|
Warning: The download time has expired please click on the item to try again.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
ARROW. K., 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Economic Activity, Princeton University Press. Princeton, N.J.
|
| |
2
|
ARTHUR, B., 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock in by historical events. Econ. J. (March).
|
| |
3
|
BARZEL. Y. 1968. Optimal timing of innovation. Rot,. Econ. Stat.
|
| |
4
|
CAI3RAL, L. SALANT, D., AND WOROCH. G. 1994. Monopoly pricing with network externalities. Draft, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
|
| |
5
|
DAVID, P. 1985. Clio and the economies of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rot,. 75, i (May), 332-337.
|
| |
6
|
FARRELL, J. 1989. Standardization and intellectual property. JurimetricsJ. (Fall), 35-50.
|
| |
7
|
FARRELL, J. AND SALONER, G. 1985. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. RandJ. Econ. 16, i (Spring) 70-83.
|
| |
8
|
FARRELL, J. AND SALONER, G. 1992. Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces. J. Indust. Econ. XL, i (March) 9--34.
|
| |
9
|
FISHER, F. AND ROMAINE R.C. 1990. Janis Joplin's yearbook and the theory of damages. J. Account. Auditing Finance 5, 1 (Winter) 145-157.
|
| |
10
|
GANDAL, N. 1994. Hedonic price indexes and an empirical test for network extemalities. RandJ. Econ. (Spring).
|
| |
11
|
GILI3ERT, R. 1992. Symposium on compatibility: Incentives and market structure. J. Indust. Econ. XL, i (March) 1-8.
|
| |
12
|
GREENSTEIN, S. 1990. Creating economic advantage by setting compatibility standards: Can physical tie-ins' extend monopoly power? Econ. Innovation New Technol. 1, 63-83.
|
| |
13
|
KATZ, M. AND SHAPIRO, C. 1985. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 75, 3 (June), 42~440.
|
| |
14
|
KATZ, M. AND SHAPIRO, C. 1992. Product introduction with network extemalities. J. Indust. Econ. XL, i (March), 55--83.
|
| |
15
|
LANDES, W. AND POSNER, R. 1989. An economic analysis of copyright law. J. Legal Stud. XViII, (June), 325--363.
|
| |
16
|
MATUTES, C. AND REGIBEAU, P. 1988. Mix and match: Product compatibility without network externalities. Rand J. Econ. 19, 2, (Summer), 221-234.
|
| |
17
|
MEN~LL, P. 1987. Tailoring legal protection for computer software. Stanford Law Rev. 39 (July), 1329-1373.
|
| |
18
|
MENELL, P. 1989. An analysis of the scope of copyright protection for application programs. Sta~ford Law Rev. 41 (May), 1045-1104.
|
| |
19
|
MILLER, A. 1993. Copyright protection for computer programs, databases, and computer-generated works: Is anything new since CONTU? Harvard Law Rev. 106, 5 (March), 977-1073.
|
| |
20
|
SAMUELSON, P. ET AL. 1994. A manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs. Columbia Law Rot,. 94.
|
| |
21
|
SAMt~LSON, P. 1995. An entirely new regime is needed. Comput. Lawyer 12 (Feb.), 11-17.
|
| |
22
|
WARREN-BOULTON, F., BASEMAN, K. AND WOROCH, G. 1995. Copyright protection of software can make economic sense. Comput. Lawyer 12, 2 (Feb.), 10, 18-28.
|
| |
23
|
WARREN-BOULTON, F. 1978. Vertical Control of Markets: Business and Labor Practices, Ballinger.
|
|