Electronic Markets

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 63–68 | Cite as

Are open standards good business?

Position Paper

Abstract

The debate about the relative merits of open vs. proprietary standards is long and ongoing. Proponents of open standards argue that they are good for society as they encourage adoption, have lower risk, and increase interoperability between technologies. On the other hand, proponents of proprietary standards maintain that monopolistic returns are justified given huge upfront and ongoing investments. While there are merits to both sides of this debate, we take a more objective approach in evaluating whether it makes sense to develop or invest in open standards. We collect investors’ reactions to Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema announcements and compare these with estimated returns for the same stock to determine whether the returns were above or below normal. We find that investors prefer proprietary XML schemas to open XML schemas by as much as 28,000%. We also find that this preference has been stable over time except in 2001 – the period of the dot com bubble burst - when investors temporarily preferred open standards. We attribute these results to two things. First, expected returns from monopoly control of proprietary standards, even though uncertain, are often worth more than those expected from open standards. Second, it seems that the markets are still unsure of the monetary benefits of open standards to the firm. Thus, companies that embrace open standards will have to better communicate to the investors the value proposition of open standards if they want to generate positive reactions on their open standardization efforts.

Keywords

Open standards Proprietary standards Event Study 

JEL classification

L15 D80 G14 

References

  1. BBCNews (2002). China in DVD royalty row. Retrieved March 7, 2002 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1860621.stm.
  2. Berlind, D. (2002). Open source: IBM’s deadly weapon. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.zdnet.com/news/open-source-ibms-deadly-weapon/296366.
  3. Brown, S. J., & Warner, J. B. (1985). Using daily stock returns: the case of event studies. Journal of Financial Economics, 14, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BusinessWire (2002). Large capacity optical disc video recording format ‘Blu-ray Disc’ established. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200202/02-0219E/.
  5. Caceres, M. (2006). Client-side web applications (Widgets) requirements. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.w3.org/TR/WAPF-REQ/.
  6. Dranove, D., & Gandal, N. (2003). Surviving a standards war: lessons learned from the life and death of DIVX. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3935. Google Scholar
  7. Foley, M. J. (2007). Microsoft: why the ODF vs. OOXML battle matters. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-why-the-odf-vs-ooxml-battle-matters/290.
  8. Gartner, Inc. (2011). Gartner hype cycle. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp.
  9. Inceoglu, F., & Park, M. (2003). Diffusion of a new product under network effects: the case of U.S. DVD player market. Unpublished Manuscript, Boston University.Google Scholar
  10. ITU-T (2010). Definition of “open standards”. Retrieved October 21, 2011 from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/open.aspx.
  11. Kanellos, M. (2008). Blu-ray victory means royalties, royalties, royalties. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html.
  12. Krechmer, K. (2005). The meaning of open standards. 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Lemer, J., & Tirole, J. (2005). The economics of technology sharing: open source and beyond. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Markus, M. L., Steinfield, C. W., Wigand, R. T., & Minton, G. (2006). Industry-wide information systems standardization as collective action: the case of the U.S. residential mortgage industry. MIS Quarterly, 30(Special Issue on Standardization): 439–465.Google Scholar
  15. Maxwell, E. E. (2006). Open standards, open source, and open innovation: harnessing the benefits of openness. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(3), 119–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parker, G. G., & Alstyne, M. W. V. (2005). Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Patrizio, A. (2007). Who is drawing out the High-Def DVD stalemate? Retrieved March 11, 2011 from http://www.internetnews.com/storage/article.php/3671091.
  18. Redfearn, N. (2009). Patent pools in china. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from http://www.iam-magazine.com/issues/article.ashx?g=18282a7c-2e62-4b29-8560-4c2d0b42c64b.
  19. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  20. Shimel, A. (2010). Oracle to open source: drop dead! Retrieved March 11, 2011 from http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/oracle-open-source-drop-dead.
  21. West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. West, J. (2004). What are open standards? Implications for adoption, competition and policy. Standards and Public Policy Conference. Retrieved October 21, 2011 from http://www.chicagofed.org/news_and_conferences/conferences_and_events/files/west.pdf.
  23. West, J. (2006). The economic realities of open standards: black, white and many shades of gray. Standards and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wikipedia (2011). List of XML schemas. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_XML_schemas.

Copyright information

© Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MIS, College of BusinessSan Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management, LeBow College of BusinessDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of ISQS, Rawls College of BusinessTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations