<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ME</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Modern Economy</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2152-7245</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/me.2013.49A002</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">ME-35999</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Business&amp;Economics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Irrelevance of Conjectural Variation in a Private Duopoly with Consistent Conjectures: The Relative Performance Approach and Network Effects
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>asuhiko</surname><given-names>Nakamura</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>College of Economics, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>yasuhiko.r.nakamura@gmail.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>15</day><month>08</month><year>2013</year></pub-date><volume>04</volume><issue>09</issue><fpage>7</fpage><lpage>13</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>July</day>	<month>16,</month>	<year>2013</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>August</day>	<month>10,</month>	<year>2013</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>August</day>	<month>16,</month>	<year>2013</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
   This paper explores the equilibrium market outcomes in the contexts of both quantity-setting and price-setting private duopolies with the consistent conjectures of two private firms, wherein they maximize the weighted sum of their own profits and their respective opponent firm’s profit. Similar to the private duopoly without network effects wherein the two private firms maximize their genuine relative profits, in the private duopoly with network effects such that both firms maximize the weighted sum of their own profits and their respective opponent firm’s profit, we show that the equilibrium outcomes in the quantity-setting competition with the consistent conjectures of both firms are equivalent to those in the price-setting competition with the consistent conjectures of both firms. 
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Relative Profit Maximization; Conjectural Variation; Consistent Conjecture; Network Effects</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>This paper tackles the problem of whether or not the consistent conjectures of two relative profit maximizing private firms yield the same equilibrium outcomes between a quantity-setting competition and a price-setting competition in the context of a private duopolistic market with differentiated and substitutable goods and with network effects. Conjectural variations in oligopolistic markets have been investigated for a long time. For example, Bresnahan [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref1">1</xref>], Perry [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref2">2</xref>], Boyer and Moreaux [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref3">3</xref>], Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref4">4</xref>], and Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref5">5</xref>] considered the effects of the conjectural variations of firms on equilibrium market outcomes in several economic contexts<sup>1</sup>. More recently, in private duopoly with the linear demand function and constant marginal cost functions composed of two symmetric private firms, Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref6">6</xref>] showed that their equilibrium output and price levels in the Cournot equilibrium under their relative profit maximization are equal to those in the Bertrand equilibrium under their relative profit maximization<sup>2</sup>.</p><p>As indicated in Matsumura et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref8">8</xref>], the performances of firms’ managers are often based on their relative performance and outperforming managers often obtain good positions in the management job markets. Taking the importance of the relative performance approaches into account, the relative profit approaches employed in this paper have been adopted in the modern many theoretical oligopolistic works. In the context of evolutionary economics &#224; la Schaffer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref9">9</xref>], Vega-Redondo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref10">10</xref>] found that each firm’s adoption of its relative profit maximizing behavior yields the Walrasian equilibrium in the general equilibrium framework. Furthermore, Lundgren [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref11">11</xref>] presented a new economic method for preventing incentives for collusion by making managerial compensation which depends on relative profits rather than absolute profits. Kockesen et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref12">12</xref>] derived the condition that the firm with interdependent preferences (i.e., the relative profit preference) obtains a strictly higher profit than the independent (i.e., the absolute profit preference) firm in any equilibrium. Moreover, Matsumura and Matsushima [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref13">13</xref>] investigated the relationship between the degree of competition and the stability of collusive behavior by introducing the element of relative performance into the objective functions of the firms and showed that an increase in the degree of competition destabilizes collusion.