The Host's Dilemma: Strategic Forfeiture in Platform Markets for Informational Goods

Article by Jonathan M. Barnett

Voluntary forfeiture of intellectual assets — often, exceptionally valuable assets — is surprisingly widespread in information technology markets. A simple economic rationale can account for these practices. By giving away access to core technologies, a platform holder commits against expropriating (and thereby induces) user investments that support platform value. To generate revenues that cover development and maintenance costs, the platform holder must regulate access to other goods and services within the total consumption bundle. The trade-off between forfeiting access (to induce adoption) and regulating access (to recover costs) anticipates the substantial convergence of open and closed innovation models. Organizational patterns in certain software and operating system markets are consistent with this hypothesis: open and closed structures substantially converge across a broad range of historical and contemporary settings and commercial and noncommercial environments. In particular, this Article shows that (i) contrary to standard characterizations in the legal literature, leading “open source” software projects are now primarily funded and substantially governed and staffed by corporate sponsors, and (ii) proprietary firms have formed nonprofit consortia and other cooperative arrangements and adopted “open source” licensing strategies in order to develop operating systems for the smartphone market.

124 Harv. L. Rev. 1861 (2011) | DOWNLOAD PDF



MORE FROM THIS ISSUE

IN MEMORIAM: In Memoriam: William J. Stuntz

ARTICLE: Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation

NOTE: Interpreting Silence: The Roles of the Courts and the Executive Branch in Head of State Immunity Cases

NOTE: Advisory Opinions and the Influence of the Supreme Court over American Policymaking

RECENT CASE: Third Circuit Holds that Police Officer's Good Faith Reliance on Legal Advice Creates a Presumption of Reasonableness. — Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2010).

RECENT CASE: Second Circuit Holds that Imposing Below-Guidelines Sentence Using Retroactive Guidelines Range Increase Does Not Violate Ex Post Facto Clause. — United States v. Ortiz, 621 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2010).

RECENT CASE: Ninth Circuit Holds that Grand Jury Can Subpoena Protected Foreign Documents. — In re Grand Jury Subpoenas (White & Case LLP), 627 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2010).

RECENT CASE: Sixth Circuit Holds that Primary and Secondary School Teachers' Curricular Decisions Are Not Entitled to Free Speech Protection. — Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education, 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010).

RECENT CASE: Sixth Circuit Holds that Federal Judges May Not Consider § 3553(a) Factors in Rule 35(b) Hearings. — United States v. Grant, No. 07-3831, 2011 WL 71475 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2011)(en banc).

RECENT LEGISLATION: Dodd-Frank Act Creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. — Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (to be codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code).

RECENT PUBLICATIONS: Recent Publications


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)