Who cooperates in standards consortia-rivals or complementors?

Journal of Competition Law and Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 905-929

  Baron, Justus ^a,b   Pohlmann, Tim ^c,d  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SCIENCES PO   (France)

^c PSL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY   (France)

^d TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888876003     PISSN: 17446414     EISSN: 17446422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joclec/nht034     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Rudi Bekkers, Eric Iversen & Knut Blind, Emerging Ways to Address the Reemerging Conflict Between Patenting and Technological Standardization, 21 INDUS. & CORP. CHANGE 901 (2011).
2. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, Coordination Through Committees and Markets, 19 RAND J. ECON. 235 (1988).
3. Aija E. Leiponen, Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting inWireless Telecommunications, 54MGMT. SCI. 1904 (2008).
4. Rudi Bekkers, Geert Duysters & Bart Verspagen, Intellectual Property Rights, Strategic Technology Agreements and Market Structure: The Case of GSM, 31RES. POL'Y 1141 (2002).
5. Timothy S. Simcoe, Explaining the Increase in Intellectual Property Disclosure, in THE STANDARDS EDGE: GOLDENMEAN 153 (Sheri Bolin ed., Bolin Commc'ns 2007).
6. Joseph Farrell & Timothy S. Simcoe, Choosing the Rules for Consensus Standardization, 43 RAND J. ECON. 235 (2012)
7. Timothy S. Simcoe, Standard Setting Committees: Consensus Governance for Shared Technology Platforms, 102 AM. ECON. REV. 305 (2012).
8. Carl Cargill & Martin Weiss, Consortia in the Standards Development Process, 43 J. AM. SOC'Y INFO. SCI. 559 (1992)
9. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, A Model of Forum Shopping, 96 AM. ECON. REV. 1091 (2006).
10. Knut Blind & Stephan Gauch, Trends in ICT Standards: The Relationship Between European Standardization Bodies and Standards Consortia, 32 TELECOMM. POL'Y 503 (2008).
11. There are formal statements on direct ties between standards consortia and formal standards bodies-for example, the Publicly Available Specifications ("PAS") fast track agreement or JTC1's Approved References Specifications ("ARS") or the Partner Standards Development Organization ("PSDO"). Most standards consortia also enter liaison agreements, which is a rather broad statement of cooperation with formal standard bodies on specific topics. Paul David and Mark Shurmer describe the case of the Digital Video Broadcasting ("DVB") Group, a private industry consortium which was responsible for drafting specifications that were approved by European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
12. Paul A. David & Mark Shurmer, Formal Standards-Setting for Global Telecommunications and Information Services: Towards an Institutional Regime Transformation?, 20 TELECOMM. POL'Y 789 (1996).
13. Gauch (2008) shows how European Computer Manufacturers Association ("ECMA") specified DVD technologies that were approved at International Organization for Standardization ("ISO"). See Stephan Gauch, + vs. -, Dynamics and Effects of Competing Standards of Recordable DVD Media, in THE DYNAMICS OF STANDARDS 47 (TinekeM. Egyedi & Knut Blind eds., Edward Elgar 2008).
14. ISO, ISO Strategic Plan 2011-2015: Solutions to Global Challenges, at 8, http://www.iso.org/ iso/iso_strategic_plan_2011-2015.pdf.
15. Justus Baron, Yann Ménière & Tim Pohlmann, Standards, Consortia and Innovation (Working Paper, 2013) (on file with authors).
16. Henry R. Delcamp & Aija E. Leiponen, Innovating Standards Through Informal Consortia: The Case ofWireless Telecommunications, 31 INT'L J. INDUS. ORG. (forthcoming 2013).
17. Michael L. Katz & Janusz A. Ordover, R&D Cooperation and Competition, in BROOKINGS PAPERS ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY:MICROECONOMICS 137, 154 (Martin Neill Baily & CliffordM.Winston eds., Brookings Institution Press 1990)
18. Claude d'Aspremont & Alexis Jacquemin, Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers, 78AM. ECON. REV. 1133 (1988).
19. Paul M. Romer, Implementing a National Technology Strategy with Self-Organizing Industry Investment Boards, 2 BROOKINGS PAPERS ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: MICROECONOMICS 345 (Martin Neill Baily & Clifford M. Winston eds., Brookings Institution Press 1993)
20. Lee G. Branstetter & Mariko Sakakibara, When Do Research Consortia Work Well and Why? Evidence from Japanese Panel Data, 2AM. ECON. REV. 143 (2002).
21. Uwe Cantner & Andreas Meder, Technological Proximity and the Choice of Cooperation Partner, 2 J. ECON. INTERACTION & COORDINATION 45 (2007).