</p><p>In this paper, we consider the equilibrium market outcomes between the quantity-setting competition and the price-setting competition in a private duopoly with network effects by adopting the maximization of the weighted sum of their own profit and the profit of their respective opponent firm including the case of their genuine relative profit maximization (the “extended” relative profit). The network effects that we consider in this paper were introduced in Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] and applied in Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>]. These effects reflected a simple mechanism where the surplus obtained by a firm’s client increases directly with the number of other clients of this firm. Then, taking into account the network effects and the maximization of the extended relative profit of the private firms, in this paper, we confirm the robustness of the result on the coincidence of the equilibrium market outcomes in the contexts of both the quantity-setting competition and price-setting competition in the private duopoly.</p><p>Except for the question of whether or not there exists the presence of network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>], the difference between the settings of Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref6">6</xref>] and Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref7">7</xref>] and this paper is whether or not to allow the private firm to maximize the weighted sum of its own profit and its opponent firm’s profit. Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref6">6</xref>] and Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref7">7</xref>] considered the situation wherein the private firm maximizes the genuine relative profit, which is equal to the difference between its own profit and its opponent firm’s profit. In this paper, we focus on the influence of the parameter of the degree of importance of each private firm’s relative performance on the equilibrium market outcomes in the contexts of both the quantity-setting competition and price-setting competition<sup>3</sup>. In this paper, we show that even if we take into account both the network effects and the possibility of the weighted sum of each firm’s profit and its opponent firm’s profit, the equilibrium market outcomes in the quantity-setting competition are equivalent to those in the price-setting competition. Thus, the equivalence of Cournot and Bertrand equilibria in the private duopoly with differentiated and substitutable goods still holds against the introduction of network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] and the possibility of maximization of the weighted sum of the profit of the private firm and its opponent firm’s profit.</p><p>The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we formulate the basis model employed in this paper. In Section 3, we derive the equilibrium outcomes in both the quantity-setting competition and price-setting competition with differentiated and substitutable goods in the private duopoly with network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] wherein the private firms maximize the weighted sum of their own profits and their respective opponent’s profit. Section 4 concludes with several remarks.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Model</title><p>We formulate a private duopolistic model with differentiated and substitutable goods and consistent conjectures composed of two extended relative profit-maximizing private firms with an additional term that reflects the network effects introduced in Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] and applied by Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>]. Similar to Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>], firm i faces a linear demand of the following form:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.35999-formula61598"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="2-7200550\57814e93-d813-4797-83b3-c16ad6e53e58.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <img src="2-7200550\f31fe2bb-485f-4eb3-af7d-3f7da4ecfeb2.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\11168425-c1da-41e3-8b60-50c20db4511b.jpg" /> are demand parameters<sup>4</sup>. <img src="2-7200550\488d4eaf-cc76-4f6a-81d9-62b8a1b65896.jpg" />indicates the strength of network effects, and <img src="2-7200550\f7258273-cd67-4fe8-88b0-0beed025cfcb.jpg" /> is consumers’ expectations of firm<img src="2-7200550\b26ab313-9ab5-487b-b23c-1eca44a1a67b.jpg" />’s equilibrium market share. The ordinary demand function for the good of firm <img src="2-7200550\fe7654fe-a2a4-4429-b203-17dc9ad53267.jpg" /> is obtained from the inverse demand function given in Equation (1) as follows:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.35999-formula61599"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="2-7200550\ddd51e22-fa60-4fa3-89f2-c6bb79a7f108.