competitive advantage for itself by disclosing
its know-how if we assume that a firm handles more than one product and the disclosing firm has acost advantage. If a firm discloses its know-how regarding a certain product to a rival, the rival thus,
it would be reasonable for the rival to allocate management resources to another product. As a result,
the rival will no longer allocate management resources to the same product field as the discloser, andthe discloser will be able to maintain its competitive advantage.
The case of KSP provides a good example. Some of the rival firms to whom know-how on the
management of perishable foods was disclosed by KSP took action to differentiate themselves from
KSP by selecting goods, including deluxe imported goods and prepared food, among other products.
As a consequence, KSP maintained its competitive advantage.
An implication of this study is that a multiproduct firm could gain a competitive advantage fromknow-how disclosure when the product markets of the firm are growing. This strategy could beparticularly attractive to mass merchandisers such as Wal-Mart because such retailers often handle
two or more product categories and always search for promising new product categories. For example,
in the growing Electric Commerce market, Amazon.com might be able to maintain its competitive
advantage if it discloses its know-how in book inventory management to rival firms.
We believe that our model could be applicable not only to retailing but also to multiproductmanufacturers. For instance, in the digital home appliance market, such as that for DVDs or cameras,
it might be a good strategy for Panasonic to disclose its know-how in DVD production to Samsung andHaier Electronics Group to maintain its global market leadership. In this respect, the applicability
and generalizability of our model will need to be explored.

30

As discussed by many researchers, know-how disclosure has several effects on the disclosing firms
or persons. In this paper, we discussed the effect on the resource allocation strategies of firms. In thecase of KSP, as discussed by Reymond (1999), signaling effects might be important. By disclosing its
know-how, KSP might intend to appeal to upstream firms and rivals for the sake of its cost efficiency.
First, we mentioned the effect of know-how disclosure on upstream firms. KSP buys many goods
from upstream firms and sells the goods to consumers. As discussed in the literature on industrialorganization, wholesale prices set by upstream firms decrease as the efficiency of the downstream firm
is improved. Therefore, improving its efficiency by know-how disclosure would be effective for KSP.
As reported by Mizuno and Ogawa (2004), know-how disclosure by KSP reduces wholesale prices.
Providing a model to explain this effect is a consideration for future research. Second, we mentioned
the effect of know-how disclosure on rivals. If rivals recognize KSP’s cost efficiency in a particular
product, they will tend to avoid allocating their resources to that particular product because they willrealize that it is difficult to make a profit from it. The effect on the rivals will add weight to our main
results.

31

References
Allen, R. C. 1983. “Collective invention.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 4, 1–24.
Anton, J. J. and Yao, D. A. 1994. “Expropriation and inventions: appropriable rents in the absenceof property rights.” American Economic Review 84, 190–209.
Anton, J. J. and Yao, D. A. 2003. “Patents, invalidity, and the strategic transmission of enabling
information.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 12, 151–178.
Anton, J. J. and Yao, D. A. 2004. “Little patents and big secrets: Managing intellectual property.”
RAND Journal of Economics 35, 1–22.
Anderson, S. P. and Neven, D. J. 1991. “Cournot competition yields spatial agglomeration.” International Economic Review 32, 793–808.
Bar, T. 2006. “Defensive publication in an R&D race.” Journal of Economics and Management
Strategy 15, 229–254.
Bhattacharya, S. and Ritter, J.R. 1983. “Innovation and communication signaling with partial
disclosure.” Review of Economic Studies 50, 331–346.
Cowan, R. and Jonard, N. 2003. “The dynamics of collective invention.” Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization 52, 513–532.
De Fraja, G. 1993. “Strategic spillovers in patent races.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 11, 139–146.
Denicolò, V. and Franzoni, L.A. 2004. “Patents, secrets, and the first-inventor defense.” Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy 13, 517–538.
Eaton, B. C. and Eswaran, M. 2001. “Know-how sharing with stochastic innovations.” Canadian
Journal of Economics 34, 525–548.
Eaton, B. C. and Schmitt, N. 1994. “Flexible manufacturing and market structure.” American
Economic Review 84, 875–888.
Gilbert, R. and Shapiro, C. 1990. “Optimal patent length and breadth.” RAND Journal of Economics 21, 106–112.
Hamilton, J. H., Thisse, J.-F., and Weskamp, A. 1989. “Spatial discrimination: Bertrand vs Cournot
in a model of location choice,” Regional Science and Urban Economics 19, 87–102.
Ishihara, T. 1998. “The establishment of the supermarket as a new business category—Kansai
Supermarket’s insistence.” Innovation in Sales and Distribution, Ishii, J. et al., eds.; 143–69,
Yuhikaku Publishing (In Japanese).

