The economic realities of open standards: Black, white, and many shades of gray

Standards and Public Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 87-122

  West, Joel ^a  

^a SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927962189     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511493249.004     Document Type: Chapter

References (85)

1. Arthur, W. Brian 1996. “Increasing returns and the new world of business,” Harvard Business Review 74: 100-9.
2. Baba, Yasunori, Shinji Takai, and Yuji Mizuta 1996. “The user-driven evolution of the Japanese software industry: The case of customized software for mainframes,” in The international computer software industry: A comparative study of industry evolution and structure, David Mowery (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104-13.
3. Bekkers, Rudi 2001. Mobile telecommunications standards: GSM, UMTS, TETRA, and ERMES. Boston: Artech House.
4. Bekkers, Rudi, Geert Duysters, and Bart Verspagen 2002. “Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM,” Research Policy 31: 1141-61.
5. Bier, Jeff 2002. “MPEG? Thanks but no thanks,” EE Times, April 8 http://www.eetimes.com/op/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16504751.
6. Bresnahan, Timothy F., and Shane Greenstein 1996. “Technical progress and co-invention in computing and in the uses of computers,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1996,1-77.
7. Bresnahan, Timothy F., and Shane Greenstein 1999. “Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics 47: 1-40.
8. Cargill, Carl F. 1989. Information technology standardization: Theory, process, and organizations. Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
9. Cargill, Carl F. 1994. “Evolution and revolution in open systems,” ACM StandardView 2: 3-13.
10. Consortium Info.org. 2005. “What (and why) is a consortium?” http://www.consortiuminfo.org/what.
11. Cusumano, Michael A., Yiorgos Mylonadis, and Richard S. Rosenbloom 1992. “Strategic maneuvering and mass-market dynamics: The triumph of VHS over Beta,” Business History Review 66: 51-94.
12. David, Paul A. 1987. “Some new standards for the economics of standardization in the information age,” in Economic policy and technological performance, Partha Dasgupta and Paul Stoneman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207-40.
13. David, Paul A., and Shane M. Greenstein 1990. “Economics of compatibility standards,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1: 3-41.
14. David, Paul A., and Mark Shurmer 1996. “Formal standards-setting for global telecommunications and information services,” Telecommunications Policy 20: 789-815.
15. David, Paul A., and W. Edward Steinmueller 1994. “Economics of compatibility standards and competition in telecommunication networks,” Information Economics & Policy 6: 217-41.
16. de Vries, Henk, Hugo Verheul, and Harmen Willemse 2003. “Stakeholder identification in IT standardization processes,” in Proceedings of the workshop on standard making: A critical research frontier for information systems, John Leslie King and Kalle Lyytinen (eds.), 92-107, http:// www.si.umich.edu/misq-stds/proceedings.
17. Egyedi, Tineke M. 2003. “Consortium problem redefined: Negotiating ‘democracy’ in the actor network on standardization,” Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research 1: 22-38.
18. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research,” Academy of Management Review 14: 532-50.
19. Eisenmann, Thomas 2004. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Case N2-804-191, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
20. Festa, Paul 2002. “Patent holders on the ropes,” CNET News.com, December 2, http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975587.html.
21. Fisher, Franklin M., John J. McGowan, and Joen E. Greenwood 1983. Folded, spindled, and mutilated: Economic analysis and US v. IBM. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Fowler, Martin 2005. “Code as documentation,” MartinFowler.com, March 22, http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CodeAsDocumentation.html.
23. FSF 2003. “The free software definition,” Free Software Foundation, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.
24. Gabel, H. Landis 1987. “Open standards in computers: The case of X/ OPEN,” in Product standardization and competitive strategy, H. Landis Gabel (ed.), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 91-123.
25. Gallagher, Scott, and Seung Ho Park 2002. “Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: A historical analysis of the U.S. home video game market,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49: 67-82.
