Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010)

Li, Guancheng; Lai, Ronald; D’Amour, Alexander; Doolin, David M.; Sun, Ye; Torvik, Vetle I.; Yu, Amy Z.; Fleming, Lee

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.012

Cited by 454 publications

(423 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

422

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patent data are sourced from the NBER (Hall et al, 2001) and Harvard IQSS Patent Network Dataverse (Li et al, 2014). These sources together allow us to construct firm and individual-level characteristics.…”

Section: Insert Figure 1 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade Secrets and Innovation: Evidence from the 'Inevitable Disclosure' Doctrine

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Iwan Barankay, University of Pennsylvania (barankay@wharton.upenn.edu) and WZB Discussion papers of the WZB serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the discussion paper series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. The discussion papers published by the WZB represent the views of the respective author(s) and not of the institute as a whole. Terms of use: Documents inCopyright remains with the authors. AbstractTrade secrets and innovation: Evidence from the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine * Does heightened employer-friendly trade secrecy protection help or hinder innovation? By examining U.S. state-level legal adoption of a doctrine allowing employers to curtail inventor mobility if the employee would "inevitably disclose" trade secrets, we investigate the impact of a shifting trade secrecy regime on individual-level patenting outcomes. Using a difference-in-differences design taking un-affected U.S. inventors as the comparison group, we find strengthening employer-friendly trade secrecy adversely affects innovation. We then investigate why. We do not find empirical support for diminished idea recombination from suppressed inventor mobility as the operative mechanism. While shifting intellectual property protection away from patenting into trade secrecy has some explanatory power, our results are consistent with reduced individual-level incentives to signaling quality to the external labor market.

show abstract

Section: Insert Figure 1 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade Secrets and Innovation: Evidence from the 'Inevitable Disclosure' Doctrine

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet advances in computer and information technology are making it increasingly possible to transform these data and gain better understanding of how science works. New computational approaches have been used to identify stars (Zucker and Darby, 2006), classify science(Griffiths and Steyvers, 2006), disambiguate author and inventor names(Li et al, 2014; Ventura et al, 2014), develop linked data platforms (Torvik et al, 2005b), and analyze outcomes of science investments (Azoulay et al, 2007; Kenney and Patton, 2013a)…”

Section: A Conceptual Framework and The Current Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

New linked data on research investments: Scientific workforce, productivity, and public value

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Longitudinal micro-data derived from transaction level information about wage and vendor payments made by federal grants on multiple U.S. campuses are being developed in a partnership involving researchers, university administrators, representatives of federal agencies, and others. This paper describes the UMETRICS data initiative that has been implemented under the auspices of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation. The resulting data set reflects an emerging conceptual framework for analyzing the process, products, and impact of research. It grows from and engages the work of a diverse and vibrant community. This paper situates the UMETRICS effort in the context of research evaluation and ongoing data infrastructure efforts in order to highlight its novel and valuable features. Refocusing data construction in this field around individuals, networks, and teams offers dramatic possibilities for data linkage, the evaluation of research investments, and the development of rigorous conceptual and empirical models. Two preliminary analyses of the scientific workforce and network approaches to characterizing scientific teams ground a discussion of future directions and a call for increased community engagement.

show abstract

“…To proxy for the value at stake I determine the number of asserted patents, and multiple patent characteristics that indicate the value of a patent. For the calculation of the different patent measures, I rely on patent data provided by Lai et al (2011). This data contains information on all patents assigned between 1975 and 2010, including their industry classifications and citations.…”

Section: Value At Stakementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, I rely again on the information provided by Lai et al (2011) to determine the size of the patent portfolio of the litigants. I identify the set of the litigant's patents within a five-year window in either direction of the filing date of the case.…”

Section: Costs Of Legal Advicementioning

confidence: 99%

Investing in Legal Advice - What Determines the Costs of Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights?

Juranek

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies the determinants of investment in legal advice by plaintiffs in patent litigation. A hand-collected sample of US patent litigation cases is used to identify the empirical factors that determine the number of legal counsels employed by the plaintiffs.It turns out that more valuable patents lead to a higher investment in legal advice. Large firms, and plaintiffs with large patent portfolios employ more counsels, whereas individual litigants employ fewer. Software patents are related to a lower investment by the plaintiffs.These findings help not only to understand the cost drivers of litigation but have also important implications for the discussions on software patents, and the role of the litigant status for litigation success.

show abstract

Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010)

Cited by 454 publications

References 14 publications

Trade Secrets and Innovation: Evidence from the 'Inevitable Disclosure' Doctrine

Trade Secrets and Innovation: Evidence from the 'Inevitable Disclosure' Doctrine

New linked data on research investments: Scientific workforce, productivity, and public value

Investing in Legal Advice - What Determines the Costs of Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About