IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach


  • Richard N. Langlois

    (University of Connecticut)


In this essay, I attempt to take seriously Schumpeter's perspective on competition as fundamentally about innovation. Drawing on literatures that concern themselves centrally with the patterns and processes of technological change, I focus on a set of issues very much on the present-day agenda: antitrust policy toward network industries in which technological standards are important. As both scholars and legal cases have suggested, one might logically view a set of standards as an "essential facility" - a technological bottleneck - for those who wish to connect to the network.. I attempt to define the limits of the standard price-theoretic account for understanding the problem of essential facilities and offer instead a perspective drawing on the theory property rights in a regime of innovation. Contrary to what is suggested by traditional economic analysis, I argue that, as a logical matter, refusals to deal by essential-facility monopolists are not always equivalent to the exercise of existing monopoly power through price, and there are good theoretical reasons for an essential facility doctrine to concern itself with refusals to deal even when it fails to touch other exercises of market power by a legally acquired monopoly. I introduce the concept of the scope of an essential facility, understood in analogy with a similar concept in the economics of patents, and suggest that the degree to which antitrust policy should concern itself with the ownership or control of a technical standard ought to be proportional to the scope of the standard. At the same time, however, a Schumpeterian perspective reminds us that, in a world of dynamic technological competition, even possession of a standard with wide scope may afford only temporary protection, and the winds of Schumpeterian creative destruction may be a better bulwark against monopoly than the cumbersome and interest-laden processes of antitrust law and policy. Nonetheless, the notion of the scope of a standard may prove useful in many cases, including those involving regulated (or formerly regulated) industries or involving tradeoffs in intellectual property rights.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard N. Langlois, 1999. "Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach," Working papers 1999-07, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:1999-07

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. Kranz, Johann & Picot, Arnold & Roemer, Benedikt, 2011. "Unlocking the potential of the smart metering technology: How can regulation level the playing-field for new services in smart grids?," 22nd European Regional ITS Conference, Budapest 2011: Innovative ICT Applications - Emerging Regulatory, Economic and Policy Issues 52183, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Leonardo Burlamaqui, 2006. "How Should Competition Policies and Intellectual Property Issues Interact in a Globalised World? A Schumpeterian Perspective," The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 06, TUT Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance.
    3. Danny García, 2007. "Innovation and Growth: A Survey of the Literature and a Case Study for Latin America," REVISTA ECOS DE ECONOMÍA, UNIVERSIDAD EAFIT, October.
    4. Oliver Budzinski & Arndt Christiansen, 2007. "The Oracle/PeopleSoft Case: Unilateral Effects, Simulation Models and Econometrics in Contemporary Merger Control," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200702, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:uct:uconnp:1999-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark McConnel). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.