IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ksa/szemle/2162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mennyire innovatívak a Big Tech vállalatok?
[How innovative are Big Tech companies?]

Author

Listed:
  • Valentiny, Pál

Abstract

A tanulmány a címében feltett kérdésre választ keresve bemutatja a Big Tech vállalatok jelenlegi helyzetét, a területükön folyó verseny és innováció összefüggéseit, a hasonló típusú vállalatok korábbi tapasztalatait, az innováció típusait. Elemzi a Big Tech ökoszisztémáját és üzleti modelljét, az ebből következő magatartást, az innováció halálzónáját és a mesterséges intelligencia kilátásait. Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: K21, L12, O3.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentiny, Pál, 2024. "Mennyire innovatívak a Big Tech vállalatok? [How innovative are Big Tech companies?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 22-56.
    • Handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:2162
    DOI: 10.18414/KSZ.2024.1.22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kszemle.hu/tartalom/letoltes.php?id=2162
    Download Restriction: Registration and subscription. 3-month embargo period to non-subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18414/KSZ.2024.1.22?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. Susan Athey & Michael Luca, 2019. "Economists (and Economics) in Tech Companies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 209-230, Winter.
    2. Lapo Filistrucchi & Damien Geradin & Eric van Damme & Pauline Affeldt, 2014. "Market Definition In Two-Sided Markets: Theory And Practice," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 293-339.
    3. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    4. Evans, David S & Heckman, James J, 1984. "A Test for Subadditivity of the Cost Function with an Application to the Bell System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(4), pages 615-623, September.
    5. Lamoreaux, N., 2019. "The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1963, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2019. "The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 94-117, Summer.
    7. Giulio Federico & Fiona Scott Morton & Carl Shapiro, 2019. "Antitrust and Innovation: Welcoming and Protecting Disruption," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 125-190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. William J. Baumol, 1986. "Microtheory: Applications and Origins," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262022451, December.
    9. Frederic Jenny, 2021. "Competition law and digital ecosystems: Learning to walk before we run [Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1143-1167.
    10. Nicolas Petit & David J Teece, 2021. "Innovating Big Tech firms and competition policy: favoring dynamic over static competition [Patterns of industrial innovation]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1168-1198.
    11. Martin Watzinger & Thomas A. Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2020. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 328-359, November.
    12. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    13. Cree S. Dawson & Charles J. McCallum & R. Bradford Murphy & Eric Wolman, 2000. "Operations Research at Bell Laboratories through the 1970s: Part III," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(4), pages 517-526, August.
    14. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    16. Cree S. Dawson & Charles J. McCallum & R. Bradford Murphy & Eric Wolman, 2000. "Operations Research at Bell Laboratories through the 1970s: Part II," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 351-361, June.
    17. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    18. Cree S. Dawson & Charles J. McCallum & R. Bradford Murphy & Eric Wolman, 2000. "Operations Research at Bell Laboratories Through the 1970s: Part I," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 205-215, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael G Jacobides & Ioannis Lianos, 2021. "Regulating platforms and ecosystems: an introduction [Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1131-1142.
    2. Olga Slivko & Bernd Theilen, 2014. "Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 253-282, July.
    3. Kiedaisch, Christian, 2015. "Intellectual property rights in a quality-ladder model with persistent leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 194-213.
    4. Poege, Felix, 2022. "Competition and Innovation: The Breakup of IG Farben," IZA Discussion Papers 15517, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Bertrand, Olivier & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2006. "R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 401-423, March.
    6. Steven Bond‐Smith, 2022. "Discretely innovating: The effect of limited market contestability on innovation and growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 301-327, July.
    7. Tania Babina & Simcha Barkai & Jessica Jeffers & Ezra Karger & Ekaterina Volkova, 2023. "Antitrust Enforcement Increases Economic Activity," Working Papers 23-50, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    8. Rentocchini, Francesco, 2011. "Sources and characteristics of software patents in the European Union: Some empirical considerations," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 141-157, March.
    9. Rosina Moreno & Jordi Suriñach, 2014. "Innovation adoption and productivity growth: evidence for Europe," EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco / Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, vol. 86(02), pages 62-87.
    10. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2022. "The Breakup of the Bell System and its Impact on US Innovation," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 341, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    11. Latzer, Hélène, 2018. "A Schumpeterian theory of multi-quality firms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 766-802.
    12. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    13. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Kseniya (Матросова, Ксения), 2017. "Development and Analysis of Economic Models of Innovation Incentives [Разработка И Исследование Экономических Моделей Стимулирования Инновационных Процессов]," Working Papers 061713, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    15. Marchese, Carla & Marsiglio, Simone & Privileggi, Fabio & Ramello, Giovanni, 2014. "Endogenous Recombinant Growth through Market Production of Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201413, University of Turin.
    16. Carl Shapiro, 2011. "Competition and Innovation: Did Arrow Hit the Bull's Eye?," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, pages 361-404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Haucap, Justus & Rasch, Alexander & Stiebale, Joel, 2019. "How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 283-325.
    18. Athanasopoulos, Thanos, 2015. "Incentives to Innovate, Compatibility and Welfare in Durable Goods Markets with Network Effects," Economic Research Papers 270229, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    19. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    20. Babina, Tania & Barkai, Simcha & Jeffers, Jessica & Karger, Ezra & Volkova, Ekaterina, 2023. "Antitrust enforcement increases economic activity," Working Papers 332, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:ksa:szemle:2162. 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: Odon Sok (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kszemle.hu .

    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.