CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Open Source Software InnovationsDigital Platforms and EconomicsCopyright and Intellectual Property

The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond

Open access
Lerner, Josh, Tirole, Jean·2004·National Bureau of Economic Research
DOI 10.3386/w10956
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper reviews our understanding of the growing open source movement.We highlight how many aspects of open source software appear initially puzzling to an economist.As we have acknowledge, our ability to answer confidently many of the issues raised here questions is likely to increase as the open source movement itself grows and evolves.At the same time, it is heartening to us how much of open source activities can be understood within existing economic frameworks, despite the presence of claims to the contrary.The labor and industrial organization literatures provide lenses through which the structure of open source projects, the role of contributors, and the movement's ongoing evolution can be viewed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w10956

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Open Source Software is produced in a completely different way than other commercial products: workers are usually unpaid, management and direction are limited, and legal restrictions on using the product are modest.

    “Open Source Software, which burst on the innovation scene in the mid-1990s, is produced in a completely different way than other commercial products. Workers are usually unpaid; management and direction are limited; and legal restrictions on using the product are modest (Lerner and Tirole, 2004).”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tirole, 2004

    The Abstract (page unavailable) contrasts open-source production with private firms and describes contributors as often unpaid and projects as loosely structured. It says many contributors are unpaid, not that workers are usually unpaid. The Abstract and “How Does The Legal System Affect Open Source?” (page unavailable) also describe conditions on use and licenses that vary in restrictiveness, so they do not establish that legal restrictions are generally modest. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Adopting a single, industry-wide open source standard increases the total number of programmers submitting bug reports and extensions.

    “Adopting a single, industry-wide open source standard for software fosters a common pool of skilled workers, reduces costs associated with unnecessary versioning, increases the total number of programmers submitting bug reports and extensions, and avoids transactions costs associated with intellectual property such as 'patent thickets' and 'anticommons' (Rossi and Bonaccorsi, 2005, Lerner and Tiro”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tirole, 2004

    The section “What is the Relative Quality of Open Source Software?” (page unavailable) discusses open source programmers identifying bugs and users adapting code. “What Motivates Open Source Contributors?” (page unavailable) says projects may attract more programmers when programmers expect others to participate. Neither passage establishes that adopting a single industry-wide standard increases the number submitting bug reports and extensions. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Adopting a single, industry-wide open source standard avoids transactions costs associated with intellectual property such as 'patent thickets' and 'anticommons.'

    “Adopting a single, industry-wide open source standard for software fosters a common pool of skilled workers, reduces costs associated with unnecessary versioning, increases the total number of programmers submitting bug reports and extensions, and avoids transactions costs associated with intellectual property such as 'patent thickets' and 'anticommons' (Rossi and Bonaccorsi, 2005, Lerner and Tiro”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tirole, 2004

    The ‘Can Open Source Work Beyond Software?’ section says open source can protect users against future price increases, supporting a narrower claim about avoiding hold-up. But it attributes avoidance of patent thickets to patent pools, not to adopting an industry-wide open-source standard. The discussion of software patents also says open-source projects remain vulnerable to patent claims; it does not establish that such a standard avoids anticommons costs. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Adopting a single, industry-wide open source standard fosters a common pool of skilled workers.

    “Adopting a single, industry-wide open source standard for software fosters a common pool of skilled workers, reduces costs associated with unnecessary versioning, increases the total number of programmers submitting bug reports and extensions, and avoids transactions costs associated with intellectual property such as 'patent thickets' and 'anticommons' (Rossi and Bonaccorsi, 2005, Lerner and Tiro”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tirole, 2004

    In “What Motivates Open Source Contributors?” (page not supplied), the paper says freely available code can be used for learning, making it familiar to programmers through an “alumni effect.” That supports the idea of workers with shared skills, but the paper does not say that adopting a single industry-wide standard creates a common pool of skilled workers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Corporations can commit to keep code in the public domain or to highlight individual contributions by surrendering control to outside leaders.

    “For example, corporations can commit to keep code in the public domain or to highlight individual contributions by surrendering control to outside leaders (Lerner and Tirole, 2004).”

    From Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm (2006) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tirole, 2004

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Aghion, Philippe, and Jean Tirole, 1997, "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, 105, 1-29.
  2. Anderson, Ross, 2002, "Security in Open versus Closed Systems-The Dance of Boltzman, Coase and Moore," Unpublished working paper, Cambridge University.
  3. Arrow, Kenneth J., 1962, "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," in Richard R. Nelson, editor, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 609-626.
  4. Bok, Derek, 2003, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  5. Dessein, Wouter, 2002, "Authority and Communication in Organizations," Review of Economic Studies, 69, 811-838.
  6. Farrell, Joseph, and Michael L. Katz, 2000, "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, 48, 413-432.
  7. Graham, Stuart and David C. Mowery, 2003, "Intellectual Property Protection in the Software Industry," in Wesley Cohen and Steven Merrill, editors, Patents in the Knowledge-based Economy: Proceedings of the Science, Technology and Economic Policy Board, Washington, National Academies Press 2003.
  8. Greenwald, Bruce C., 1986, "Adverse Selection in the Labour Market," Review of Economic Studies, 53, 325-347.
  9. Hahn, Robert W., and Scott J. Wallsten, 2003, "A Review of Bessen and Hunt's Analysis of Software Patents," Unpublished working paper, American Enterprise Institute- Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
  10. Hammerly, Jim, Tom Paquin, and Susan Walton, 1999, "Freeing the Source: The Story of Mozilla," in Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, editors, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Cambridge, Massachusetts, O'Reilly, pp. 197-206.
  11. Jaffe, Adam B., and Josh Lerner, 2001, "Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Law and Technology Transfer from Federal Laboratories," Rand Journal of Economics, 32, 167- 198.
  12. Johnson, Justin P., 2002, "Open Source Software: Private Provision of a Public Good," Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 11, 637-662.
  13. Johnson, Justin P., 2004, "Collaboration, Peer Review and Open Source Software," Unpublished working paper, Cornell University.
  14. Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole, 2002, "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, 52, 197-234.
  15. Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole, 2004a, "Efficient Patent Pools," American Economic Review, 94, 691-711.
  16. Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole, 2005, "The Scope of Open Source Licensing," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 21, forthcoming.
  17. Raymond, Eric, 1999, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, Cambridge, O'Reilly.
  18. Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2003, "Growth Effects of Non-Proprietary Innovation," Journal of the European Economic Association: Papers and Proceedings, 1, 429-439.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lerner, J., & Tirole, J.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
ORCID
Lerner, Josh
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2004-12
DOI
10.3386/w10956
OpenAlex
W3121659186
Cited by
122
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Toulouse Capitole Publications (University Toulouse 1 Capitole) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Microsoft
  • Harvard Business School
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Copyright and Intellectual Property
Keywords
open source software, technology sharing, open source contributors, industrial organization, labor economics, economics of knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review