Intellectual property in the cathedral

Access to Information and Knowledge: 21st Century Challenges in Intellectual Property and Knowledge Governance

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 95-111

  Burk, Dan L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893977542     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781783470488.00011     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. R.M. Hilty, Partial transcript of keynote speech at The Access Challenge -Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property and Knowledge Governance, Bucerius Law School, May 18, 2012.
2. J.H. Reichman, Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation, Vand. L. Rev., 2000, Vol. 53, p. 1743.
3. G. Calabresi and A.D. Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, Harv. L. Rev., 1972, Vol. 85, p. 1089.
4. D.L. Burk, Muddy Rules for Cyberspace, Cardozo L. Rev., 1999, Vol. 21, p. 121.
5. I. Ayres, Protecting Property with Puts, Val. U. L. Rev., 1998, Vol. 32, p. 793.
6. R. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, J. L. Econ., 1960, Vol. 3, p. 1.
7. M. Risch, Patent Troll Myths, Seton Hall L. Rev., 2012, Vol. 42, p. 457.
8. C. Chien and M.A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, Cornell L. Rev., 2012, Vol. 98, p. 1.
9. M.A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, Cornell L. Rev., 2012, Vol. 98, p. 1.
10. D.L. Burk, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, Cornell L. Rev., 2012, Vol. 98, p. 132.
11. M.A. Lemley, Antitrust and the Internet Standardization Problem, Conn. L. Rev., 1996, Vol. 28, p. 1041.
12. M.A. Lemley and D. McGowan, Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects, Cal. L. Rev., 1998, Vol. 86, p. 479.
13. M.A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, Cal. L. Rev., 2002, Vol. 90, p. 1889.
14. J.S. Miller, Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, Ind. L. Rev., 2006, Vol. 40, p. 351.
15. M. Morris, The Structure of Entitlements, Cornell L. Rev., 1993, Vol. 78, p. 822, 854-6
16. I. Ayres and J.M. Balkin, Legal Entitlements as Auctions: Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Beyond, Yale. L.J., 1996, Vol 106, p. 703, 729-33.
17. I. Ayres, Legal Entitlements as Auctions: Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Beyond, Yale. L.J., 1996, Vol 106, p. 800.
18. I. Ayres, Legal Entitlements as Auctions: Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Beyond, Yale. L.J., 1996, Vol 106, p. 815.
19. C. Rose, The Shadow of the Cathedral, Yale L. Rev., 1997, Vol. 106, p. 2175.
20. D.L Burk, The Shadow of the Cathedral, Yale L. Rev., 1997, Vol. 106, pp. 142-3.
21. M.A. Lemley, The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, Texas L. Rev., 1997, Vol. 75, p. 989.
22. Morris, The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, Texas L. Rev., 1997, Vol. 75, p. 855.
23. M.W. Carroll, One for All: The Problem of Uniformity Cost in Intellectual Property Law, Am. U.L. Rev., 2006, Vol. 55, pp. 845, 880.
24. I. Ayres, One for All: The Problem of Uniformity Cost in Intellectual Property Law, Am. U.L. Rev., 2006, Vol. 55, p. 805.
25. I. Ayres, One for All: The Problem of Uniformity Cost in Intellectual Property Law, Am. U.L. Rev., 2006, Vol. 55, p. 800.
26. F. Easterbrook, Intellectual Property is Still Property, Harv. J. L. and Pub. Pol’y, 1990, Vol. 13, p. 108.
27. D.L. Burk, Intellectual Property is Still Property, Harv. J. L. and Pub. Pol’y, 1990, Vol. 13, p. 126
28. D.L. Burk and M.A. Lemley, The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It, University of Chicago Press, 2009.