L EARNING BY C OPYING Francisco Martínez-Sánchez Universidad de Granada.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
13A CHAPTER Monopolistic Competition.
Advertisements

Vertical Relations and Restraints Many transactions take place between two firms, rather than between a firm and consumers Key differences in these types.
Ind – Develop a foundational knowledge of pricing to understand its role in marketing. (Part II) Entrepreneurship I.
Introduction to Oligopoly. Recall: Oligopoly ▫An industry with only a few sellers. ▫Also characterized by interdependence  A relationship in which the.
Oligopoly.
Nash Equilibrium: Illustrations
The World of Oligopoly: Preliminaries to Successful Entry
ECON 100 Tutorial: Week 9 office: LUMS C85.
© 2009 Pearson Education Canada 16/1 Chapter 16 Game Theory and Oligopoly.
Trade-Offs by Harold Winter
Cournot versus Stackelberg n Cournot duopoly (simultaneous quantity competition) n Stackelberg duopoly (sequential quantity competition) x2x2 x1x1 x1x2x1x2.
Regulating a Monopolist Monopolist choose output q m,whereas the efficient output is q w. Regulation will be needed to avoid the former result. However,
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy
Research and Development Part 1: Innovations and Patents.
Industrial Organization Matilde Machado1 2.1 Monopoly Matilde Machado Download the slides from:
Network Externalities What is a network externality? –When a person buys a good or service, he becomes part of a network. –Thus the network increases in.
Oligopoly Fun and games. Oligopoly An oligopolist is one of a small number of producers in an industry. The industry is an oligopoly.  All oligopolists.
© 2005 Pearson Education Canada Inc Chapter 16 Game Theory and Oligopoly.
Basic Oligopoly Models
© 2005 Thomson C hapter 11 Price and Output in Monopoly, Monopolistic Competition, and Perfect Competition.
Research and Development Part 2: Competition and R&D.
Monopoly n One firm only in a market n Persistence of such a monopoly: – huge cost advantage – secret technology (Coca-Cola) or patent – government restrictions.
CHAPTER 9 Basic Oligopoly Models Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written.
Antoine Augustin Cournot
C hapter 11 Price and Output in Monopoly, Monopolistic Competition, and Perfect Competition © 2002 South-Western.
1 2.4 Multiproduct Monopoly Matilde Machado Slides available from:
ANNOUNCEMENTS Review class: Monday, December 13 4:15-5:15, LC6 Final Exam: Friday, December 17 10:30-12:30, LC1 80 multiple choice choice questions Chapts.
Monopoly Example 2 - Haircuts
Chapter 9 Monopoly © 2006 Thomson/South-Western.
1 Course outline II n Product differentiation n Advertising competition n Compatibility competition Heterogeneous goods.
Monopoly Monopoly and perfect competition. Profit maximization by a monopolist. Inefficiency of a monopoly. Why do monopolies occur? Natural Monopolies.
1 Strategic Investment and Non-Price Competition.
CHAPTER 16 Monopolistic Competition and Product Differentiation.
Imperfect Competition and Market Power: Core Concepts Defining Industry Boundaries Barriers to Entry Price: The Fourth Decision Variable Price and Output.
Monopolistic Competition
CHAPTER 14 Monopoly. 2 What you will learn in this chapter: The significance of monopoly, where a single monopolist is the only producer of a good How.
Chapter 10 The Theory of Monopoly
Copyright © 2004 South-Western Monopoly vs. Competition While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. A firm is considered.
UBEA 1013: ECONOMICS 1 CHAPTER 6: MARKET STRUCTURE: MONOPOLY 6.1 Characteristic 6.2 Short-run Decision: Profit Maximization 6.3 Short-run Decision: Minimizing.
3.1. Strategic Behavior Matilde Machado.
1 Monopoly and Antitrust Policy Chapter IMPERFECT COMPETITION AND MARKET POWER imperfectly competitive industry An industry in which single firms.
Eco 6351 Economics for Managers Chapter 7. Monopoly Prof. Vera Adamchik.
Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly
10 Monopoly The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. ADAM SMITH Monopoly The price of monopoly is upon every occasion.
LIPSEY & CHRYSTAL ECONOMICS 12e
Digital Rights Management and the Pricing of Digital Products Yooki Park and Suzanne Scotchmer Workshop on the Economics of Information Security KSG, Cambridge,
Industrial Organization- Matilde Machado The Hotelling Model Hotelling Model Matilde Machado.
1 Topic 2 (continuation): Oligopoly Juan A. Mañez.
Perfect competition, with an infinite number of firms, and monopoly, with a single firm, are polar opposites. Monopolistic competition and oligopoly.
Auctions serve the dual purpose of eliciting preferences and allocating resources between competing uses. A less fundamental but more practical reason.
Pricing of Competing Products BI Solutions December
Chapter Monopoly 15. In economic terms, why are monopolies bad? Explain. 2.
Chapter 10: Monopoly, Cartels, and Price Discrimination Copyright © 2014 Pearson Canada Inc.
Perfect Competition. insignificant Price taker homogeneous complete information costless no costs equal access barriers to entry/exit competition externalities.
Chapter: 14 >> Krugman/Wells Economics ©2009  Worth Publishers Monopoly.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Chapter 9: Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Economies of Scale Introduction and appropriation issues.
Oligopoly Overheads. Market Structure Market structure refers to all characteristics of a market that influence the behavior of buyers and sellers, when.
Microeconomics 1000 Lecture 13 Oligopoly.
Module 31 Oligopoly.
microeconomics spring 2016 the analytics of
Chapter 10: Monopoly, Cartels, and Price Discrimination
Introduction to Oligopoly
Industrial Organization
Digital Rights Management and the Pricing of Digital Products
Chapter Twenty-Seven Oligopoly.
Econ 100 Lecture 4.2 Perfect Competition.
Perfect Competition Econ 100 Lecture 5.4 Perfect Competition
Competition and Monopoly
Presentation transcript:

