IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/compol/qt7kj1x7g9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Economist's Guide to U.S. v Microsoft

Author

Listed:
  • Gilbert, Richard
  • Katz, Michael

Abstract

We analyze the central economic issues raised by U.S. v Microsoft. Network effects and economies of scale in applications programs created a barrier to entry for new operating system competitors, which the combination of Netscape Navigator and the Java programming language potentially could have lowered. Microsoft took actions to eliminate this threat to its operating system monopoly, and some of Microsoft's conduct very likely harmed consumers. While we recognize the risks of the government's proposed structural remedy of splitting Microsoft in two, we are pessimistic that a limited conduct remedy would be effective in this case.

Suggested Citation

  • Gilbert, Richard & Katz, Michael, 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v Microsoft," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt7kj1x7g9, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:compol:qt7kj1x7g9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7kj1x7g9.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    2. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1987. "Cost-Raising Strategies," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 19-34, September.
    3. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring the Social Return to R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135.
    4. Richard Gilbert, 2000. "Exclusive Dealing, Preferential Dealing, and Dynamic Efficiency," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 16(2), pages 167-184, March.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
    6. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-859, September.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "The Search for R&D Spillovers," NBER Chapters,in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 251-268 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. repec:aei:rpbook:53444 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908, Elsevier.
    10. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    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. Kuroda, Toshifumi & Koguchi, Teppei & Ida, Takanori, 2019. "Identifying the effect of mobile operating systems on the mobile services market," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 86-95.
    2. Oliver Budzinski, 2009. "Modern Industrial Economics and Competition Policy: Open Problems and Possible Limits," Working Papers 93/09, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    3. Erwin Blackstone & John Roccili & Joseph Fuhr, 2002. "Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology Stan J. Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis, 1999, pp. 288," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 30(4), pages 433-441, December.
    4. Stephane Verani, 2006. "Open Source Development in a Differentiated Duopoly," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 06-05, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    5. Pollock, Rufus, 2005. "The Control of Porting in Two-Sided Markets," MPRA Paper 5023, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2007.
    6. Malerba, Franco & Nelson, Richard & Orsenigo, Luigi & Winter, Sidney, 2008. "Public policies and changing boundaries of firms in a "history-friendly" model of the co-evolution of the computer and semiconductor industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 355-380, August.
    7. Katz, Michael L., 2021. "Big Tech mergers: Innovation, competition for the market, and the acquisition of emerging competitors," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    8. Krishnamurthy, Sandeep, 2009. "CASE: Mozilla vs. Godzilla — The Launch of the Mozilla Firefox Browser," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 259-271.
    9. Pier Luigi Parcu, 2006. "European dominant position and american monopolization: a unifying approach from basic game theory," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 59(237), pages 171-192.
    10. Oliver Budzinski & Isabel Ruhmer, 2010. "Merger Simulation In Competition Policy: A Survey," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 277-319.
    11. Claude Crampes & Corinne Langinier, 2009. "Are Intellectual Property Rights Detrimental to Innovation?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 249-268.
    12. Hal R. Varian, 2001. "High-technology industries and market structure," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 65-101.
    13. Knittel, Christopher R. & Stango, Victor, 2011. "Strategic incompatibility in ATM markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2627-2636, October.
    14. Zigic, Kresimir & Maçi, Ilir, 2011. "Competition policy and market leaders," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1042-1049, May.
    15. Hoppe, Heidrun C. & Lee, In Ho, 2003. "Entry deterrence and innovation in durable-goods monopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1011-1036, December.
    16. Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, 2007. "Antitrust in Innovative Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1703-1730, December.
    17. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2005. "Tying, Upgrades, and Switching Costs in Durable-Goods Markets," NBER Working Papers 11407, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Litan, Robert E. & Shapiro, Carl, 2001. "Antitrust Policy During the Clinton Administration," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt45r5r72p, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    19. Pier Luigi Parcu, 2006. "European dominant position and american monopolization: a unifying approach from basic game theory," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 59(237), pages 171-192.
    20. Steven J. Davis & Jack MacCrisken & Kevin M. Murphy, 2001. "Economic Perspectives on Software Design: PC Operating Systems and Platforms," NBER Working Papers 8411, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Niedermayer, Andras, 2013. "On platforms, incomplete contracts, and open source software," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 714-722.
    22. Pollock, Rufus, 2009. "The Control of Porting in Platform Markets," The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 155-180.
    23. Oliver Budzinski, 2008. "A Note on Competing Merger Simulation Models in Antitrust Cases: Can the Best Be Identified?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200803, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    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. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    2. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    3. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    4. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    5. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    6. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    7. Fumagalli, Chiara & Motta, Massimo, 2020. "Tying in evolving industries, when future entry cannot be deterred," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. repec:zbw:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201511261452 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Christopher Garmon, 2004. "Complements Integration and Foreclosure: The Case of Joint Consumption," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(4), pages 893-904, April.
    10. John Vickers, 2007. "Some Economics of Abuse of Dominance," Economics Series Working Papers 376, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    11. Yongmin Chen, 2014. "Refusal to Deal, Intellectual Property Rights, and Antitrust," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 533-557.
    12. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2015_023 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    14. Dennis W. Carlton & Robert H. Gertner, 2003. "Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and Strategic Behavior," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 3, pages 29-60, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Mariotto, Carlotta & Verdier, Marianne, 2015. "Innovation and competition in Internet and mobile banking: an industrial organization perspective," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 23/2015, Bank of Finland.
    16. Mariotto, Carlotta & Verdier, Marianne, 2015. "Innovation and competition in Internet and mobile banking: an industrial organization perspective," Research Discussion Papers 23/2015, Bank of Finland.
    17. repec:bof:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201511261452 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Cooper, James C. & Froeb, Luke M. & O'Brien, Dan & Vita, Michael G., 2005. "Vertical antitrust policy as a problem of inference," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 639-664, September.
    19. Stefanadis, Christodoulos, 1998. "Selective Contracts, Foreclosure, and the Chicago School View," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 429-450, October.
    20. Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2001. "Vertikale Unternehmenskooperationen," MPRA Paper 6930, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Carlotta MARIOTTO & Marianne VERDIER, 2015. "Innovation and Competition in Internet and Mobile Banking: an Industrial Organization Perspective," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(99), pages 129-146, 3rd quart.
    22. Ganslandt, Mattias, 2008. "Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy," Working Paper Series 726, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    23. Janusz Ordover & Greg Shaffer, 2007. "Exclusionary Discounts," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2007-13, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Microsoft; antitrust policy; monopolization; predation; network;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:compol:qt7kj1x7g9. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibbrkus.html .

    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.