IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/0702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Profitable Suppression of Inventions: Technology Choice and Entry Deterrence

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Creane
  • Kaz Miyagiwa

Abstract

AT&T was known for both funding a world-class research lab and delaying deployment of useful innovations from the lab. To explain this behavior we consider a model with an incumbent facing a potential entrant. The incumbent can choose from two technologies for production: old and new. The entrant's choice is limited to the old. We show that, under correlated production uncertainty, use of the common technology exposes the entrant to a greater risk. Therefore, the incumbent may suppress a newer, more efficient technology in favor of the old as a means to deter entry.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Creane & Kaz Miyagiwa, 2007. "The Profitable Suppression of Inventions: Technology Choice and Entry Deterrence," ISER Discussion Paper 0702, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:0702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2007/DP0702.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salop, Steven C, 1979. "Strategic Entry Deterrence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 335-338, May.
    2. Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2011. "Strategic Entry Deterrence and the Behavior of Pharmaceutical Incumbents Prior to Patent Expiration," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-36, February.
    3. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    4. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1986. "Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 940-955, December.
    5. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, April.
    6. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1987. "Cost-Raising Strategies," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 19-34, September.
    7. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    8. King, John Leslie & West, Joel, 0. "Ma Bell's orphan: US cellular telephony, 1947-1996," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3-4), pages 189-203, April.
    9. Joseph E. Harrington Jr., 1987. "Oligopolistic Entry Deterrence under Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 211-231, Summer.
    10. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    11. Nix, Joan & Gabel, David, 1993. "AT&T's Strategic Response to Competition: Why Not Preempt Entry?," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 377-387, June.
    12. Eric S. Maskin, 1999. "Uncertainty and entry deterrence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 14(2), pages 429-437.
    13. Xavier Vives, 1990. "Trade Association Disclosure Rules, Incentives to Share Information, and Welfare," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(3), pages 409-430, Autumn.
    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. Creane, Anthony & Miyagiwa, Kaz, 2009. "Forgoing invention to deter entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 632-638, September.
    2. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, September.
    3. Krishnendu Ghosh DASTIDAR & YANO Makoto, 2017. "In many emerging economies corruption, poor quality of information and poor governance lead to restricted entry. In this paper we analyze the determinants of the .height.of entry barrier in a developi," Discussion papers 17010, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. J. Anthony Cookson, 2018. "Anticipated Entry and Entry Deterrence: Evidence from the American Casino Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2325-2344, May.
    5. Flavio DelbonoBy & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Innovation and product market concentration: Schumpeter, arrow, and the inverted U-shape curve [Lessons from schumpeterian growth theory]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 297-311.
    6. Garella, Paolo G., 2012. "Monopoly incentives for cost-reducing R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 21-24.
    7. Bruno D. Badia, 2019. "Patent Licensing and Technological Catch-Up in a Heterogeneous Duopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(2), pages 287-300, September.
    8. Philipp Weinschenk, 2009. "Persistence of Monopoly and Research Specialization," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    9. Zhixi Wan & Brian Wu, 2017. "When Suppliers Climb the Value Chain: A Theory of Value Distribution in Vertical Relationships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 477-496, February.
    10. Bourreau, Marc, 2004. "The impact of uncertainty about demand growth on preemption," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 363-376.
    11. S. Baranzoni & P. Bianchi & L. Lambertini, 2000. "Multiproduct Firms, Product Differentiation, and Market Structure," Working Papers 368, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    12. Ming Chung Chang & Hsiao‐Ping Peng, 2009. "Structure Regulation, Price Structure, Cross‐Subsidization And Marginal Cost Of Public Funds," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(6), pages 675-698, December.
    13. Lukach, R. & Kort, P.M. & Plasmans, J.E.J., 2005. "Optimal R&D Investment Strategies with Quantity Competition under the Threat of Superior Entry," Other publications TiSEM f41be61a-5422-43b2-9080-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Thomas J. Holmes & David K. Levine & James A. Schmitz, 2012. "Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 1-33, August.
    15. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir & Saeed Moshiri, 2021. "Innovation spillover and merger decisions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2419-2448, November.
    16. Melkonian, Tigran A., 1998. "Two essays on reputation effects in economic models," ISU General Staff Papers 1998010108000012873, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Kurt R. Brekke & Odd Rune Straume, 2008. "Pharmaceutical Patents: Incentives for R&D or Marketing?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2433, CESifo.
    18. Ping Lin & Tianle Zhang & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Vertical integration and disruptive cross‐market R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 51-73, January.
    19. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2013. "Product Innovation Incentives: Monopoly vs. Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 513-528, September.
    20. Tishler, Asher & Milstein, Irena, 2009. "R&D wars and the effects of innovation on the success and survivability of firms in oligopoly markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 519-531, July.

    More about this item

    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:dpr:wpaper:0702. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.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.