Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

U.S. antitrust policy, interface compatibility standards, and information technology

  • Articles
  • Published:
Knowledge, Technology & Policy

Abstract

To be a player in the international standards-setting arena of network industries, such as those dealing with information technology, reaching an early domestic consensus for a critical interoperable technology design is often essential. While in most cases efficient outcomes emerge through the market-driven, U.S. technology standards system, there have been situations where a timely consensus has failed to be attained with negative consequences for the international competitiveness of the U.S. economy (e.g., second generation of cellular telephony). An anticipatory policy approach, based on a standards competition which takes into consideration antitrust and intellectual property rights, is proposed as a solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afuah, A. (1998). Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2000). U.S. National Standards Strategy Approved: New Strategy to Strengthen U.S. Global Trade; U.S. House Hearing on Strategy Set for September 13. Press Release, August 31. New York, NY.

  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2002a). Background Information on ANSI. @http//www.ansi.org and accessed on September 20.

  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2002b). National Standards for the United States. @http//www.ansi.org/public/nss.html and accessed on September 22, 2002.

  • Anton, J.J. & Yao, D.A. (1995). Standard-Setting Consortia, Antitrust, and High-Technology Industries. Antitrust Law Journal, 64, 247–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balto, D.A. (2000). Standard Setting in a Network Economy (Prepared Remarks of David A. Balto, Assistant Director, Office of Policy and Evaluation, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Before Cutting-Edge Antitrust Law Seminars International, February 17). New York, NY.

  • Beard, T.R & Kaserman, D.L.. (2002). Patent Thickets, Cross-Licensing, and Antitrust. Antitrust Bulletin, 47(2/3), 345–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltz, C.A. (1993). Lessons from the Cutting Edge: The HDTV Experience. Regulation: The Review of Business & Government, 16(4), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S. (1995). The Standards Process in Telecommunications and Information Technology. In Hawkins, R.W., Mansell, R. & Skea, J. (Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness: The Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments (pp. 136–146). Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S. & Farrell, J. (1991). The Role of the ITU in Standardization. Telecommunications Policy, 15(4), 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S. & Farrell, J. (1994). Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitenberg, M. (1987). The ABCs of Standard-Related Activities in the United States. Prepared for the National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce. Gaithersburg, MD: NBS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations. (2002). 16 CFR: Commercial Practices, Chapter I, Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter B—Guides and Trade Practice Rules, Part 17—Application of Guides in Preventing Unlawful Practices, September 27.

  • Curwen, P. (1994). High-Definition Television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market. European Business Review, 94(1), 17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P.A. (1987). Some New Standards for the Economics of Standardization in the Information Age. In Dasgupta, P. & Stoneman. P. (Eds.), Economic Policy and Technological Performance (pp. 206–239). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P.A. & Greenstein, S.M.. (1990). The Economics of Compatibility Standards: An Introduction to Recent Research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1, 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M. (2002). Setting Standards: Strategic Advantages in International Trade. Business Strategy Review, 13(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellig, J. & Lin, D. (2001). A Taxonomy of Dynamic Competition Theories. In Ellig, J. (Ed.), Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues (pp. 16–44). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R.A. (1998). Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trade Commission. (1996). Anticipating the 21st Century: Competition Policy in the New High-Tech, Global Marketplace (Staff Report). May. Washington, DC.

  • FTC Organization, Procedures and Rules of Practice. (1989). Part I—General Procedures, Subpart A—Industry Guidance, Advisory Opinions, I-1, June 16.

  • Gandal, N. (2002). Compatibility, Standardization, and Network Effects: Some Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, D. (1998). Antitrust and Technological Innovation. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 75–81.

  • Hebner, R.E. (1998). Standards and Trade—Who Really Cares? (Prepared Remarks of Robert E. Hebner, Acting Deputy Commissioner, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Fall 1998 Public Lecture Series: Technology Standards and Standardization Process, Stanford University—U.S.-Japan Technology Management Center, September 28). Palo Alto, CA.

  • Hill, C.W.L. (1997). Establishing a Standard: Competitive Strategy and Technological Standards in Winner-Take-All Industries. Academy of Management Executive, 11(2), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Technology Association of America. (2003). About ITAA @http//www.itaa.org/about/index.cfm accessed on October 17, 2003.

  • Information Technology Industry Council. (1998). ITI Supports Open Discussion of National Standards Policy. News Release. September 23.

  • InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards. (2002). Where IT All Begins. @http://www.ncits.org/geninfo.htm and accessed on August 10, 2003.

  • International Telecommunications Union. (2002). Information obtained at http://www.itu.ch and accessed on September 20, 2002.

  • Langlois, R.N. (2001). Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach. In Ellig, J. (Ed.), Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues (pp. 193–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. (2001). Antitrust, Intellectual Property and Standard-Setting Organizations. Mimeograph. @http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0109/0109037.pdf and accessed on March 9, 2003.

