Innovation, competition, standards and intellectual property: policy perspectives from economics and law
Section snippets
The sources of regulatory complexity
Institutions that regulate property rights in information, competition in the marketplace and the setting of technical standards have long histories. The Venetians are generally credited with the first patent statute (1474). Ecclesiastical law and the common law regulated competition in different ways during the medieval period. Regulation of competition by statute came later. Prussia passed a law to restrict the power of guilds in 1811 and in 1890 the US Congress passed the Sherman Act.
The papers
The papers in this volume all examine aspects of the greater regulatory complexity that face governments as they regulate innovation, competition, intellectual property and standard-setting. The institutional and economic context is primarily Australia and New Zealand. Collectively the papers show what is obvious, but also easily overlooked in processes of globalization and harmonization, namely that institutional and economic context do matter. The US is the world’s largest economy while
References (18)
- Abbott, F., 1999. Competition, intellectual property rights and the transfer of technology: the exhaustion of...
- et al.
Responsive Regulation
(1992) - et al.
Global Business Regulation
(2000) BITs and BIPS––bilateralism in intellectual property
Journal of World Intellectual Property
(2001)- et al.
Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy
(2002) - et al.
Preface
- et al.
An introduction to varieties of capitalism
- et al.
The Telecommunications Act at three years: an economic evaluation of its implementation by the Federal Communications Commission
Information Economics and Policy
(1999)
Cited by (15)
Topic identification and sentiment trends in Weibo and WeChat content related to intellectual property in China
2022, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeCitation Excerpt :In particular, with the rise of a new scientific and technological revolution, strategic opportunities have been created for the development of all countries in the world. To meet this new opportunity and enhance national strength, governments across the globe have issued a series of policies and regulations to improve the level of intellectual property rights and drive the innovation of knowledge and technological change (Drahos and Maher, 2004; Papageorgiadis and McDonald, 2019; Wang, 2020). China has always attached great importance to the development of IPRs.
Examining the trajectory of a standard for patent classification: An institutional account of a technical cooperation between EPO and USPTO
2016, Technology in SocietyCitation Excerpt :Despite the widespread adoption of the IPC standard, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have developed a new standard for patent classification known as Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC). Both IPRs and standards have been subjected to greater policy scrutiny [13]. Over the past decade, both the number of patent applications submitted to national and international patent offices and the number of standards released by standardization bodies have increased exponentially [6].
Developing intellectual property policies for academic entrepreneurship purposes for universities in Egypt In light of the Chinese model
2022, Journal of Educational AdministrationIntellectual property and development: Theory and practice
2014, Intellectual Property and Development: Theory and Practice