This article introduces dynamic network externalities into a Hotelling-like model of competition between commercial and free software. The assumption of linear network effects enables a full-fledged dynamic analysis taking boundary solutions into account. The extent of network effects related to the separation rate and consumers’ learning costs determines whether both types of software can coexist in the long run and whether a lock-in region emerges. Governmental promotion of free software increases welfare if network externalities are sufficiently large.
BitzerJ. (2004). Commercial versus open source software: The role of product heterogeneity in competition. Economic Systems, 28, 369–381.
2.
Casadesus-MasanellR.GhemawatP. (2006). Dynamic mixed duopoly: A model motivated by Linux vs. Windows. Management Science, 52, 1072–1084.
3.
CominoS.ManentiF.M. (2005). Government policies supporting open source software for the mass market. Review of Industrial Organization, 26, 217–240.
4.
FitzgeraldB.BassetG. (Eds) (2003). Legal issues relating to free and open source software. Queensland: Queensland University of Technology.
5.
GandalN. (1994). Hedonic price indexes for spreadsheets and an empirical test for network externalities. RAND Journal of Economics, 25, 160–170.
6.
GaudeulA. (2007). Do open source developers respond to competition? The (La)TeX case study, Review of Network Economics, 6, 239–263.
7.
GehringR.A.LutterbeckB. (Eds) (2007). Open Source Jahrbuch 2007—Zwischen freier Software und Gesellschaftsmodell. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
8.
HahnR.W. (Ed.) (2002). Government policy toward open source software. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
9.
HarsA.OuS. (2001). Working for free?—Motivations of participating in open source projects. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 7, 1–9.
10.
HotellingH. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.
11.
KatzM.L.ShapiroC. (1985). Network externalities, competition and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75, 424–440.
12.
LanziD. (2009). Competition and open source with perfect software compatibility. Information Economics and Policy, 21, 192–200.
13.
LernerJ.TiroleJ. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50, 197–234.
14.
MustonenM. (2003). Copyleft—The economics of Linux and other open source software. Information Economics and Policy, 15, 99–121.
15.
PageS.E. (2006). Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 87–115.
16.
PeitzM. (2004). A strategic approach to software protection: Comment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 13, 371–374.
17.
SchiffA. (2002). The economics of open source software: A survey of the early literature. Review of Network Economics, 1, 66–74.
18.
SchmidtK.M.SchnitzerM. (2003). Public subsidies for open source? Some economic policy issues of the software market. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 16, 473–505.
19.
ShyO. (2001). The economics of network industries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
ShyO.ThisseJ.-F. (1999). A strategic approach to software protection. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 8, 163–190.
21.
VarianH. R.ShapiroC. (2007). Einführung von Linux im öffentlichen Sektor. In GehringLutterbeck (Eds), Open Source Jahrbuch 2007 – Zwischen freier Software und Gesellschaftsmodell, Berlin (pp. 209–222). Lehmanns Media.
