2016
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8462.12147
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intellectual Property Government Open Data: Australian Business Number Links to All Intellectual Property Data in Australia

Abstract: Intellectual property rights protect

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Intellectual Property Government Open Data (IPGOD), released by IP Australia, covers registry data on all IP rights administered by IP Australia, which totals over 1.4 million patent applications for 1904–2016. It provides information about the technology and its field of classification along with details of those who filed these IP rights, which enables analysis across a range of research questions (Mita‐Khan et al, 2016). Very few economic historians have used this online database, although several scholars have analysed the patent data generated by IP Australia and its forerunner the Australian Patent Office (Banerjee, 2012; Banerjee & Shanahan, 2016; Crosby, 2000; Encel & Inglis, 1966).…”
Section: Data Description and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Intellectual Property Government Open Data (IPGOD), released by IP Australia, covers registry data on all IP rights administered by IP Australia, which totals over 1.4 million patent applications for 1904–2016. It provides information about the technology and its field of classification along with details of those who filed these IP rights, which enables analysis across a range of research questions (Mita‐Khan et al, 2016). Very few economic historians have used this online database, although several scholars have analysed the patent data generated by IP Australia and its forerunner the Australian Patent Office (Banerjee, 2012; Banerjee & Shanahan, 2016; Crosby, 2000; Encel & Inglis, 1966).…”
Section: Data Description and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%