22. Nicholas Bloom, Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry, 81 ECONOMETRICA 1347 (2013).
23. Jennifer F. Reinganum, The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development and Diffusion, in 1 HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 849, 884 (Richard Schmalensee & Robert D.Willig eds., Elsevier Science 1989).
24. Douglas A. Irwin & Peter J. Klenow, High-Tech R&D Subsidies: Estimating the Effects of Sematech, 40 J. INT'L ECON. 323 (1996).
25. David M. Waguespack & Lee Fleming, Scanning the Commons? Evidence on the Benefits to Startups Participating in Open Standards Development, 55MGMT. SCI. 210 (2008).
26. Aija E. Leiponen & Talia Bar, Committees and Networking in Standard Setting (J. Econ. & Mgmt. Strategy,Working Paper, 2012).
27. Robert Axelrod, Will Mitchell, Robert E. Thomas, D. Scott Bennett & Erhard Bruderer, Coalition Formation in Standard-Setting Alliances, 41MGMT. SCI. 1493, 1494 (1995).
28. Martin B.H. Weiss & Marvin Sirbu, Technological Choice in Voluntary Standards Committees: An Empirical Analysis, 1 ECONOMICS OF INNOVATION AND NEW TECHNOLOGY 111 (1990).
29. Tim C. Pohlmann, Attributes and Dynamic Development Phases of Informal ICT Standards Consortia (Working Paper, Mar. 1, 2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1633403.
30. Lori Rosenkopf, Anca Metiu & Varghese P. George, From the Bottom Up? Technical Committee Activity and Alliance Formation, 46 ADMIN. SCI. Q. 748-72 (2001)
31. Tim C. Pohlmann & Knut Blind, Firms' Cooperative Activities as Driving Factors of Patent Declaration on Technological Standards: Evidence from Firm Level Analysis on Cooperative Arrangements and Business Models 1, 11 (Working Paper, 2011), available at http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/documents/ papers_EMAEE/pohlmann1.pdf.
32. Marc Rysman & Timothy Simcoe, Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard Setting Organizations, 54MGMT. SCI. 1920 (2008).
33. Nitin Aggarwal, Qinzhi Dai & Eric A. Walden, The More, the Merrier? How the Number of Partners in a Standard-Setting Initiative Affects Shareholder's Risk and Return, 35 MIS Q. 445 (2011).
34. Knut Blind, Rudi Bekkers, Yann Dietrich, Eric Iversen, Benoît Müller, Florian Köhler, Tim Pohlmann, Stein Smeets & Jurgen Verweijen, Study on the Interplay Between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), Tender No. ENTR/09/015 (OJEU S136 of 18/07/2009) (Apr. 2011) [hereinafter EU Study], available at ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/europeanstandards/ files/standards_policy/ipr-workshop/ipr_study_final_report_en.pdf.
35. Benjamin Chiao, Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis, 38 RAND J. ECON. 905 (2007).
36. Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, 90 CALIF. L. REV. 1889, 1959 (2002).
37. Grid Thoma, Salvatore Torrisi, Alfonso Gambardella, Dominique Guellec, Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff, Harmonizing and Combining Large Datasets-An Application to Firm-Level Patent and Accounting Data (Nat'l Bur. Econ. Res., NBER Working Paper No. w185851, Mar. 2010), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1578688.
38. In the IPC system, patent examiners assign patents to one or several very precise technological subcategories, which can be aggregated to more comprehensive technological categories and fields
39. Standard Setting Organizations and Standards List, CONSORTIUMINFO.ORG (2013), http:// www.consortiuminfo.org/links/linksall.php.
40. This is coherent with the identification of the CEN survey, which reports approximately 250 standards consortia in ICT.
41. Assisting this rather broad distinction we conduct a word count analysis on the consortia self-description abstracts, kindly provided by Andrew Updegrove. We use keywords such as "developing," "creates," "set standard," or "standardizes." Baron, Ménière, and Pohlmann provide a list of those consortia and standards for which a link could be established, as well as the narrower list of consortia contributing technologically.
42. Lori Rosenkopf & Paul Almeida, Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility, 49 MGMT. SCI. 751, 756 (2003).
43. Victor Gilsing, Bart Nooteboom, Wim Vanhaverbeke, Geert Duysters & Ad van den Oord, Network Embeddedness and the Exploration of Novel Technologies: Technological Distance, Betweenness Centrality and Density, 37 RES. POL'Y 1717 (2008).
44. Mary Benner & Joel Waldfogel, Close to You? Bias and Precision in Patent-Based Measures of Technological Position, 37RES. POL'Y 1556 (2008).
45. Talia Bar & Aija E. Leiponen, A Measure of Probability Distance and Its Application to Technological Proximity, 116 ECON. LETTERS 457 (2012).
46. Results of this analysis are on file with the authors.