IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0106001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Richard J. Gilbert

    (University of California, Berkeley)

  • Michael L. Katz

    (University of California, Berkeley)

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

  • Richard J. Gilbert & Michael L. Katz, 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft," Industrial Organization 0106001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpio:0106001
    Note: 41 pages, Acrobat .pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/io/papers/0106/0106001.pdf
    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. 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.
    9. 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. 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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Markus Pasche & Sebastian von Engelhardt, 2004. "Volkswirtschaftliche Aspekte der Open-Source-Softwareentwicklung," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft (Expired!) 18/2004, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    6. Stephane Verani, 2006. "Open Source Development in a Differentiated Duopoly," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 06-05, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    7. Pollock, Rufus, 2005. "The Control of Porting in Two-Sided Markets," MPRA Paper 5023, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2007.
    8. Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, 2007. "Antitrust in Innovative Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1703-1730, December.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:eee:joinma:v:23:y:2009:i:3:p:259-271 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Knittel, Christopher R. & Stango, Victor, 2011. "Strategic incompatibility in ATM markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2627-2636, October.
    12. Markus Pasche, 2005. "(Self-)Regulation of a Natural Monopoly via Complementary Goods - the Case of F/OSS Business Models," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft (Expired!) 18/2005, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Zigic, Kresimir & Maçi, Ilir, 2011. "Competition policy and market leaders," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1042-1049, May.
    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. repec:eee:joecas:v:6:y:2009:i:2:p:155-180 is not listed on IDEAS
    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).

    More about this item

    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wpa:wuwpio:0106001. 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: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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 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.

    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.