Abstract
The browser wars case is a useful springboard for considering the principle of positive competition and the proper regulation of platform technologies. There are lessons to be culled about policy, the application of antitrust law, and the parameters of fair competition. We argue that despite Microsoft’s opportunistic exploitation of its proprietary code, policy makers should resist the temptation to mandate an open source code model. Vigilant anti-trust enforcement is a preferable alternative. But courts must refrain from using antitrust law to favor small innovators or to constrain the economic protections inherent in intellectual property rights, since those rights are still needed to encourage innovation. On the other hand, despite the exigencies of competition, platform leaders should respect the norm of fair competition and refrain from the impulse to tilt the platform in their favor. Preservation of robust intellectual property rights, deft application of antitrust statutes, and principled competition represent the best prescription for social wealth in the New Economy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. Bank (2001) Breaking Windows Free Press New York
J. Brinkley S. Lohr (2001) U.S. v. Microsoft McGraw-Hill New York
A. Carroll M. Schwartz (2003) ArticleTitle‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three Domain Approach,’ Business Ethics Quarterly 13 503–530
Cooke R. (1993). Review of the Moral Manager by C. Walton. In: Business Ethics Quarterly 3, 307
M. Cooper (2001) ArticleTitle‘Perspectives on Antitrust Law: Antitrust as Consumer Protection in the New Economy,’ Hastings Law Journal 52 813
M. Cusumano (2004) ArticleTitle‘Reflections on Free and Open Software,’ Communications of the ACM 47 25–27
M. Cusumano F. Yoffie (1998) Competing on Internet Time: Lessons from Netscape and its Battle with Microsoft Simon & Schuster New York
D.C. Circuit Opinion: 2001, United States of America v. Microsoft. 253 F. 3d 34 D.C. Cir. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Inc.: 1992, 504 U.S. 451
D. Evans B. Reddy (2002) Government Preferences for Promoting Open-Source Software: A Solution in Search of a Problem National Economic Research Associates Cambridge
Findings of Fact: 1999, United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, D.D.C.
Fisher, F. and D. Rubinfeld: 2001, ‘U.S. v. Microsoft – An Economic Analysis,’ The Antitrust Bulletin Spring, 1–69
B. Fitzgerald (2005) Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software MIT Press Cambridge
M. Friedman (1970) ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’. The New York Times Magazine September. 13 15–18
A. Gawer M. Cusumano (2002) Platform Leadership Harvard Business School Press Boston
H Gensler (1996) Formal Ethics Routledge London
R. George (1999) In Defense of Natural Law Oxford University Press New York
K. Goodpaster (1989) ‘Ethical Imperatives and Corporate Leadership’ K. Andrews (Eds) Ethics in Practice Harvard Business School Press Boston 212–228
Government Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit.: 1998, United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 147 F. 3d 935 D.D.C.
Greene J. (2000). ‘Microsoft’s Big Bet,’ Business Week, October 30, 152.
G. Grisez (1997) Difficult Moral Questions Franciscan Herald Press Chicago
M. Heidegger (1982) Parmenides Kllostermann Frankfurt am Main
A. Jaffe J. Lerner (2004) Innovation and its Discontents Princeton University Press Princeton
C. Korsgaard (1996) Creating the Kingdom of Ends Cambridge University Press New York
R. Langlois (2001) ‘Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities,’ J. Ellig (Eds) Technology Innovation and Antitrust Issues MIT Press Cambridge
M. Lemley (2000) ArticleTitle‘Reconceiving Patents in the Age of Venture Capital’ Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law. 4 137
L. Lessig (2001) The Future of Ideas Random House New York
Lohr S. 2002a, ‘New Hurdles Confront Microsoft,’ The New York Times, November 4, C6
Lohr, S.: 2002b, ‘For Microsoft, Ruling Will Sting But Not Really Hurt,’ The New York Times, November 2, B1
Lopatka, J and W. Page: 2001, ‘Monopolization, Innovation, and Consumer Welfare,’ George Washington Law Review 69, 367
A. MacIntyre (1990) Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, Tradition University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame
M. Mandel (2000) ArticleTitle‘Antitrust for the Digital Age’ Business Week. May 15 46–48
D. McGowan (2001) ArticleTitle‘Innovation, Uncertainty, and Stability in Antitrust Law’ Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 16 279
Murray A. (2000). ‘For Policy Makers, Microsoft Suggests Need to Recast Models,’ The Wall Street Journal June 9, A1
Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. W. Union Tel Co.: 1986, 797 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.)
Oxman, J.: 1999, ‘The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet,’ OPP Working Paper, No. 31, available at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Opp/working_papers/oppwp31.txt
L.S. Paine (1990) ‘Ideals of Competition and Today’s Marketplace.’ C. Walton (Eds) Enriching Business Ethics Plenum Press New York 91–110
T.A. Piraino (2000) ArticleTitle‘Identifying Monopolists’ Illegal Conduct Under the Sherman Act’ New York University Law Review. 75 809
R.A. Posner (2001) ArticleTitle‘Antitrust in the New Economy’ Antitrust Law Journal. 68 925
R.A. Posner (1976) Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective Free Press New York
Rebello K. (1996). ‘Inside Microsoft,’ Business Week, July 15, 56–67
M. Rukstad D. Yoffie (2002) ‘Microsoft in 2002’ Harvard Business School Publishing Boston
Sheremata, W.: 1997, ‘Barriers to Innovation: A Monopoly, Network Externalities, and the Speed of Innovation,’ Antitrust Bulletin 42, 937
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan : 1993, 506 U.S. 447
J.B. Speta (2000) ArticleTitle‘Handicapping the Race for the Last Mile?: A Critique of Open Access Rules for Broadband Platforms’ Yale Journal on Regulation. 17 39
R.A. Spinello (2003) ArticleTitle‘The Case Against Microsoft: An Ethical perspective’ Business Ethics A European Review. 12 IssueID2 116–132
M. Strasser (2001) ArticleTitle‘A New Paradigm in Intellectual Property Law? The Case Against Open Sources’ Stanford Technology Law Review. 4 119
Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft :1997, No. C-97-20884, [N.D. Cal]
United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation :1999, 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, D.D.C
C. Walton (1992) Corporate Encounters: Ethics, Law, & the Business Environment Dryden Press Fort Worth
P. Weiser (2001) ArticleTitle‘Internet Governance, Standard Setting, and Self Regulation’ Northern Kentucky University Law Review. 28 822
P. Weiser (2003) ArticleTitle‘The Internet, Innovation, and Intellectual Property’ Columbia Law Review. 103 534
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spinello, R.A. Competing Fairly in the New Economy: Lessons from the Browser Wars. J Bus Ethics 57, 343–361 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1832-6
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1832-6