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>As explained in Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>], the above demand system can be derived from the following quasi-linear concave utility function of a representative consumer:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\a2d28344-5029-4c94-89e6-e61fdd39d8c4.jpg" /></p><p>where m denotes the income of the representative consumer and <img src="2-7200550\8ff689df-6654-4c7d-99bd-10926c9d2ac8.jpg" /> represents some symmetric function of expectations. In this paper, in the same manner as in Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>], we suppose that</p><p><sup><img src="2-7200550\33d6df90-5aa9-4180-902f-e1cd673bd530.jpg" />5</sup>.</p><p>We consider a private duopolistic market composed of two extended relative profit maximizing private firms (firms 0 and 1). We use <img src="2-7200550\44a15df0-3aef-4846-a380-d4e8d9c05ec8.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\8ad7809a-204a-40b6-9ad0-fbfd08ae787f.jpg" /> to represent firm<img src="2-7200550\c39a3644-120a-48b5-8947-9134c465ad79.jpg" />’s output and price levels, respectively,<img src="2-7200550\6fcfb31f-45ab-4eb1-a0e7-223018ef2f98.jpg" />. We adopt the constant marginal cost function, where <img src="2-7200550\d3a0eba1-311f-4c5f-9b31-5637fa5d5929.jpg" /> is a common marginal cost between firms 0 and 1, similar to Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>]<sup> 6</sup>. The marginal cost of production of both firms 0 and 1 is commonly assumed to be<img src="2-7200550\d9f0b777-a5b9-4d14-98c1-d0e6e9c837cd.jpg" />. The profit function of firm <img src="2-7200550\41852990-c56a-48d3-b680-6046176a8911.jpg" /> is given by</p><p><img src="2-7200550\0b4cd44c-1738-4404-aa08-0ef0319b6406.jpg" /></p><p>where <img src="2-7200550\c33a5436-4ae9-4778-b567-d0c788625177.jpg" /> is given in Equation (1) and <img src="2-7200550\e3311048-98a2-4380-b32c-64851a4286cd.jpg" /> is given in Equation (2). Consumer surplus is expressed as the representative consumer’s utility as follows: <img src="2-7200550\17f2b3f5-faa4-421f-924e-3c1ef1bd149a.jpg" />, whereas producer surplus is given by the sum of the profits of both firms 0 and 1,<img src="2-7200550\6635427d-8200-48b1-8f5d-f24466758592.jpg" />. Finally, we suppose that social welfare is defined as the sum of consumer surplus and producer surplus. We consider the “rational expectations” subgame perfect Nash equilibrium by imposing the rational expectations condition that <img src="2-7200550\1def8d1b-971c-4446-8ae6-e1ac65dabadb.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\c472c3be-36d5-455a-be44-1d69ca31e6bd.jpg" /> &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>], Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Equilibrium Analysis</title><p>In this section, we derive the equilibrium market outcomes with firms 0 and 1 in the contexts of both the quantity-setting competition and price-setting competition with their consistent conjectures in the private duopoly with differentiated and substitutabled goods wherein they maximize the extended relative profit.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Quantity-Setting Framework</title><p>In this subsection, we consider the situation wherein the strategic variables of firms 0 and 1 are their output levels. The objective functions of firms 0 and 1 are given as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\8b64ae11-819f-4b8d-ab39-9f51500e63bb.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\ccafb07e-2929-4b48-bbba-254a26831bec.jpg" /></p><p>where <img src="2-7200550\c68c00a8-406b-45a2-a1e2-675dd088000a.jpg" /><sup>7</sup>.</p><p>Firm 0 decides its output level in order to maximize <img src="2-7200550\6a9e859d-4a84-41e1-9b5d-34c74ce8d441.jpg" /> assuming that the reaction of the output level of firm 1 to the output level of firm 0 is given as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\fb2ec9c7-cd34-4d15-99ec-3075fcb6a8d8.jpg" /></p><p>On the other hand, firm 1 decides its output level in order to maximize <img src="2-7200550\c7a890aa-cf6d-418b-99b9-ff74c5e5a1f0.jpg" /> assuming that the reaction of the output level of firm 0 to the output level of firm 1 is given as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\f2578c9b-71a4-4117-a9c6-b08b104a96b5.jpg" /></p><p>The first-order conditions of firms 0 and 1 in the quantity-setting market competition are given, and their real reaction functions of firms are obtained as follows<sup>8</sup>:<sup></sup></p><p><img src="2-7200550\3158d44f-6fca-485a-9a59-c151e877278f.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\85ceb7f2-3350-44d4-a867-f44ec493d4d6.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\429cff0b-6e9e-47b0-9d5a-fc900a13e895.