L EARNING BY C OPYING Francisco Martínez-Sánchez Universidad de Granada

INTRODUCTION Major distribution companies of information goods have developed technological tools known as digital rights management (DRM) to prevent the copying of their goods. However, these tools have a negative impact on the utility for consumers of original information goods, because they hinder the use of those goods. DRM for music can limit the uses of music files downloaded from online retailers, the number of computers to which the user can transfer his files and the number of times a playlist can be burned on a CD-R. Moreover, DRM can also authorize playing the content on a specific piece of hardware.

INTRODUCTION The latest technological developments and the Internet have enabled consumers to overcome these restrictions so that consumers are able to make better copies, to the point where it is possible that some consumers may prefer a copy to an original. This may explain why half the executives in the music industry support the distribution of files compatible with all computers and the elimination of DRM. At the time of writing this paper a story appeared in the news reporting agreements by Apple and Amazon with EMI for the sale of music without technical protection.

INTRODUCTION Duchêne and Waelbroeck (2006) find that companies using information-push technology (in which the firms pay to provide information about the products they sell) prefer strong DRM protection, But firms using information-pull technologies (where consumers spend resources to acquire information on products in which they have a special interest) prefer weak DRM protection. Park and Scotchmer (2006) show that DRM has a collusive impact through the sharing of its implementation costs.

INTRODUCTION The fact that copying technology by consumers exhibits increasing returns to scale has been analyzed by Belleflamme and Picard (2007). They show that the multiproduct monopolist has an incentive to set lower prices than the duopolist because it realizes that decreasing the price for one good increases demand for the other good by making copying less attractive (Cournot effect), and a multiproduct monopoly makes for greater welfare than a duopoly in the short run but provides lower incentives to create in the long run.

INTRODUCTION We develop a model that lets us analyze the behavior of a multiproduct monopolist, a duopolist and consumers, where these last are able to learn by copying.

THE MODEL There are two firms, A and B. Each of which produces a single information good, a and b, respectively. These goods are independent of each other. We assume that there are two consumers who value the information goods differently, although each consumer values each good in the same way.

THE MODEL Let V o and v o be the valuation of consumers 1 and 2 of any original information good, respectively. Let V c and v c be the valuation of consumers 1 and 2 of a copy, respectively. We assume that consumer 1 values any information good (original or copy) more highly, i.e. v o < V o, or v c < V c.

THE MODEL We represent the process of learning by copying as an increase in the valuation of the second copy made by consumers, which we call the gain of the second copy and represent by Δ. The timing of the game is as follows. 1. First, firms price the information goods. 2. Next, consumers decide to buy or copy the information goods or do nothing.

CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIOR The utility of consumer 1 is: We obtain the utility of consumer 2 in the same way, but taking into account that he values the original good at v o and the copy at v c.

CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIOR Let δ V = V o − V c and δ v = v o − v c be the valuation gap for consumers 1 and 2 between any original information good and their copy, respectively. We assume that δ V > δ v. This implies that the maximum price that consumer 1 is willing to pay for any original good is higher than that of the consumer 2, which is in keeping with the fact that consumer 1 values information goods more highly. Consumer 1 and 2’s willingness to pay are c + δ V and c + δ v, respectively.

CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIOR When Δ > 2 (c + δ V ), consumers decide to copy all goods, independently of prices. This suggests that the DRM systems implemented by the digital industry to avoid consumers copying information goods have the adverse effect of destroying demand for original information goods. We assume that the cost of copying is low enough, i.e. c < v c, and 0 ≤ Δ < c + δ v to guarantee that any consumer’s strategy could be optimal under some prices.

CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIOR

MULTIPRODUCT MONOPOLY

DUPOLY

Low gain of the second copy

DUPOLY Low gain of the second copy

DUPOLY Low gain of the second copy

STATIC COMPARATIVE To compare the results above and obtain interesting conclusions, let us assume that firms always choose a symmetrical undominated SPE (SUSPE) in our game. Thus, SUSPE are those equilibria that provide a maximal joint profit. The SUSPE, independently of the size of the gain on the second copy, is:

STATIC COMPARATIVE By comparing SUSPE under a monopoly and a duopoly, we find that the “Cournot effect” only exists for some intermediate values of c + δ v. This effect means that the monopolist sets a lower average price than the duopolist because decreasing the price for one good increases demand for the other good. This result differs from that obtained by Belleflamme and Picard (2007), who find that the Cournot effect always exists. Therefore, unlike Belleflamme and Picard (2007), we find that the existence of the Cournot effect depends on the size of Δ and the value of c + δ v.

OPPOSED PREFERENCES We consider that consumers have so-called “opposed preferences”. This means that they value each good differently and do not agree on the most and least highly valued information good. We consider these preferences because there are more and more information goods that can be copied by consumers, these goods are completely different and consumers value them differently.

OPPOSED PREFERENCES We consider that consumer 1 values information good a more highly than b, and consumer 2 values b more. The valuation of the goods that consumers value most is V o for the original and V c for the copy. While the valuation of the goods that they value least is v o for the original and v c for the copy. The timing of the game: 1. First, firms price the information goods. 2. Next, consumers decide to buy or copy the information goods or do nothing.

The utility of consumer 1 is: We obtain the utility of consumer 2 in the same way. OPPOSED PREFERENCES

Let δ V (δ v ) be the valuation gap of consumers between the original information good that they most (lest) value and their copy. We assume that δ V > δ v. Consumers’ willingness to pay for the good that they most (lest) value is c + δ V (c + δ v ). OPPOSED PREFERENCES

When Δ > 2c + δ V + δ v, consumers decide to copy all goods, independently of prices. This suggests that the DRM systems implemented by the digital industry to avoid consumers copying information goods have the adverse effect of destroying demand for original information goods. We assume that the cost of copying is low enough, i.e. c < v c, and 0 ≤ Δ < c + δ v to guarantee that any consumer’s strategy could be optimal under some prices. OPPOSED PREFERENCES

MONOPOLY

We find the same equilibrium that in a monopoly. Thus, there is no Cournot effect. Therefore, the existence of the Cournot effect also depends on the kind of preferences of consumers. DUOPOLY

Now we consider SUSPE in order to provide clearer, more interesting conclusions. We show that, from a static perspective, the multiproduct monopoly provides social welfare at least as great as under a duopoly ( ). We also show that an entrant has at least the same incentives to create a new product than an incumbent. WELFARE ANALYSIS

CONCLUSIONS When the effect of learning by copying is strong and the cost of copying is low enough, consumers decide to copy all goods. We obtain two more kinds of equilibrium: one where each firm sells to a consumer, and another where both firms sell to all consumers. The existence of both kinds of equilibrium depends on how much the consumer who values the goods least is willing to pay for each one. The existence of the Cournot effect depends on the size of the gain on the second copy, the quantity that the consumer who values the goods least is willing to pay for each one and the kind of consumers’ preferences.

CONCLUSIONS We obtain that: from a static perspective, the multiproduct monopoly provides at least as much social welfare as a duopoly, and from a dynamic perspective, a duopolist has at least the same incentives to create a new good as a multiproduct monopolist.