IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v18y2001i3p257-262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Microsoft's Pricing of Windows and the Economics of Derived Demand Monopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Werden

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Werden, 2001. "Microsoft's Pricing of Windows and the Economics of Derived Demand Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 257-262, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:257-262
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007859017076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1007859017076
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1007859017076?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. repec:aei:rpbook:53444 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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).
    6. Christian Genthon, 2007. "Can we measure Microsoft's market power ?," Post-Print halshs-00153837, HAL.
    7. 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. ., 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.
    3. Michiel Bijlsma & Viktoria Kocsis & Victoria Shestalova & Gijsbert Zwart, 2008. "Vertical foreclosure: a policy framework," CPB Document 157, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. ., 2013. "Diversity of consumers, product innovation and economic performance," Chapters, in: Competition, Diversity and Economic Performance, chapter 3, pages 48-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. M. Rimscha, 2013. "It’s not the economy, stupid! External effects on the supply and demand of cinema entertainment," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 37(4), pages 433-455, November.
    14. Bruce Owen, 2011. "Antitrust and Vertical Integration in “New Economy” Industries with Application to Broadband Access," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(4), pages 363-386, June.
    15. Jeho Lee & Jaeyong Song & Jae-Suk Yang, 2016. "Network structure effects on incumbency advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1632-1648, August.
    16. Shanling Li & Jennifer Shang & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2010. "Why Do Software Firms Fail? Capabilities, Competitive Actions, and Firm Survival in the Software Industry from 1995 to 2007," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 631-654, September.
    17. Fosfuri, Andrea & Giarratana, Marco S., 2004. "Product strategies and startups' survival in turbulent industries: evidence from the security software industry," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb044816, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    18. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2002. "Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 1-50, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. ., 2013. "Concepts of economic competition and performance in context," Chapters, in: Competition, Diversity and Economic Performance, chapter 2, pages 20-47, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Fujii, Dmitri, 2009. "Who Wants To Be a Genius?," Panorama Económico, Escuela Superior de Economía, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, vol. 0(09), pages 7-54, segundo s.

    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:257-262. 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.