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\fb72761b-f1a8-40f2-8e87-954b5118c7dc.jpg" /></p><p>From the real reaction function of the output level of firm <img src="2-7200550\2de1f78d-5bc1-42d1-ae08-49701236357b.jpg" /> to the output level of firm<img src="2-7200550\e6e0221c-9bb7-4f13-8c49-8befb855a8cd.jpg" />, we obtain the following result<img src="2-7200550\3f147a2d-b517-4c0b-8a71-7752b8106eae.jpg" />:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\a1c83f7f-6477-48a2-9732-5a3cfc1f50de.jpg" /></p><p>The conditions of the consistency of the conjectural variations of firms 0 and 1 are, respectively,</p><p><img src="2-7200550\dfa09827-3cbb-43ea-b657-27fc0e8ae936.jpg" /></p><p>yielding</p><p><img src="2-7200550\4f44fd05-dfae-4fa1-8ab3-e9fa06c0a496.jpg" /></p><p>From the symmetry of firms 0 and 1, we notice that<img src="2-7200550\6b79622b-60e7-41fe-b102-6dba3cecb965.jpg" />. The above values of firms 0 and 1 are the equilibrium consistent conjectures in the quantity-setting competition under the assumption that <img src="2-7200550\22f2cd10-97bd-4a53-ae30-9524f4bfa1c9.jpg" /> and<img src="2-7200550\67323f00-c828-4a0e-8d9a-77a18ecaccec.jpg" />. Thus, by substituting the rational expectations assumption that <img src="2-7200550\d7e844fa-0e56-4c46-ba3e-8c16543e7c58.jpg" /> and<img src="2-7200550\68700db3-2156-4e11-bd21-0930cab2f53c.jpg" />, the equilibrium output levels and price levels of firms 0 and 1 under the assumption that <img src="2-7200550\123e1636-0ae6-4325-b23e-c00947a4f469.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\ca5db80a-bf0f-46e7-a836-43070774b2c5.jpg" /> are obtained as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\39f69241-90b1-4019-a4ce-891be112497e.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\6c4504b8-9944-4a63-944e-91a54bb24071.jpg" /></p><p>and</p><p><img src="2-7200550\ac40299b-bc79-4369-aefb-56dd40833ed7.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\428e3700-01d1-458d-ba13-c589c0ea6a5b.jpg" /></p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Price-Setting Framework</title><p>In this subsection, we consider the situation wherein the strategic variables of firms 0 and 1 are their price levels. The objective functions of firms 0 and 1 are given as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\a3337817-f8f3-4ceb-b101-ca2260f7312b.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\3580d4a8-2f12-408f-8e6d-257fdffcfca4.jpg" /></p><p>Firm 0 decides its price level in order to maximize <img src="2-7200550\cbf043f3-1d73-460f-bbf6-03f55b76c4f8.jpg" /> assuming that the reaction of the price level of firm 1 to the price level of firm 0 is given as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\44972423-732f-4996-8dff-054ec4bdd735.jpg" /></p><p>On the other hand, firm 1 decides its price level in order to maximize <img src="2-7200550\bc1815af-a244-47ce-a15b-01d5e0f50182.jpg" /> assuming that the reaction of the price level of firm 0 to the price level of firm 1 is given as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\96fc92c3-5ea1-4b6e-a67c-c7370fbb64db.jpg" /></p><p>The first-order conditions of firms 0 and 1 in the price-setting competition are given, and the real reaction functions of firms are obtained as follows<sup>9</sup>:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\26101518-a060-4646-85ee-a87cb4d779a2.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\c210fe96-e909-47a0-a5a0-b4b90341cc1d.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\39dfef04-44e4-420e-82ae-0be81b8c80cd.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\43dfd3a0-6b32-4ed0-b2d4-936e82208147.jpg" /></p><p>From the real reaction of the price level of firm <img src="2-7200550\539c80e4-58b4-4f20-bcbb-b3630d72a6ed.jpg" /> to the price level of firm<img src="2-7200550\b441e14b-8a3f-4e7b-8128-de6e52acc1aa.jpg" />, we obtain the following result<img src="2-7200550\15db349b-52b5-4980-834e-f6923fddf666.jpg" />:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\cae318d6-0c5a-4aa7-aa68-173bd838aaaf.jpg" /></p><p>The conditions of the consistency of the conjectural variations of firms 0 and 1 are, respectively,</p><p><img src="2-7200550\d96553f1-4839-48f3-95bf-f11ca523255c.jpg" /></p><p>yielding</p><p><img src="2-7200550\451b0625-f7bb-488f-9ae2-e2efcd44a044.jpg" /></p><p>The above values of firms 0 and 1 are the equilibrium consistent conjectures in the price-setting competition under the assumption that <img src="2-7200550\37c1609b-7e44-4ca9-8d96-c8e51321a6b3.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\a3c5ebcc-2018-4381-91b1-d9925904c772.jpg" />. Note that each firm’s consistent conjectural variation in the price-setting competition is different from that in the quantity-setting competition<sup>10</sup>. Thus, by substituting the rational expectations assumption that <img src="2-7200550\9ba5891f-6ee6-4000-b2c7-6f781d4d5be2.jpg" /> and<img src="2-7200550\87238a9b-b3fa-439d-bd0e-82af73e8cd13.jpg" />, the equilibrium price level and output level under the assumption that <img src="2-7200550\6271287a-fac3-462b-bddb-5dff82fc0abe.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\502e8cb5-4a4f-4e34-8808-d0e0f88a2966.jpg" /> are obtained as follows:</p><p><img src="2-7200550\37fffc65-b867-4cac-a96b-b81730f1e6c5.