IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-02389002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

'Hybrid' competition, innovation outcomes and regulation: A duopoly model
[Concurrence 'hybride', innovation et régulation : Un modèle de duopole]

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Le Texier

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Ludovic Ragni

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur, COMUE UCA - COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019))

Abstract

This paper presents a duopoly model in which a commercial organization and a community compete by providing digital products while being able to share their innovation outputs to develop their own activities. The commercial organization always benefits from either a ‘closed' or an ‘open' institutional regime shift. Our numerical analysis evidences that the ‘closed' shift provides the best levels of innovation and welfare whereas it is not found to be profit-improving when product differentiation is small. This result partially qualifies the conventional idea according to which public policies may be designed to defend commercial interests rather than public ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Le Texier & Ludovic Ragni, 2019. "'Hybrid' competition, innovation outcomes and regulation: A duopoly model [Concurrence 'hybride', innovation et régulation : Un modèle de duopole]," Post-Print halshs-02389002, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-02389002
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02389002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02389002/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. Celine Schulz & Stefan Wagner, 2010. "Outlaw Community Innovations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Stephen Flowers & Flis Henwood (ed.), Perspectives On User Innovation, chapter 8, pages 191-210, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Hui Kai-Lung & Png Ivan, 2003. "Piracy and the Legitimate Demand for Recorded Music," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Ramnath K. Chellappa & Shivendu Shivendu, 2005. "Managing Piracy: Pricing and Sampling Strategies for Digital Experience Goods in Vertically Segmented Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 400-417, December.
    5. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:4:p:473-88 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Flowers, Stephen, 2008. "Harnessing the hackers: The emergence and exploitation of Outlaw Innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 177-193, March.
    9. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    10. David, Paul A, 1998. "Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of "Open Science" Institutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 15-21, May.
    11. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Silvia Giannangeli & Cristina Rossi, 2006. "Entry Strategies Under Competing Standards: Hybrid Business Models in the Open Source Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1085-1098, July.
    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. Thomas Le Texier & Ludovic Ragni, 2019. "Concurrence 'hybride', innovation et régulation : un modèle de duopole," GREDEG Working Papers 2019-29, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Anthony Koschmann & Yi Qian, 2020. "Latent Estimation of Piracy Quality and its Effect on Revenues and Distribution: The Case of Motion Pictures," NBER Working Papers 27649, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    6. 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.
    7. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    8. Brett Danaher & Michael D. Smith & Rahul Telang, 2014. "Piracy and Copyright Enforcement Mechanisms," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 25-61.
    9. Paul A. David, 2005. "The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and," Development and Comp Systems 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sujai Shivakumar, 2017. "Innovation as a Collective Action Challenge," Advances in Austrian Economics, in: The Austrian and Bloomington Schools of Political Economy, volume 22, pages 159-173, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Mukherjee, Arijit & Stern, Scott, 2009. "Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 449-462, May.
    13. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    14. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Müller, Bettina, 2009. "Open Source, ICT infrastructure and firm performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-089, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Pedro Ferreira & Michael D. Smith, 2018. "The Effect of Subscription Video-on-Demand on Piracy: Evidence from a Household-Level Randomized Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5610-5630, December.
    16. Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Feichtinger, Gustav & Grass, Dieter & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Seidl, Andrea, 2013. "When to make proprietary software open source," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1182-1194.
    17. Gabriele Santoro & Alberto Ferraris & Elisa Giacosa & Guido Giovando, 2018. "How SMEs Engage in Open Innovation: a Survey," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 561-574, June.
    18. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo, 2014. "“Little Science” and “Big Science”: The institution of “Open Science” as a cause of scientific and economic inequalities among countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 42-56.
    19. Ethan Mollick & Ramana Nanda, 2016. "Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1533-1553, June.
    20. Lee, Jonathan F., 2018. "Purchase, pirate, publicize: Private-network music sharing and market album sales," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 35-55.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Firm; Community; Closed innovation; Open innovation; Appropriation; Firme; Communauté; Innovation fermée; Innovation ouverte;
    All these keywords.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-02389002. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.