A dynamic model of open source vs proprietary R&amp;D

Tesoriere, Antonio; Balletta, Luigi

doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.02.009

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Existing dynamic models of open source consider a nonstrategic community of developers (Casadesus‐Masanell & Ghemawat, ; Athey & Ellison, ). An important exception is Tesoriere and Balletta (), who study a dynamic model with open‐source and proprietary firms, but do not allow for user innovations. Developing a dynamic model with for‐profit open‐source firms and user innovation presents an interesting direction for future research.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive strategy for open and user innovation

Llanes

2018

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I study the incentives to open technologies in imperfectly competitive markets with user innovation. Firms may choose to open part of their knowledge or private information so that it becomes freely accessible to users. Openness decisions are governed by a trade‐off between collaboration and appropriability: by becoming more open, a firm encourages user innovation but hampers its ability to capture value. I find that large firms are less open and invest more in product development than small firms, and that firms react to greater openness from rivals by becoming more open. I also show that compatibility and spillovers have a negative effect on openness, and that firms become more open as the number of competitors increases.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive strategy for open and user innovation

Llanes

2018

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are developed by individuals or companies that employ engineers who work on improving them [31]. As a result, they inhibit users from being able to make copies of the software and redistribute it, sell the license to others and/or reverse engineer and infringe copyrights and patents [29] [32]. In addition, it rarely allows end users to purchase or view the source code and may require annual license fees.…”

Section: Free and Open Source And Proprietary Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, it rarely allows end users to purchase or view the source code and may require annual license fees. It limits users' understanding of what the code, and/or tools are doing [25] [31] [32].…”

Section: Free and Open Source And Proprietary Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

Developments in Land Use and Land Cover Classification Techniques in Remote Sensing: A Review

Macarringue¹,

Bolfe²,

Pereira³

2022

JGIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on land use and land cover changes (LULCC) have been a great concern due to their contribution to the policies formulation and strategic plans in different areas and at different scales. The LULCC when intense and on a global scale can be catastrophic if not detected and monitored affecting the key aspects of the ecosystem's functions. For decades, technological developments and tools of geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing (RS) and machine learning (ML) since data acquisition, processing and results in diffusion have been investigated to access landscape conditions and hence, different land use and land cover classification systems have been performed at different levels. Providing coherent guidelines, based on literature review, to examine, evaluate and spread such conditions could be a rich contribution. Therefore, hundreds of relevant studies available in different databases (Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar) demonstrating advances achieved in local, regional and global land cover classification products at different spatial, spectral and temporal resolutions over the past decades were selected and investigated. This article aims to show the main tools, data, approaches applied for analysis, assessment, mapping and monitoring of LULCC and to investigate some associated challenges and limitations that may influence the performance of future works, through a progressive perspective. Based on this study, despite the advances archived in recent decades, issues related to multi-source, multi-temporal and multi-level analysis, robustness and quality, scalability need to be further studied as they constitute some of the main challenges for remote sensing.

show abstract

“…Also Casadesus-Masanell and Llanes (2011), Caulkins et al (2013), and Llanes and de Elejalde (2013) treat license regimes as endogenous, but none of them is concerned with time to completion and distance to frontier. In Tesoriere and Balletta (2017) we develop intuitions similar to those we present here, but in a different setting with two research lines and two sectors, where in each period different regimes of licenses may coexist and compete. 7 In that paper the analogous of the distance to frontier is the technology gap that the laggard firms have to bridge to make a profit, and we find an equilibrium in which these firms start an Open Source project as soon as the gap is positive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Cumulative innovation, open source, and distance to frontier

Balletta

Tesoriere

2020

J Public Economic Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a multistage game in which firms do cumulative research and development (R&D) to complete a lengthy process, and we study whether firms patent intermediate results or release them in Open Source. A patent holder obtains a larger reward in the market, but since in equilibrium it forecloses R&D, it remains alone to complete the process and so pays a larger cost than an Open Source firm. We have Open Source equilibria when R&D is highly complementary, R&D costs are large, and firms are sufficiently different and far from the frontier. We identify two market failures, in the forms of free riding and coordination failure, and we discuss public intervention. 3 Our prediction is broadly consistent with historical evidence. Bessen and Nuvolari (2014) provide examples from the eighteenth century, like, the Bessemer steel, the steam engineers in the Cornish mining district, and the first two decades of power weaving in the US textile industry.

show abstract

A dynamic model of open source vs proprietary R&D

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

Competitive strategy for open and user innovation

Competitive strategy for open and user innovation

Developments in Land Use and Land Cover Classification Techniques in Remote Sensing: A Review

Cumulative innovation, open source, and distance to frontier

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About