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\2fd670d8-b0cf-4ef0-98b8-569fe77a80b9.jpg" /></p><p>and</p><p><img src="2-7200550\a7364af6-e039-458d-8ece-301236f16291.jpg" /></p><p><img src="2-7200550\799c6294-29ac-4618-b63b-f7d15caed5e9.jpg" /></p><p>Thus, we have the result that <img src="2-7200550\e8afed26-48c3-46c4-bd4e-e7af99c36017.jpg" /> and <img src="2-7200550\72e86421-c5dd-4c69-96cd-1372283247af.jpg" />,<img src="2-7200550\f6b95e1c-a577-47ae-8d72-a46f95545263.jpg" />. Summing up the rational expectations equilibrium market outcomes with consistent conjectures including the output and price levels of firms 0 and 1 between the quantity-setting competition and pricesetting competition, we obtain the following proposition:</p><p>Proposition 1 In the private duopoly with consistent conjectural variations composed of the two extended relative profit maximizing private firms, the rational expectations equilibrium outcomes including their output and price levels, profit, consumer surplus, and social welfare in the quantity-setting competition are equivalent to those in the price-setting competition.</p><p>Note that the statement of Proposition 1 is relevant to the private duopoly composed of extended relative profitmaximizing private firms that is without network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] since it includes the case of<img src="2-7200550\b35f461d-5118-4d8f-ab89-3985a7fa9fb9.jpg" />. On the other hand, the statement of Proposition 1 is relevant to the private duopoly with the network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] composed of the absolute profit-maximizing private firms since it includes the case of<img src="2-7200550\232d8e05-d85a-4a9e-9145-74d12aa74ca7.jpg" />.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Concluding Remarks</title><p>In this paper, we considered the equilibrium market outcomes in a private duopoly with differentiated and substitutable goods and with an additional term that reflects network effects in the fashion of Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>], Hoernig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref15">15</xref>], Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref16">16</xref>], and Nakamura [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref17">17</xref>], wherein the private firms maximize the weighted sum of their own profits and their respective opponent firm’s profit. Similar to the private duopoly without network effects composed of two absolute profit maximizing firms and of two relative profit maximizing firms investigated in Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref6">6</xref>], we show that the equilibrium outcomes in the quantitysetting competition are equivalent to those in the price-setting competition even in the private duopoly with network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>], wherein the two private firms maximize their extended relative profits, which are equal to the weighted sum of the firm’s own profit and its opponent firm’s profit. In this paper, we also showed that in the above private duopolistic market, the equilibrium market outcomes in the quantity-setting competition are the same as those in the price-setting competition. Thus, the above so-called irrelevance result that the equilibrium market outcomes are the same between the quantity-setting competition and price-setting competition is robust against the introduction of both network effects &#224; la Katz and Shapiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref14">14</xref>] and the presence of the weighted relative profit-maximizing private firms.</p><p>Finally, we identify several topics to be addressed in our future research. In a symmetric private duopoly with differentiated and substitutable goods wherein two private firms maximize their genuine relative profits, Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref7">7</xref>] showed that the choice of the strategic variables of the two firms is irrelevant to the outcome of the game in the sense that since their equilibrium output, price levels, and profits are the same in all situations, any combination of their strategy choices comprises a subgame perfect equilibrium in the game on the endogenous selections of their strategic variables. Then, as one of our future studies, we will consider the two-stage game on the endogenous selections of each firm’s strategic variable in a private duopoly with differentiated and substitutable goods and with network effects wherein two private firms maximize the weighted sum of their own profits and their respective opponent firm’s profit. Second, as indicated in Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref6">6</xref>] and Tanaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.35999-ref7">7</xref>], as one of our future studies, we should check the robustness of the results obtained in this paper against the general numbers of the existing private firms and the general demand function.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>REFERENCES</title></sec><sec id="s6"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.35999-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">T. Bresnahan, “Duopoly Models with Consistent Conjectures,” American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 5, 1981, pp. 934-945.