Search results

Computer systems firms in Silicon Valley are responding to rising costs of product development, shorter product cycles and rapid technological change by focusing and building partnerships with suppliers, both within and outside of the region. Well-known firms like Hewlett-Packard and Apple Computers and lesser known ones like Silicon Graphics and Pyramid Technology are organized to combine the components and sub-systems made by specialist suppliers into new computer systems. As these firms collaborate to both define and manufacture new systems, they are institutionalizing their capacity to learn from one another. Three cases - a contract manufacturer, a silicon foundry, and the joint development of a microprocessor - illustrate how inter-firm networks help account for the sustained technological dynamism of the regional economy.

This paper focuses on two related questions at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. First, under what circumstances must the holder of a patent or a copyright or the owner of a trade secret allow others to use that intellectual property? Second, under what circumstances can the holder of an intellectual property right use that right to make it difficult for another party to succeed in a related market? These questions have vexed antitrust and intellectual property scholars alike ever since the Federal Circuit ruled in 2000 that patent holders “may enforce the statutory right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the claimed invention free from liability under the antitrust laws,” a ruling that directly contradicted the Ninth Circuit ruling that antitrust liability could be imposed for almost identical conduct, depending on the motivations of the patent holder. The various proceedings in United States v. Microsoft only added fuel to the firestorm of controversy.After briefly retracing the jurisprudential path to see how this situation arose, we propose a solution that primarily involves a variation on the real property concept of adverse possession for the intellectual property space along with a slight extension of the Essential Facilities Doctrine for industries that exhibit network effects. We examine, both for firms with and without market power, how our proposal would resolve the situations presented by large fixed asset purchases, the introduction of entirely new products, and operating systems with network effects. We also demonstrate how our proposal could be applied in the European antitrust enforcement context.

Most setup management techniques associated with electronic assembly operations focus on component similarity in grouping boards for batch processing. These process planning techniques often minimize setup times. On the contrary, grouping with respect to component geometry and frequency has been proved to further minimize assembly time. Thus, we propose the Placement Location Metric (PLM) algorithm to recognize and measure the similarity between printed circuit board (PCB) patterns. Grouping PCBs based on the geometric and frequency patterns of components in boards will form clusters of locations and, if these clusters are common between boards, similarity among layouts can be recognized. Hence, placement time will decrease if boards are grouped together with respect to the geometric similarity because the machine head will travel less. Given these notions, this study develops a new technique to group PCBs based on the essences of both component commonality and the PLM. The proposed pattern recognition method in conjunction with the Improved Group Setup (IGS) technique can be viewed as an extended enhancement to the existing Group Setup (GS) technique, which groups PCBs solely according to component similarity. Our analysis indicates that the IGS performs relatively well with respect to an array of existing setup management strategies. Experimental results also show that the IGS produces a better makespan than its counterparts over a low range of machine changeover times. These results are especially important to operations that need to manufacture quickly batches of relatively standardized products in moderate to larger volumes or in flexible cell environments. Moreover, the study provides justification to adopt different group management paradigms by electronic suppliers under a variety of processing conditions.

The chapter is devoted to considering the aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic influence on the global and Russian electronics industry. The work aims to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the electronic industry in the world and Russia from various angles. As a result of the study, the main features of the global electronic industry are highlighted, including leadership of Western European countries, Japan and the United States in the segment of high price electronics; the leadership of the new industrial countries in a lower price segment; active development of microelectronics as an electronics industry segment and its colossal role in the economy of modern countries; the trend towards acquisitions of small companies by large corporations and other industry. Key problems of the Russian electronics are identified, including a small fraction of the global electronics dependence of Russian industry on imported electronic components, a huge backlog of electronic industry of Russia in comparison of world leaders and the newly industrialized countries, technological backwardness of many enterprises of electronic industry, the low level of qualification as a whole industry. The novelty of the research is highlighting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the electronics industry. The study highlights both negative consequences (decline in production of many electronic enterprises, disruption of supply chains, insufficient financing of the industry) and positive aspects (active growth of the segment of household appliances and electronics), as well as an impetus to the development of new directions of world electronics (radio-photonics, optoelectronic and quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, laser technology).

The economic development of Taiwan, from a poor island colony to a world leader in electronic hardware manufacturing, has been spectacular. This study shows that the success of Taiwan may be largely attributed to the synergistic combination of two separate factors: (1) the utilization of unique social capital inherent in the Chinese family entrepreneurs, and (2) the institutional support from the government and other entities, such as Technology Parks, for the creation of scientific and technical knowledge and, most important, for the diffusion and exploitation of technology-based opportunities by these family businesses.

In their well-known contribution to the “varieties of capitalism” debate, Peter Hall and David Soskice (2001, Ch. 1) highlight the distinction between a “coordinated market economy” as exemplified by Germany and a “liberal market economy” as exemplified by the United States. Under the heading, “Liberal Market Economies: The American Case”, Hall and Soskice (2001, p. 27), argue:Liberal market economies can secure levels of overall economic performance as high as those of coordinated market economies, but they do so quite differently. In LMEs, firms rely more heavily on market relations to resolve the coordination problems that firms in CMEs address more often via forms of non-market coordination that entail collaboration and strategic interaction. In each of the major spheres of firm endeavor, competitive markets are more robust and there is less institutional support for non-market forms of coordination.

This article addresses purchasing decisions and the use of total cost of ownership (TCO) information. TCO is based on a monetary quantification of nonfinancial attributes and aggregation into a summary measure (such as cost per hour, per wafer, or per kilometer). From an accounting point-of-view, one intricate issue is the accuracy of the monetary quantification and how this affects decision-making. We distinguish three different kinds of inaccurate monetary quantification, and we investigate the weight that decision makers attach to attributes that are inaccurately monetarily quantified and subsequently included in TCO information. Specifically, we investigate whether this weight depends on reflective thinking and experience. This question is relevant beyond TCO, for all decision-making situations that involve monetary quantification of attributes and subsequent aggregation, such as in activity-based costing, net present value calculations for capital budgeting decisions, or cost-benefit analyses in public administration.

We found support for the hypothesis that reflective thinking increases the weight decision makers attach to the attribute that is included as a minimum cost in the TCO-numbers, but not for the hypothesis that reflective thinking would reduce the weight attached to the attribute that is included as a maximum cost in the TCO-numbers. Students and practitioners differed significantly in the weight they attached to an attribute that was excluded from the TCO-numbers, and practitioners gave less weight to such attributes. Together these results suggest that TCO-numbers should be provided with care and possible inaccuracies should be clarified.