IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v18y2001i3p263-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Monopolist Would Still Charge More for Windows: A Comment on Werden

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Reddy
  • David Evans
  • Albert Nichols
  • Richard Schmalensee

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Reddy & David Evans & Albert Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2001. "A Monopolist Would Still Charge More for Windows: A Comment on Werden," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 263-268, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:263-268
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007851001146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1007851001146
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1007851001146?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elias L. Khalil (ed.), 2003. "Trust," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2482.
    2. Richard Schmalensee, 2000. "Antitrust Issues in Schumpeterian Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 192-196, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niedermayer Andras, 2015. "Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-44, March.
    2. Kai Uwe Kühn & John Van Reenen, 2008. "Interoperability and Market Foreclosure In the European Microsoft Case," CEP Reports 20, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Christos Genakos & Kai‐Uwe Kühn & John Van Reenen, 2018. "Leveraging Monopoly Power by Degrading Interoperability: Theory and Evidence from Computer Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 873-902, October.
    4. Leonhard Dobusch & Elke Schüßler, 2013. "Theorizing path dependence: a review of positive feedback mechanisms in technology markets, regional clusters, and organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(3), pages 617-647, June.
    5. Niedermayer, Andreas, 2015. "Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 523, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    6. Christian Genthon, 2007. "Can we measure Microsoft's market power ?," Post-Print halshs-00153837, HAL.
    7. Daniel O'Brien, 2001. "Comments on The Microsoft Antitrust Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 53-61, March.
    8. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Survey on Competing in Network Industries: Firm Strategies, Market Outcomes, and Policy Implications," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-31, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni B. Ramello, 2003. "Copyright and antitrust issues," Chapters, in: Wendy J. Gordon & Richard Watt (ed.), The Economics of Copyright, chapter 7, pages 118-147, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Chakravarty, Sugato & Jain, Pankaj & Upson, James & Wood, Robert, 2012. "Clean Sweep: Informed Trading through Intermarket Sweep Orders," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 415-435, April.
    3. Alberto Alesina & Edward Glaeser & Bruce Sacerdote, 2001. "Why Doesn't The US Have a European-Style Welfare State?," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1933, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
    4. ., 2013. "The role of competition and diversity in economic performance: an overview," Chapters, in: Competition, Diversity and Economic Performance, chapter 1, pages 1-19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Neven, Damien J. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2000. "The allocation of jurisdiction in international antitrust," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4-6), pages 845-855, May.
    6. Arturo Vásquez & Raúl García & Edwin Quintanilla & Julio Salvador & David Orosco, 2012. "Acceso a la Energía en el Perú : Algunas Opciones de Política," Working Papers 29, Osinergmin, Gerencia de Políticas y Análisis Económico.
    7. Michiel Bijlsma & Viktoria Kocsis & Victoria Shestalova & Gijsbert Zwart, 2008. "Vertical foreclosure: a policy framework," CPB Document 157, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. William Shughart & Fred McChesney, 2010. "Public choice theory and antitrust policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 385-406, March.
    9. Yu, Xiaoyu & Tao, Yida & Tao, Xiangming & Xia, Fan & Li, Yajie, 2018. "Managing uncertainty in emerging economies: The interaction effects between causation and effectuation on firm performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 121-131.
    10. Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2006. "Leniency policies and illegal transactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1281-1297, August.
    11. Takahashi, Takuma & Namiki, Fujio, 2003. "Three attempts at "de-Wintelization": Japan's TRON project, the US government's suits against Wintel, and the entry of Java and Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1589-1606, October.
    12. Christos Genakos & Kai‐Uwe Kühn & John Van Reenen, 2018. "Leveraging Monopoly Power by Degrading Interoperability: Theory and Evidence from Computer Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 873-902, October.
    13. Evenett, Simon J., 2003. "Do all networks facilitate international commerce? US law firms and the international market for corporate control," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 520-537, December.
    14. Andreas Hein & Maximilian Schreieck & Tobias Riasanow & David Soto Setzke & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2020. "Digital platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(1), pages 87-98, March.
    15. Jan KRÄMER & Michael WOHLFARTH, 2015. "Regulating Over-the-Top Service Providers in Two-Sided Content Markets: Insights from the Economic Literature," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(99), pages 71-90, 3rd quart.
    16. Fengxia Dong & Thomas L. Marsh & Kyle W. Stiegert, 2006. "State Trading Enterprises in a Differentiated Product Environment: The Case of Global Malting Barley Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 90-103.
    17. Bastin, Fabian & Cirillo, Cinzia & Toint, Philippe L., 2006. "Application of an adaptive Monte Carlo algorithm to mixed logit estimation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 577-593, August.
    18. van der Loos, Matthijs J. H. M. & Benjamin, Daniel J. & Cesarini, David & Dawes, Christopher T. & Koellinger, Philipp D. & Magnusson, Patrik K. E. & Chabris, Christopher F. & Conley, Dalton & Laibson,, 2012. "The Genetic Architecture of Economic and Political Preferences," Scholarly Articles 10121961, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    19. Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft, 2011. "Firm development as an integrated process: with evidence from the General Motors–Fisher Body case," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 665-686, October.
    20. Paul M. Vaaler & Gerry McNamara, 2010. "Are Technology-Intensive Industries More Dynamically Competitive? No and Yes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 271-289, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:263-268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.