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. Perry, “Oligopoly and Consistent Conjectural Variations,” Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1982, pp. 197-205. doi:10.2307/3003440</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. Boyer and M. Moreaux, “Consistent versus Non-Consistent Conjectures in Duopoly Theory: Some Examples,” Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1983, pp. 97-110. doi:10.2307/2097988</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Tanaka, “Consistent Conjectures in Free Entry Oligopoly,” Economics Letters, Vol. 17, No. 1-2, 1985, pp. 15-18. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(85)90118-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Tanaka, “On Multiplicity of Consistent Conjectures in Free Entry Oligopoly,” Economics Letters, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1985, pp. 109-115. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(88)90099-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Tanaka, “Equivalance of Cournot and Bertrand Equilibria in Differentiated Duopoly under Relative Profit Maximization with Linear Demand,” Economics Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2013, pp. 1479-1486.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Tanaka, “Irrelevance of the Choice of Strategic Variables in Duopoly under Relative Profit Maximization,” Economics and Business Letters, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2013, pp. 75-83.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">T. Matsumura, N. Matsushima and S. Cato, “Competitiveness and R&amp;D Competition Revisited,” Economic Modelling, Vol. 31, 2013, pp. 541-547.  
doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2012.12.016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. E. Schaffer, “Are Profit Maximizers the Best Survivors?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12, 1, 1989, 29-45. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(89)90075-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">F. Vega-Redondo, “The Evolution of Walrasian Behavior,” Econometrica, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1997, pp. 375-384.  
doi:10.2307/2171898</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">C. Lundgren, “Using Relative Profit Incentives to Prevent Collusion,” Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1996, pp. 533-550. doi:10.1007/BF00157777</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">L. Kockesen, E. A. Ok and R. Sethi, “The Strategic Advantage of Negatively Interdependent Preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 92, No. 2, 2000, pp. 274-299. doi:10.1006/jeth.1999.2587</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">T. Matsumura and N. Matsushima, “Competitiveness and Stability of Collusive Behavior,” Bulletin of Economic Research 64, Supplement, Vol. 64, Suppl. 1, 2012, pp. 22-31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8586.2012.00439.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. Katz and C. Shapiro, “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,” American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, 1985, pp. 424-440.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">S. Hoernig, “Strategic Delegation under Price Competition and Network Effects,” Economics Letters, Vol. 117, No. 2, 2012, 487-489. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2012.06.045</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Nakmaura, “Social Welfare under Quantity Competition and Price Competition in a Mixed Duopoly with Network Effects: An Analysis,” Theoretical Economics Letters, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2013, pp. 211-215.  
doi:10.4236/tel.2013.34035</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Nakmaura, “Endogenous Timing in Price-Setting Private and Mixed Duopoly with Network Effects,” 2013, Mimeo.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Nakamura and M. Saito, “Capacity Choice in a Mixed Duopoly: The Relative Performance Approach,” Theoretical Economics Letters, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2013, pp. 124-133. doi:10.4236/tel.2013.32020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Nakamura and M. Saito, “Capacity Choice in a Price-Setting Mixed Duopoly: The Relative Performance Approach,” Modern Economy, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2013, pp. 273-280. doi:10.4236/me.2013.44031</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Nakamura, “Price versus Quantity in a Mixed Duopoly: The Case of Relative Profit Maximization,” 2013, Mimeo.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">F. Y. Edgeworth, “Mathematical Physics,” P. Kegan, London, 1881.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R. M. Cyert and M. H. de Groot, “An Analysis of Cooperation and Learning in a Duopoly Context,” American Economic Review, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1973, pp. 24-37.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.35999-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Y. Tanaka, “Irrelevance of Conjectural Variation in Duopoly under Relative Profit Maximization and Consistent Conjectures,” 2013, Mimeo.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>