32

Kamien, M. I. and Tauman, Y. 1984. “The private value of a patent: A game theoretic analysis.”
Journal of Economics 4, 93–118.
Kamien, M. I. and Tauman, Y. 1986. “Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics 101, 471–491.
Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C. 1985. “On the licensing of innovations.” RAND Journal of Economics
16, 504–520.
Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C. 1986. “How to license intangible property.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 101, 567–589.
Kende, M. 1998. “Profitability under an open versus a closed system.” Journal of Economics andManagement Strategy 7, 307–326.
Klemperer, P. 1990. “How broad should the scope of patent protection be?” RAND Journal of
Economics 21, 113–130.
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. 2002. “Some simple economics of open source.” Journal of Industrial
Economics 50, 197–234.
Matsushima, N. 2001. “Cournot competition and spatial agglomeration revisited.” Economics Letters 73, 175–177.
Matsushima, N. and Matsumura, T. 2003. “Mixed oligopoly and spatial agglomeration.” Canadian
Journal of Economics 36: 62–87.
Mizuno, M. 2005. Innovation-inducing power of know-how disclosure to other companies in the same
industry. Doctoral thesis, Kobe University Graduate School of Business Administration (InJapanese).
Mizuno, M. and Ogawa, S. 2004. “Positive effects of know-how disclosure to potential rivals.” Soshiki
Kagaku (Organizational Science) 38, 66–78 (In Japanese).
Mustonen, M. 2005. “When does a firm support substitute open source programming?” Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy 14, 121–139.
Muto, S. 1993. “On licensing policies in Bertrand competition.” Games and Economic Behavior 5,
257–267.
Norman, G., and Thisse, J.-F. 1999. “Technology choice and market structure: Strategic aspect of
flexible manufacturing.” Journal of Industrial Economics 47, 345–72.
Ogawa, S. 1998. “Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation?: Evidence from theconvenience-store industry.” Research Policy 26, 777–790.
Okuno-Fujiwara, M., Postlewaite, A. and Suzumura, K. 1990. “Strategic information revelation.”
Review of Economic Studies 57, 25–47.
33

Pal, D. 1998. “Does Cournot competition yield spatial agglomeration?,” Economics Letters 60,
49–53.
Raymond, E. S. 1999. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an
Accidental Revolutionary. O’Reilly, Cambridge, MA.
Saloner, G. 1990. “Symposium on patents and technology licensing.” RAND Journal of Economics
21, 103–105.
Scotchmer, S. 2004. Innovation and Incentives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shaffer, G. and Zettelmeyer, F. 2002. “When good news about your rival is good for you: The effectof third-party information on the division of channel profits,” Marketing Science 21, 273–293.
Shy, O. 1995. Industrial Organization: Theory and Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
von Hippel, E. 1988. The Source of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
von Hippel, E. 1994. “ ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: Implications forinnovation.” Management Science 40, 429–439.
von Hippel, E. and Schrader, S. 1996. “ ‘Managed’ informal information trading: The oil scout
system in oil exploration firms.” International Journal of Technology Management 11, 209–218.

34

Location / Cost MC at A MC at B
Location / Cost MC at A
Incumbent firm
0c+tIncumbent firm0
Locating at Acc+t
Locating at Ac
Locating at B
c+tc
Locating at B
c+τ(Nondisclosure)(Disclosure)(MC: the constant marginal cost)
Table 1: The cost structures.

35

MC at Bc+t
c+tcFigure 1: Number of Stores and Fluctuation in Overall Gross Sales between 1975 and1985
Note 1: The authors referred to the Guide to Distribution Economics, 1975–1987 Issue (Nihon Keizai
Shimbun, Inc.) in producing this graph.
Note 2: The bar graph shows the number of stores. The sequential line graph shows overall grosssales.

36

Figure 2: Fluctuation in Gross Sales per Store between 1975 and 1985
The authors referred to the Guide to Distribution Economics, 1975–1987 Issue (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc.) in producing this graph.
Horizontal: year, Vertical: Gross sales per store (in units of 1 million yen)

37

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5
t=c2

t=c2
8

10 12 14 16 18 20

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 3: The effect of know-how disclosure on the incumbent firm (c < 2t)(Horizontal: n, Vertical: 100t, Left-hand: c = 1/100, Right-hand: c = 1/20)
The shaded area: The profit is increased by the disclosure.

38

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

8

10 12 14 16 18 20

8

10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 4a: The effect of know-how disclosure on the incumbent firm
(Horizontal: n, Vertical: 1000t, Left-hand: c = 1/100, Right-hand: c = 4/100)
The shaded area: The profit is increased by the disclosure.

39

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

8

10

12

14

16

18

8

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 4b: The effect of know-how disclosure on the incumbent firm
(Horizontal: n, Vertical: 1000t, Left-hand: c = 8/100, Right-hand: c = 15/100)
The shaded area: The profit is increased by the disclosure.

40

20

20

15

15

Welfare diminished10

5

Welfare diminished10

5

Welfare ehnhanced

Welfare ehnhanced
t=c2

t=c2
8

10 12 14 16 18 20

8

10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 5: The effect of know-how disclosure on social welfare(Horizontal: n, Vertical: 100t, Left-hand: c = 1/100, Right-hand: c = 1/20)
The shaded area: welfare is diminished by the disclosure,
The nonshaded area below the shaded area: welfare is increased by the disclosure

41

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05
Profit ehnhanced
t=c2
-0.1

-0.05

0.05

0.1

Figure 6: The profitability of know-how disclosure (c = 1/200)(Horizontal: γ, Vertical: t, the shaded area: the profitable area for the incumbent)

42

0.2

0.15

0.1

Profit ehnhanced
0.05

t=c2
-0.1

-0.05

0.05

0.1

Figure 7: The profitability of know-how disclosure (c = 1/50)(Horizontal: γ, Vertical: t, the shaded area: the profitable area for the incumbent)

43