Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
We mine two public choice traditions for insights into intellectual property rights: the Virginia school, centered on James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, and the Bloomington or Institutional Analysis and Development school, centered on Elinor Ostrom and Vincent Ostrom. We apply the perspectives of each school to issues of intellectual property and develop new insights, questions, and focuses of attention. We also explore tensions and synergies between the two schools on issues of intellectual property.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Beighley, G. C, Jr. (2011). The court of appeals for the federal circuit: has it fulfilled congressional expectations? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 21, 671–738.
Bell, T. W. (2014). Intellectual privilege: oopyright, common law, and the common good. Arlington: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Bessen, J., Ford, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2011). The private and social costs of patent trolls. Regulation, 34(4), 26–35.
Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bessen, J., & Meurer, M.J. (in press). The direct costs from NPE disputes. Cornell Law Review.
Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2013). The case against patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 3–22. CrossRef
Borsook, P. (1995). How anarchy works. Wired, 3(10). http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/ietf.html.
Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (2000). The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Brief of George A. Akerlof et al. (2003). as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners at 12, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (No. 01-618).
Bruff, H. H. (1991). Specialized courts in administrative law. Administrative Law Review, 43, 329–366.
Buchanan, J. M. (1979a). Politics without romance: a sketch of positive public choice theory and its normative implications. IHS Journal, Zeitschrift des Instituts für Höhere Studien, 3, B1–B11.
Buchanan, J. M. (1979b). What should economists do?. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cowen, T. (2011). The great stagnation: how America ate all the low-hanging fruit of modern history, got sick, and will (eventually) feel better. New York: Dutton.
de Figueiredo, J. M., & Silverman, B. S. (2007). How does the government (want to) fund science? Politics, lobbying, and academic earmarks.” Working paper 13459. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13459.
Demsetz, Harold. (1969). Information and efficiency: another viewpoint. Journal of Law and Economics, 12(1), 1–22. CrossRef
Devereaux, C., Lawrence, R. Z., & Watkins, M. (2006). Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. Case studies in US trade negotiation: Making the rules (pp. 37–129). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Drahos, P. (1996). Global law reform and rent-seeking: the case of intellectual property. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 7, 1–17.
Evenson, R. E. (2001). Economic impacts of agricultural research and extension. In B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (Eds.), Handbook of agricultural economics (Vol. 1, pp. 573–628). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hall, B. H. (2005). Exploring the patent explosion. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(2), 35–48.
Hayek, F. A. (2002). Competition as a discovery procedure (M. S. Snow, Trans.). Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(3), 9–23. CrossRef
Heald, P. (2007). Property rights and the efficient exploitation of the copyrighted works: an empirical analysis of public domain and copyrighted fiction best sellers. In F. Macmillian (Ed.), New Directions in Copyright Law (Vol. 6, pp. 74–111). Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Heald, P.J. (2013). How copyright keeps works disappeared.” SSRN scholarly paper ID 2290181. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2290181.
Heller, M. A. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review, 111(3), 621–688. CrossRef
Henry, M. D., & Turner, J. L. (2006). The court of appeals for the federal circuit’s impact on patent litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 35(1), 85–117. CrossRef
Henry, M. D., & Turner, J. L. (2013). Across five eras: patent enforcement in the United States 1929–2006. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2274383. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2274383.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2006a). Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2006b). Introduction: an overview of the knowledge commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hume, D. 1777 (1987). Essay VI: of the independency of Parliament. In Eugene F. Miller (Ed.), Essays moral, political, literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/704/137488 on 2013-06-19.
Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2004). The economic structure of intellectual property law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Landry, T. K. (1993). Certainty and discretion in patent law: the on sale bar, the doctrine of equivalents, and judicial power in the federal circuit. Southern California Law Review, 67, 1151–1214.
Lee, T. B. (2012). How the criminalization of copyright threatens innovation and the rule of law. In J. Brito (Ed.), Copyright unbalanced: from incentive to excess (pp. 55–73). Arlington: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Lemley, M. A. (2008). Ignoring patents. Michigan State Law Review, 19–34.
Litman, J. D. (1987). Copyright, compromise, and legislative history. Cornell Law Review, 72, 857–904.
Long, E. V. (2008). Pop standards: music and commerce in the age of rock (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (304670392).
Lopez, E. J. (2010). The pursuit of justice: law and economics of legal institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Miller, S. & Tabarrok, A. (2014). Ill-Conceived, Even If Competently Administered: Software Patents, Litigation and Innovation-A Comment on Graham and Vishnubhakat. Econ Journal Watch 11 (1).
Mossoff, A. (2011). The rise and fall of the first American patent thicket: the sewing machine war of the 1850s. Arizona Law Review, 53(1), 165–211.
Mulligan, C., & Lee, T. B. (2012). Scaling the patent system. NYU Annual Survey of American Law, 68(2), 289–318. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968#%23.
Murphy, K. M., & Topel, R. H. (2003). The economic value of medical research. In K. M. Murphy & R. H. Topel (Eds.), Measuring the gains from medical research: an economic approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Murray, F., Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Kolev, J., & Stern, S. (2009). Of mice and academics: examining the effect of openness on innovation (Working paper No. 14819). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14819.
Ochoa, T., & Rose, M. (2002). The anti-monopoly origins of the patent and copyright clause. Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, 84, 675–706.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Ostrom, V. (1997). The meaning of democracy and the vulnerabilities of democracies: a response to Tocqueville’s challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Patry, W. F. (1994). Copyright law and practice. Washington, DC: BNA Books.
Patry, W. F. (2011). How to fix copyright. New York: Oxford University Press.
Quinn, G. (2012, March 20). Killing industry: the Supreme Court blows Mayo v. Prometheus. IPWatchdog (blog). http://ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-promethius.
Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2004). Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1), 289–314.
Rifkind, S. (1951). A special court for patent litigation? The danger of a specialized judiciary. American Bar Association Journal, 37, 425–426.
Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35(6), 772–789. CrossRef
Savage, J. D. (2000). Funding science in America: Congress, universities, and the politics of the academic pork barrel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schultz, J., & Urban, J. M. (2012). Protecting open innovation: the Defensive Patent License as a new approach to patent threats, transaction costs, and tactical disarmament. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 26(1), 1–67.
Tabarrok, A. (1998). The private provision of public goods via dominant assurance contracts. Public Choice, 96, 345–362. CrossRef
Tabarrok, A. (2002). Patent theory versus patent law. Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy, 1(1), 1–26.
Tabarrok, A. (2011). Launching the innovation renaissance: a new path to bring smart ideas to market fast [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Turner, J. L., Bessen, J. E., Neuhäusler, P., & Williams, J. W. (2013). The costs and benefits of United States patents. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2278255. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2278255.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2003). Copyrights and copywrongs: the rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.
Watkins, William J. (2014). Patent trolls: Predatory litigation and the smothering of innovation. Oakland: Independent Institute.
Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90(Supplement), S21–S32. CrossRef
- Public choice perspectives on intellectual property
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta