• Documents
  • Authors
  • Tables
  • Log in
  • Sign up
  • MetaCart
  • Donate

CiteSeerX logo

Intellectual Property

Cached

Download Links

  • [levine.sscnet.ucla.edu]
  • [www.dklevine.com]
  • [dklevine.com]
  • [dklevine.org]
  • [dklevine.com]
  • [www.dklevine.com]
  • [dklevine.org]
  • [etheses.dur.ac.uk]

  • Save to List
  • Add to Collection
  • Correct Errors
  • Monitor Changes
by Michele Boldrin , David , K. Levine , Jel Classification
Citations:3 - 2 self
  • Summary
  • Citations
  • Active Bibliography
  • Co-citation
  • Clustered Documents
  • Version History

BibTeX

@MISC{Boldrin_intellectualproperty,
    author = {Michele Boldrin and David and K. Levine and Jel Classification},
    title = {Intellectual Property},
    year = {}
}

Share

Facebook Twitter Reddit Bibsonomy

OpenURL

 

Abstract

Abstract. Based partially on the belief that innovation is not possible under perfect competition, many thousands papers have been written about the nature of innovation under monopoly or oligopoly. In fact, competitive rents can and do sustain innovation in the complete absence of monopoly power. However, little is knownaboutthesourceandsignificance of these rents, or about the way in which innovative activity takes place under conditions of competition. We begin to remedy this imbalance by examining the way in which competitive innovators earn rents both in theory and in practice.

Keyphrases

intellectual property    competitive rent    monopoly power    complete absence    many thousand paper    competitive innovator    innovative activity    perfect competition   

Powered by: Apache Solr
  • About CiteSeerX
  • Submit and Index Documents
  • Privacy Policy
  • Help
  • Data
  • Source
  • Contact Us

Developed at and hosted by The College of Information Sciences and Technology

© 2007-2016 The Pennsylvania State University