26. Gandal, Neil, Nataly Gantman, and David Genesove 2007. “Intellectual property and standardization committee participation in the US modem industry,” in Standards and public policy, Shane Greenstein and Victor Stango (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (this volume).
27. Garud, Raghu, and Arun Kumaraswamy 1993. “Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems’ open systems strategy,” Strategic Management Journal 14: 351-69.
28. Gawer, Annabelle, and Michael A. Cusumano 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
29. Gilbert, Richard J., and Michael L. Katz 2001. “An economist’s guide to US v. Microsoft,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 25-44.
30. Graham, Stuart J. H., and David C. Mowery 2003. “Intellectual property protection in the software industry,'' in Patents in the knowledge-based economy, Wesley Cohen and Steven Merrill (eds.), Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 219-58.
31. Greenstein, Shane M. 1993. “Did installed based give an incumbent any (measurable) advantages in federal computer procurement?” RAND Journal of Economics 24:19-39.
32. Greenstein, Shane M. 1997. “Lock-in and the costs of switching mainframe computer vendors: What do buyers see?'' Industrial and Corporate Change 6: 247-74.
33. Grindley, Peter 1995. Standards, strategy, and policy: Cases and stories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Grove, Andrew S. 1996. Only the paranoid survive: How to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company and career. New York: Doubleday.
35. Haug, Thomas 2002. “A commentary on standardization practices: Lessons from the NMT and GSM mobile telephone standards histories,'' Telecommunications Policy 26:101-7.
36. Iansiti, Marco, and Roy Levien 2004. The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
37. ICTSB 2005. “Critical issues in ICT Standardization,” report, Information & Communications Technologies Standards Board, April 25, http://www.ictsb.org/ICTSFG/ICTSFG_report_2005-04-27.pdf.
38. IETF 2004. “Participating in the efforts of the IETF,” Internet Engineering Task Force http://www.ietf.org/join.html.
39. Isaak, Jim 2006. “The role of individuals and social capital in POSIX standardization,” International Journal of IT Standards & Standardization Research 4:1-23.
40. Jakobs, Kai 2000. Standardization processes in IT: Impact, problems and benefits of user participation. Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg.
41. Jakobs, Kai, Rob Procter, and Robin Williams 1996. “Users and standardization - worlds apart? The example of electronic mail,” ACM StandardView 4: 183-91.
42. Jakobs, Kai, Rob Procter, and Robin Williams 2001. “The making of standards: Looking inside the work groups,” IEEE Communications Magazine 39: 1-7.
43. Katz, Michael L., and Carl Shapiro 1985. “Network externalities, competition, and compatibility,” American Economic Review 75: 424-40.
44. Katz, Michael L., and Carl Shapiro 1994. “Systems competition and network effects,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 93-115.
45. Korea Times 2001. “LG, Samsung boosting world market share for core products,” December 12.
46. Kraemer, Kenneth L., and Jason Dedrick 1998. “Globalization and increasing returns: Implications for the U.S. computer industry,” Information Systems Research 9: 303-22.
47. Krechmer, Ken 2006. “The meaning of open standards,” International Journal of IT Standards & Standardisation Research 4: 43-61.
48. Liebowitz, Stan J., and Stephen E. Margolis 1999. Winners, losers and Microsoft: Competition and antitrust in high technology. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute.
49. Loomis, Tamara 2005. “Cell break,” IP Law & Business (July), http://www.ipww.com/texts/0705/europhony0705.html.
50. Lyytinen, Kalle, and Vladislav V. Fomin 2002. “Achieving high momentum in the evolution of wireless infrastructures: The battle over the 1G solutions,” Telecommunications Policy 26: 149-70.
51. MacKie-Mason, Jeffrey K., and Janet S. Netz 2007. “Manipulating interface standards as an anticompetitive strategy, in Standards and public policy, Shane Greenstein and Victor Stango (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (this volume).
52. Morris, Charles R., and Charles H. Ferguson 1993. “How architecture wins technology wars,” Harvard Business Review 71: 86-96.
53. Moschella, David C. 1997. Waves of power: Dynamics of global technology leadership, 1964-2010. New York: AMACOM.
54. O’Mahony, Siobhan, and Joel West 2005. “The participation architecture of online production communities,” Working Paper, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
