Standard setting in markets: The browser war

Standards and Public Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 18-59

  Bresnahan, Timothy F ^a   Yin, Pai Ling ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927970575     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511493249.002     Document Type: Chapter

References (81)

1. Allchin, James 1997. “IE and Windows,” (GX 48), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: email, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
2. Anton, J., and D. Yao 1995. “Standard-setting consortia, antitrust, and hightechnology industries,” Antitrust Law Journal 64: 247-65.
3. Arthur, W. Brian 1989. “Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events,” Economic Journal 99: 116-31.
4. Arthur, W. Brian 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5. Augereau, A., Shane Greenstein, and Marc Rysman, in press. “Coordination versus differentiation in a standards war: The adoption of 56 K modems,” RAND Journal ofEconomics.
6. Axelrod, Robert, Will Mitchell, Robert E. Thomas, D. Scott Bennett, and Erhard Bruderer 1995. “Coalition formation in standard-setting alliances,” Management Science 41: 1493-508.
7. Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kim B. Clark 1997. “Managing in an age of modularity,” Harvard Business Review 75: 84-93.
8. Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kim B. Clark 2000. Design rules: The power of modularity, Volume 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Besen, Stanley M., and Joseph Farrell 1994. “Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 117-31.
10. Besen, Stanley M., and Garth Saloner 1989. “The economics of telecommunications standards,” in Changing the rules: Technological change, international competition, and regulation in telecommunications, Robert W. Crandall and Kenneth Flamm, Washington: Brookings Institution, 177-220.
11. Bresnahan, Timothy, and Pai-Ling Yin, in press. “Economic and technical drivers of technology choice: Browsers,” Annales d’Economie et Statistiques.
12. Chase, Brad 1996a. “Winning the Internet platform battle,” (GX 465), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: memo, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ ms_exhibits.htm.
13. Chase, Brad 1996b. “How to get 30% share in 12 months: Summary recommendations,” (GX 684), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: report, http://www.usdoj.gov/ atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
14. Church, Jeffrey, and Neil Gandal 1992. “Network effects, software provision, and standardization,” Journal of Industrial Economics 40: 85-103.
15. Cusumano, Michael A., and Annabelle Gawer 2002. “The elements of platform leadership,” MIT Sloan Management Review 43: 51-8.
16. 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, High-Technology Industries: 51-94.
17. Cusumano, Michael A., and David Yoffie 1998. Competing on Internet time: Lessons from Netscape and its battle with Microsoft. New York: Free Press.
18. David, Paul A. 1985. “Clio and the economics of QWERTY,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 75: 332-7.
19. David, P. A., and S. Greenstein 1990. “The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1: 3-41.
20. David, P. A., and M. Shurmer 1996. “Formal standards-setting for global telecommunications and information services - Towards an institutional regime transformation?” Telecommunications Policy 20: 789-815.
21. Davis, Steven J., and Kevin M. Murphy 2000. “A competitive perspective on Internet Explorer,” American Economic Review 90, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Twelfth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association: 184-7.
22. Downes, Larry, and Chunka Mui 1998. Unleashing the killer app: Digital strategies for market dominance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
23. Dranove, David, and Neil Gandal 2004. “Surviving a standards war: Lessons learned from the life and death of DIVX,” in Advances in the economics of information systems, Kerem Tomak (ed.), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc., 1-14 (first chapter).
24. Ehrhardt, Marcus 2004. “Network effects, standardisation and competitive strategy: How companies influence the emergence of dominant designs,” International Journal of Technology Management 27: 272-94.
25. Evans, David S., Franklin M. Fisher, Daniel L. Rubinfeld, and Richard L. Schmalensee 2000. Did Microsoft harm consumers? Two opposing views. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
26. Evans, David S., A. L. Nichols, and Richard Schmalensee 2001. “An analysis of the government’s economic case in U.S. v. Microsoft,” Antitrust Bulletin 46: 163-242.
27. Farrell, Joseph, and Paul Klemperer, in press. “Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects,” in Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. III, Mark Armstrong and Robert Porter (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
28. Farrell, Joseph, and Garth Saloner 1985. “Standardization, compatibility, and innovation,” RAND Journal of Economics 16: 70-83.
29. Farrell, Joseph, and Garth Saloner 1986. “Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation,” American Economic Review 76: 940-55.
30. Farrell, Joseph, and Garth Saloner 1988. “Coordination through committees and markets,” RAND Journal of Economics 19: 235-52.
31. Farrell, Joseph, and Garth Saloner 1992. “Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces,” Journal of Industrial Economics 40: 9-35.
32. Fisher, Franklin M., and Daniel Rubinfeld 2001. “U.S. v. Microsoft - An economic analysis,” Antitrust Bulletin 46: 1-69.
33. Gallagher, S., and S. H. 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.
34. Gandal Neil, Nataly Gantman and David Genesove, in press. “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).
35. Gates, Bill 1995. “The Internet tidal wave,” (GX 20), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: memo, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
36. Gates, Bill, and Nathan Myhrvold 1994. “Internet,” (DX 386), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: email exchange.
37. Gates, Bill, Nathan Myhrvold, and Peter Rinearson 1995. The road ahead. New York: Viking.
38. Gawer, Annabelle, and Michael A. Cusumano 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
39. Gawer, Annabelle, and Rebecca Henderson 2005. “Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel,” NBER Working Paper W11852.
