Contents:
Introduction Shubha Ghosh
PART I INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPT OF INNOVATION AND THE ROLE OF LAW
1. Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson (1990), `On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope', Columbia Law Review, 90 (4), May, 839-916
2. Brett Frischmann (2000), 'Innovation and Institutions: Rethinking the Economics of U.S. Science and Technology Policy', Vermont Law Review, 24, Fall, 347-416
3. Robert Cooter (2005), `Innovation, Information, and the Poverty of Nations', Florida State University Law Review, 33 (2), Winter, 373-93
4. Ronald J. Gilson, Charles F. Sabel and Robert E. Scott (2013), `Contract and Innovation: The Limited Role of Generalist Courts in the Evolution of Novel Contractual Forms', New York University Law Review, 88 (3), April, 170-215
5. Katherine J. Strandburg (2009), `Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime', Connecticut Law Review, 41 (3), February, 861-920
PART II INCENTIVES, LAW AND INNOVATION
6. Amy L. Landers (2006), `Let the Games Begin: Incentives to Innovation in the New Economy of Intellectual Property Law', Santa Clara Law Review, 46 (2), 307-75
7. Jonathan B. Baker (2007), `Beyond Schumpeter vs. Arrow: How Antitrust Fosters Innovation', Antitrust Law Journal, 74 (3), 575-602
8. Giovanni Dosi, Luigi Marengo and Corrado Pasquali (2007), `Knowledge, Competition and Innovation: Is Strong IPR Protection Really Needed for More and Better Innovations?', Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 13 (2), Spring, 471-85
9. Petra Moser (2012), `Innovation without Patents: Evidence from World's Fairs', Journal of Law and Economics, 55 (1), February, 43-74
10. Dotan Oliar (2012), `The Copyright-Innovation Tradeoff: Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Intentional Infliction of Harm', Stanford Law Review, 64 (4), April, 951-1020
11. Ted Sichelman (2010), `Commercializing Patents', Stanford Law Review, 62 (2), January, 341-413
12. Thomas Cheng (2013), `Putting Innovation Incentives Back in the Patent-Antitrust Interface', Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11 (5), April, 385-439
13. Murat C. Mungan (2014), `Less Protection, More Innovation?', Supreme Court Economic Review, 22 (1), January, 123-46
14. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette (2015), `Patentable Subject Matter and Nonpatent Innovation Incentives', UC Irvine Law Review, 5 (5), December, 1115-45
PART III CUMULATIVE AND OPEN INNOVATION
15. Clarisa Long (2000), `Patents and Cumulative Innovation', Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Re-Engineering Patent Law: The Challenge of New Technologies, 2, January, 229-46
16. Joel West (2009), `Policy Challenges of Open, Cumulative, and User Innovation', Washington University Journal of Law and Policy: Open Source and Proprietary Models of Innovation, 30, 17-41
17. Keith Sawyer (2009), `The Collaborative Nature of Innovation', Washington University Journal of Law and Policy: Open Source and Proprietary Models of Innovation, 30, 293-324
18. Chidi Oguamanam (2013), `Open Innovation in Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture', Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 13 (1), 11-50
19. Clark D. Asay (2015), `Enabling Patentless Innovation', Maryland Law Review, 74 (3), 431-95
Volume II
Contents
Introduction An introduction to both volumes by the editor appears in Volume I
PART I SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF INNOVATION
1. Doris Estelle Long (2008), `Crossing the Innovation Divide', Temple Law Review, 81 (2), Summer, 507-43
2. Anupam B. Jena, Stephane Mechoulan and Tomas J. Philipson (2010), `Altruism and Innovation in Healthcare', Journal of Law and Economics, 53 (3), August, 497-518
3. Peter Lee (2014), `Social Innovation', Washington University Law Review, 92 (1), 1-71
4. Sofia Ranchordas (2015), `Does Sharing Mean Caring? Regulating Innovation in the Sharing Economy', Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 16 (1), 413-75
PART II INNOVATION AND MARKETS
5. Jonathan B. Baker (1999), `Promoting Innovation Competition through the Aspen/Kodak Rule', George Mason Law Review, 7 (3), Spring, 495-521
6. Tim Wu (2006), `Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Decentralized Decisions', Virginia Law Review, 92 (1), March, 123-47
7. Timothy O'Hearn (2008), `Guarding Profits from Innovation: Successful Intellectual Property Strategies', DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal, 6 (3), Spring, 433-50
8. Jonathan M. Barnett (2009), `Property as Process: How Innovation Markets Select Innovation Regimes', Yale Law Journal, 119 (3), December, 384-456
9. John D. Harkrider and Russell M. Steinthal (2011), `The Open Source Paradox: Innovation in the Absence of Exclusive Property Rights', Competition Law International, 7 (2), November, 38-41
10. Robert W. Gomulkiewicz (2012), `Fostering the Business of Innovation: The Untold Story of Bowers v. Baystate Technologies', Washington Journal of Law, Technology and Arts, 7 (4), Spring, 445-66
11. Michael A. Carrier (2012), `Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story', Wisconsin Law Review, 2012 (4), November, 891-962
12. Colleen Chien (2014), `Startups and Patent Trolls', Stanford Technology Law Review, 17 (2), Winter, 461-505
PART III INNOVATION POLICY
13. Marlynn Wei (2007), `Should Prizes Replace Patents? A Critique of the Medical Innovation Prize Act of 2005', Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 13 (1), Winter, 25-45
14. Jay P. Kesan (2009), `Transferring Innovation', Fordham Law Review, 77 (5), April, 2169-223
15. Gaia Bernstein (2010), `In the Shadow of Innovation', Cardozo Law Review, 31 (6), June, 2257-312
16. Sarah Tran (2012), `Prioritizing Innovation', Wisconsin International Law Journal, 30 (3), Spring, 499-557
17. Miguel Angel Bernal Blay (2014), `The Strategic Use of Public Procurement in Support of Innovation', European Procurement and Public Private Partnership Law Review, 9 (1), 3-11
18. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette (2015), `Nanotechnology and Innovation Policy', Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 29 (1), Fall, 33-75
19. Camilla A. Hrdy (2015), `Commercialization Awards', Wisconsin Law Review, 2015 (1), 13-86
20. Tal Z. Zarsky (2015), `The Privacy-Innovation Conundrum', Lewis and Clark Law Review, 19 (1), 115-68
Index