55. Rada, Roy, and John Berg 1995. “Standards: Free or sold?” Communications of the ACM 38,2:23-7.
56. Ramstad, Evan, and David Pringle 2004. “Alcatel shifts production to China,” Wall Street Journal, April 27, B5.
57. Raymond, Eric S. 2003. “Live free or die!” The new hacker’s dictionary, http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/L/Live-Free-Or-Die-.html.
58. Reeves, Jack M. 1992. “What is software design?” C++ Journal, Fall, http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves_design.html.
59. Rohlfs, Jeffrey 1974. “A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service,” Bell Journal of Economics 5: 16-37.
60. Rohlfs, Jeffrey 2001. Bandwagon effects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Rosenkopf, Lori, Anca Metiu, and Varghese P. George 2001. “From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation,” Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 748-72.
62. Samuelson, Pamela 2003. “Digital rights management (and, or, vs.) the law,” Communications of the ACM 46: 41-5.
63. Shapiro, Carl, and Hal R. Varian 1999. Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
64. Sheremata, Willow A. 1997. “Barriers to innovation: A monopoly, network externalities, and the speed of innovation,” Antitrust Bulletin 42: 937-72.
65. Sheremata, Willow A. 2004. “Competing through innovation in network markets: Strategies for challengers,” Academy ofManagement Review 29: 359-77.
66. Simcoe, Timothy 2006. “Open standards and intellectual property rights,” in Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 161-183.
67. Simcoe, Timothy 2007. “Delay and de jure standardization: Exploring the slowdown in Internet standards development,” in Standards and public policy, Shane Greenstein and Victor Stango (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (this volume).
68. Suarez, Fernando 2004. “Battles for technological dominance: An integrated framework,” Research Policy 33: 271-86.
69. Takahashi, Dean 2002. Opening the XBox: Inside Microsoft’s plan to unleash an entertainment revolution. Roseville, CA: Prima.
70. Tansey, Richard, Mark Neal, and Ray Carroll 2005. “‘Get rich, or die trying’: Lessons from Rambus’ high-risk predatory litigation in the semiconductor industry,” Industry and Innovation 12: 93-115.
71. Teece, David 1986. “Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy,” Research Policy 15: 285-305.
72. Updegrove, Andrew 2003a. “What is Congress up to? Watch out for H. R. Bill 1086,” Consortium Standards Bulletin 2, http://www.consor-tiuminfo.org/bulletins/apr03.php.
73. Updegrove, Andrew 2003b. “Patents: Too easy to get, too hard to challenge?'' Consortium Standards Bulletin 2, http://www.consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/nov03.php.
74. von Burg, Urs 2001. The triumph of Ethernet: Technological communities and the battle for the LAN standard. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
75. von Hippel, Eric 1998. The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
76. West, Joel 1995. “Software rights and Japan’s shift to an information society,” Asian Survey 35: 1118-39.
77. West, Joel 2000. “A comparison of PC standard switching decisions by U.S. and Japanese computer users,'' unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Irvine, CA: University of California.
78. West, Joel 2002. “Qualcomm 2000: CDMA technologies,” European Case Clearinghouse, Case 302-069-1.
79. West, Joel 2003. “How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies,” Research Policy 32:1259-85.
80. West, Joel 2005. “The fall of a Silicon Valley icon: Was Apple really Betamax redux?” in Strategy in transition, Richard A. Bettis (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 274-301.
81. West, Joel 2006. “Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation?” in Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109-33.
82. West, Joel, and Jason Dedrick 2000. “Innovation and control in standards architectures: The rise and fall of Japan's PC-98,'' Information Systems Research 11: 197-216.
83. West, Joel, and Jason Dedrick 2001. “Open source standardization: The rise of Linux in the network era,” Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 14: 88-112.
84. West, Joel, and Jason Dedrick 2005. “The effect of computerization movements upon organizational adoption of open source,'' Social Informatics Workshop: Extending the Contributions of Professor Rob Kling to the Analysis of Computerization Movements, March 11, 2005, http://crito.uci.edu/si.
85. West, Joel, and Scott Gallagher 2006. “Open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open source software,” in Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.