40. Gilbert, Richard, and Michael Katz 2001. “An economist’s guide to U.S. v. Microsoft,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 25-44.
41. Goolsbee, Austan, and Peter J. Klenow 2002. “Evidence on learning and network externalities in the diffusion of home computers,” Journal of Law & Economics 45: 317-43.
42. Greenstein, Shane M. 1992. “Invisible hands and visible advisors: An economic interpretation of standardization,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43: 538-49.
43. Hawkins, R., Robin Mansell, and Jim Skea 1995. Standards, innovation and competitiveness: The politics and economics ofstandards in natural and technical environments. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
44. Henderson, Rebecca E. 2000. Direct testimony in United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232, April 28, 2000.
45. Henderson, Rebecca, and Kim Clark 1990. “Architectural innovation -The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9-30.
46. IDC 2000a. Client Operating Environments Market Forecast and Analysis, 2000-2004, IDC #22346, June.
47. IDC 2000b. Consumer Internet Service Provider Market Share Update, 1999, IDC #22065, April.
48. IDC 2000c. IDC’s Quarterly PC Update: 1Q00 Review/2Q00 Outlook, IDC #22811, August.
49. IDC 2000d. IDC’s Quarterly PC Update: 2Q00 Review/3Q00 Outlook, IDC #23224, October.
50. IDC 2000e. IDC’s Quarterly PC Update: 4Q99 Review/1Q00 Outlook, IDC #22067, April.
51. IDC 2000f. Internet Service Provider Market Review and Forecast, 1999-2004, IDC #21203, December.
52. IDC 2000g. Network Insider: May 2000, IDC #22379, May.
53. IDC 2000h. Operating Environments Market Forecast and Analysis, 2000-2004, IDC #22597, July.
54. Joskow, Paul, and Roger Noll 1981. “Regulation in theory and practice: An overview,” in Studies in public regulation, Gary Fromm (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Katz, Michael L., and Carl Shapiro 1994. “Systems competition and network effects,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 93-115.
56. Kempin, Joachim 1998. “Microsoft OEM sales FY’98 mid-year review,” (GX 421), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: report, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
57. Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole, in press. “A model of forum shopping, with special reference to standard setting organizations,” American Economic Review.
58. Liebowitz, S.J., and Stephen E. Margolis 1990. “The fable of the keys,” Journal of Law & Economics 33: 1-26.
59. Liebowitz, S.J., and Stephen E. Margolis 1994. “Network externality: An uncommon tragedy,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 133-50.
60. MacKie-Mason, Jeffrey K., and Janet S. Netz, in press. “Manipulating interface standards as an anticompetitive strategy,” in Standards and public policy, Shane Greenstein and Victor Stango (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (this volume).
61. Maritz, Paul 1995. “Netscape as netware,” (GX 498), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: report, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
62. Maritz, Paul 1996a. “Internet Explorer 3, webmasters, ActiveX: Review of marketing plans,” (GX 488), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: presentation, http://www.usdoj. gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
63. Maritz, Paul 1996b. “Windows & internet issues,” (GX42), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: email, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
64. Mehta, Kumar 1997. “FW: ie data,” (GX 204), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: email, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
65. Miller, David M. 2005. “Invention under uncertainty and the threat of ex post entry,'' mimeo, Stanford University.
66. Negroponte, Nicholas 1995. Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
67. Peltzman, Sam 1989. “The economic theory of regulation after a decade of deregulation,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1989 (special issue): 1-41.
68. Roberts, Jonathan 1997. “RE: ie data,” (GX 205), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: email, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
69. Romano, John 1997. “Letter to Dave Wright, Microsoft Business Manager,” (GX 309), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: letter, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
70. Rysman, Marc 2004. “Competition between networks: A study of the market for yellow pages,” Review of Economic Studies 71: 483-512, http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0034-6527.00512.
71. Schmalensee, Richard 2000. “Antitrust issues in Schumpeterian industries,'' American Economic Review 90, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Twelfth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association: 192-6.
72. Shapiro, Carl, and Hal R. Varian 1999. “The art of standards war,” California Management Review 41: 8-32.
73. Simcoe, T. 2003. “Committees and the creation of technical standards,” mimeo, University of California at Berkeley.
74. Stango, Victor 2004. “The economics of standards wars,” Review of Network Economics 3: 1-19.
75. Thibodeau, Patrick 1999. “Compaq witness denies Microsoft bullying,” PCWorld.com, February 19,1999, http://www.pcworld.com/news/arti-cle/0, aid,9812,00.asp.
76. von Burg, Urs 2001. The triumph of Ethernet, technological communities and the battle for the LAN standard. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
77. Weiss, Martin, and Carl Cargill 1992. “Consortia in the standards development process,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43: 559-65.
78. Weiss, Martin B.H., and Marvin Sirbu 1990. “Technological choice in voluntary standards committees: An empirical analysis,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1:111-33.
79. Wildfeuer, Christian 1997. “Memphis IEU focus groups report (long mail),” (GX 202), United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232. Trial exhibit: email, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ cases/ms_exhibits.htm.
80. Yamada, Hideo, and Sam Kurokawa 2005. “How to profit from de facto standard-based competition: Learning from Japanese firms’ experiences,” International Journal of Technology Management 30: 299-326.
81. Yoffie, David, Pai-Ling Yin, and Christina Darwall 2004. “PalmSource, Inc.,” HBS Case No. 704-473. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.