Patents as credence goods
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, ISSN: 0143-6503, Vol: 27, Issue: 4, Page: 707-740
2007
- 22Citations
- 490Usage
- 21Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The view of patents as well-defined property rights is as simplistic as it is ubiquitous. This article argues that in newly arising or immature technologies, patents are subject to intrinsic and extrinsic uncertainty that make them very opaque representations of the underlying inventions. The opacity is a result of unsettled legal doctrine and scientific terminology, uncertain commercial and technological prognosis, and leads to considerable ambiguity in property parameters. Patents in immature technologies do not solve Arrow's information paradox of non-rivalrous goods because they do not represent the sharp exclusive right that is central to his thesis. In such cases patents ought to be reclassified in terms of their perceived and actual function as credence goods. The difficulty in discovering the value of these patents necessitates credence verifiers, further increasing the transaction costs of encouraging innovation. The theoretical and empirical implications of credence explored in this article are based primarily on the Anglo-American legal protection of biotechnological inventions, but may be equally relevant to patents in general and patents in other newly arising technologies, in particular. © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=36849064156&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqm021; https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqm021; http://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-pdf/27/4/707/4272348/gqm021.pdf; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqm021; https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-abstract/27/4/707/1460033?redirectedFrom=fulltext; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1151081; https://ssrn.com/abstract=1151081
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know