  • Lundvall, B.-A. (1995). Standards in an Innovative World. In Hawkins, R. W., Mansell, R. & Skea, J. (Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness: The Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments (pp. 7–12). Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallet, R.L. (1998a). (Prepared Remarks of Robert L. Mallett, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, ASME-Industry Standards Summit, April 15). Washington, DC.

  • Mallett, R.L. (1998b). Why Standards Matter. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 63–70.

  • Marasco, A.A. (2003). Inclusion of IPR in Standards. (Presentation of Amy A. Marasco, Staff Attorney, American National Standards Institute, GSC-8/GTSC-1/GRSC-1, April 28–May 1, 2003). Ottawa, Canada.

  • Moreland, J.A. (1997). Overview of the Advisory Opinion Process at the Federal Trade Commission (Presentation of Judith A. Moreland, Attorney, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, at the National Health Lawyers Association, Antitrust in the Health Care Field, February 13 and 14). Washington, DC.

  • Mowery, D.C. (1992). The U.S. National Innovation System: Origins and Prospects for Change. Research Policy, 21, 125–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murris, T. J. (2001). Competition and Intellectual Property Policy: The Way Ahead (Prepared Remarks of Timothy J. Murris, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, before the American Bar Association, Antitrust Section, Fall Forum, November 15). Washington, DC.

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2000). New National Standards Strategy Can Advance U.S. Technology Interests, NIST Director Tells Congress. Press Release (NIST 2000-14), September 13. Washington, D.C.

  • National Research Council. (1995). Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade into the 21 st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators-2000. Washington, DC.

  • Popper, S.W. & Wagner, C.S. (2001). New Foundations for Growth: The U.S. Innovation System Today and Tomorrow (MR-13380.0/1-OSTP). RAND: Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC. January.

  • Robinson, D. (1999). An Industry View of the Standardization Process. In Technology Standards and Standardization Process: Their Impact on Innovation & International Competitiveness (pp. 43–54). Proceedings of a Lecture Series Presented by: US-Japan Technology Management Center, Stanford University.

  • Rycroft, R.W. & Kash, D.E. (1999). The Complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21 st Century. London. UK: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (1989). Theories of Oligopoly Behavior. In Schmalensee, R. & Willig, R. (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial Organization (pp. 330–414). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (2001a). Setting Compatibility Standards: Co-operation or Collusion? In Dreyfuss, R.C., Zimmerman, D.L. & First, H. (Eds.) Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (pp. 81–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (2001b). Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross-Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting. In Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., & Stern, S. (Eds.) Innovation Policy and the Economy (Vol. I) (pp. 119–150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (2002). Competition Policy and Innovation. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (STI Working Papers 2002/11). Paris, France.

  • Shapiro, C. & Varian, H.R. (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenefield, J.H. & Stelzer, I.M. (1999). The Antitrust Laws: A Primer (Third Edition). Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, S.M. & Brenner, F.C. (2001). Introduction. Standardization Principles: Principles and Practices (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, S., Porter, M.E., & Furman, J.L. (2000). The Determinants of National Innovation Capacity. National Bureau of Economic Research (Working Paper #7876). September.

  • Tassey, G. (1995). The Roles of Standards as Technology Infrastructure. In Hawkins, R.W., Mansell, R. & Skea, J. (Eds.) Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness: The Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments (pp. 161–171). VT: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (1999). R&D Trends in the U.S. Economy: Strategies and Policy Implications. Planning Report 99-2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD.

  • Tassey, G. (2000). “Standardization in Technology-Based Markets. Research Policy, 29, 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2000). The New Economy (Survey), 356. September 23.

  • Toth, R.B. (2001). The U.S. Standardization System: A New Perspective (Chapter 14). In Spivak, S.M. & Brenner, F.C. (Eds.). Standardization Principles: Principles and Practices (pp. 131–147). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). Justice Department Approves Joint Licensing of Patents Essential for Making DVD-Video and DVD-ROM Discs and Players. Press Release. December 17.

  • U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. (1995). Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. April. Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. (2000). Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. April. Washington, DC.

  • Utterback, J.M. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H.R. (2001). Economics of Information Technology. Raffaele Mattioli Lecture. Luigi Bocconi University, Milan, Italy. November 15–16.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the School of Management, the University of Michigan in Flint, Michigan

    Thomas A. Hemphill (an Assistant Professor)

  2. the Department of Economics, George Washington University, USA

    Nicholas S. Vonortas (a Professor, Director)

  3. the Center for International Science and Technology Policy in the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, USA

    Nicholas S. Vonortas (a Professor, Director)

Authors
  1. Thomas A. Hemphill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas S. Vonortas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hemphill, T.A., Vonortas, N.S. U.S. antitrust policy, interface compatibility standards, and information technology. Know Techn Pol 18, 126–147 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-005-1028-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-005-1028-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation