1704380974
1704380975
25.Bessen and Meurer, “Direct Costs.”
1704380976
1704380977
26.Love, “Empirical Study”; Allison, Lemley, and Walker, “Extreme Value”; Price-WaterhouseCoopers, “Patent Litigation Study.” Two researchers found that, nevertheless, some patents acquired by trolls had some indications of being good quality (Fischer and Henkel, “Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology”).
1704380978
1704380979
27.Bessen, “Generation of Software Patents.”
1704380980
1704380981
28.Boldrin and Levine, “Case against Patents.”
1704380982
1704380983
29.Bessen and Meurer, Patent Failure, p..191.
1704380984
1704380985
30.Miller,“Do ‘Fuzzy’ Software Patent Boundaries…?”; Miller, “Where’s the Innovation?”
1704380986
1704380987
31.Nard and Duffy, “Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle.”
1704380988
1704380989
32.Moreover, the increase in the number of patents granted does not account for the increase in litigation.The number of lawsuits.led per patent within four years of the patent grant has tripled since the 1980s.Note also that the upward spike shown for the year 2012 is related to a change in the law.Beginning in 2012, the law made it more di.cult to sue multiple defendants in one lawsuit.Because patent trolls tend to sue multiple defendants—sometimes over 100—in a single suit, the data for the years immediately preceding 2012 understate the number of defendants.
1704380990
1704380991
33.Alice Corp.v CLS Bank International, decided June 19, 2014, no.13-298.
1704380992
1704380993
34.Magliocca, “Blackberries and Barnyards.”
1704380994
1704380995
35.Machlup and Penrose, “Patent Controversy.” This action apparently did not deter innovation in the Netherlands (see Moser, “How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation?”).
1704380996
1704380997
第十三章 技术知识的政治经济学
1704380998
1704380999
1.OECD, “Information Technology Outlook.”
1704381000
1704381001
2.Minetaki and Motohashi, “Subcontracting Structure.”
1704381002
1704381003
3.Arora, Branstetter, and Drev, “Going Soft.”
1704381004
1704381005
4.Baba, Takai, and Mizuta, “User-Driven Evolution.”
1704381006
1704381007
5.U.S.Congress, O.ce of Technology Assessment, “The Big Picture: HDTV and High Resolution Systems,” OTA-BP-CIT-64 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing O.ce, June 1990); Charles P.Lecht, “Tsunami,” Computerworld, February 13, 1978.
1704381008
1704381009
6.Bob Johnstone,“Japan Tackles Its Software Crisis,” New Scientist, January 30, 1986, pp..60–62.
1704381010
1704381011
7.Baba et al., “User-Driven Evolution.” See also Minetaki and Motohashi, “Subcontracting Structure,” table 2, with 136 of 439 firms listed as independent.
1704381012
1704381013
8.Ussfilman, “Unbundling IBM.”
1704381014
1704381015
9.With personal computers, it might have been possible to adopt U.S.standards (MSDOS, Wintel).The dominant firms, however, had an interest in maintaining proprietary versions of their operating systems even when they imported MSDOS.Microsoft’s software needed to be adapted to the Japanese language, and this work was done differently by different vendors.Additionally, Japan did not have strong copyright enforcement until 1986, making foreign software vendors reluctant to export.Of course, copyright posed no obstacle to computer vendors who bundled proprietary software with their hardware.
1704381016
1704381017
10.Cottrell, “Standards and the Arrested Development.”
1704381018
1704381019
11.Chesbrough, “Organizational Impact”; Lynskey, “Determinants.”
1704381020
1704381021
12.Eichengreen, Park, and Shin, “Growth Slowdowns Redux.”
1704381022
1704381023
13.David, “Learning by Doing”; Bils, “Tariff Protection”; Temin, Iron and Steel, pp..173–174 and.209–213.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.704380974e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]