IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cer/papers/wp490.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Interaction between Private and Public IPR Protection in a Software Market: A Positive and Normative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kresimir Zigic
  • Jiri Strelicky
  • Michael Kunin

Abstract

Two software developers, each offering a product variety of different (exogenously given) quality, compete in prices for heterogeneous users who choose from purchasing a legal version, using an illegal copy, and not using a product at all. Using an illegal version violates intellectual property rights (IPR) and is thus punishable when disclosed. If a developer considers the level of piracy as high, he can introduce protection for his product in the form of restricting support and other services to illegal users. We study the positive and normative implications of the interaction between a regulator's IPR protection and the IPR protection that producers themselves may undertake to protect their IPR against the end users' software piracy. In particular, we aim to establish when the two forms of IPR protections (public and private) act as complements and when as substitutes to each other. Finally, we explore the situations in which there is (or is not) a conflict of interest between the regulator and the developers in this respect.

Suggested Citation

  • Kresimir Zigic & Jiri Strelicky & Michael Kunin, 2013. "The Interaction between Private and Public IPR Protection in a Software Market: A Positive and Normative Analysis," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp490, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    • Handle: RePEc:cer:papers:wp490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp490.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanjay Jain, 2008. "Digital Piracy: A Competitive Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 610-626, 07-08.
    2. Paul Belleflamme & Pierre M. Picard, 2007. "Piracy and Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 351-383, June.
    3. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    4. Banerjee, Dyuti S., 2003. "Software piracy: a strategic analysis and policy instruments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 97-127, January.
    5. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1984. "The Fat-Cat Effect, the Puppy-Dog Ploy, and the Lean and Hungry Look," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 361-366, May.
    6. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kresimir Zigic & Jiri Strelicky & Michael Kunin, 2015. "Modeling Software Piracy Protection: Monopoly versus Duopoly," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp551, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    2. Kresimir Zigic & Jiri Strelicky & Michael Kunin, 2014. "How Does Public IPR Protection Affect its Private Counterpart? Copyright and the Firms' Own IPR Protection in a Software Duopoly," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp518, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    3. Žigić, Krešimir & Střelický, Jiří & Kúnin, Michael, 2023. "Copyright and firms’ own IPR protection in a software market: Monopoly versus duopoly," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. Kresimir Zigic & Jiri Strelicky & Michal Kunin, 2020. "Private and Public IPR Protection in a Vertically Differentiated Software Duopoly," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp671, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    5. Jiri Strelicky & Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Enforcement in a Software Duopoly," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp435, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    6. Tsai, Ming-Fang & Chiou, Jiunn-Rong & Lin, Chun-Hung A., 2012. "A model of counterfeiting: A duopoly approach," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 283-291.
    7. Yuanzhu Lu & Sougata Poddar, 2015. "Does the Nature of Piracy and Competition Matter?," Working Papers 2015-04, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.
    8. Xinyu Hua & Kathryn E. Spier, 2023. "Settling Lawsuits With Pirates," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(2), pages 543-575, May.
    9. Gokhan Ozertan & Baris Cevik, 2008. "Pricing Strategies and Protection of Digital Products Under Presence of Piracy: A Welfare Analysis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(4), pages 1-1.
    10. Yuanzhu Lu & Sougata Poddar, 2019. "Limiting End-user Piracy - The Role of Private and Public Anti-Piracy Measure," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 20(1), pages 181-197, May.
    11. Bae Sang Hoo & Yoo Kyeongwon, 2021. "Is Imitation Bad for the Production of Creative Works?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 115-144, January.
    12. Peitz, Martin & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2006. "Piracy of digital products: A critical review of the theoretical literature," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 449-476, November.
    13. Luis Aguiar & Jörg Claussen & Christian Peukert, 2018. "Catch Me If You Can: Effectiveness and Consequences of Online Copyright Enforcement," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 656-678, September.
    14. William M. Volckmann, 2023. "The effects of market size, wealth, and network effects on digital piracy and profit," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 61-85, February.
    15. Dan Wu & Guofang Nan & Minqiang Li, 2020. "Optimal Piracy Control: Should a Firm Implement Digital Rights Management?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 947-960, August.
    16. Tunay I. Tunca & Qiong Wu, 2013. "Fighting Fire with Fire: Commercial Piracy and the Role of File Sharing on Copyright Protection Policy for Digital Goods," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 436-453, June.
    17. Sanjay Jain, 2008. "Digital Piracy: A Competitive Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 610-626, 07-08.
    18. Éric Darmon & Thomas Le Texier, 2014. "Private or Public Law Enforcement? The Case of Digital Piracy Policies with Non-monitored Illegal Behaviors," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 201403, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    19. Francisco Martínez-Sánchez, 2007. "Why Does The Pirate Decide To Be The Leader In Prices?," Working Papers. Serie AD 2007-01, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    20. Atanu Lahiri & Debabrata Dey, 2013. "Effects of Piracy on Quality of Information Goods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 245-264, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    vertically differentiated duopoly; software piracy; Bertrand competition; private and public intellectual property rights protection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:cer:papers:wp490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucie Vasiljevova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiacacz.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.