Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, has the potential to shift supply chains from global networks that rely on centralized production with traditional manufacturing technologies to largely digital networks with decentralized, local 3D printing, i.e., digital inventory. One type of firm that is particularly well positioned to drive this transition are original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), who design and produce capital goods. In this paper we propose that the OEM acts as an intellectual property (IP) licensor by selling spare parts designs, rather than physical spare parts. With these designs a buyer can print spare parts locally at much shorter lead times and at lower setup costs. We consider both an OEM who serves multiple identical buyers, and an OEM who serves two non-identical buyers. For both cases we characterize the optimal IP license contract. This determines which customers opt for the IP license channel and which remain in the traditional centralized sales channel, thus creating insights into the degree to which a supply chain decentralizes. We numerically show this to occur in a surprisingly large number of cases and we observe significant profit increases for OEMs who adopt this new business model. Our results thus show that IP licensing by OEMs can become a major enabler in the transition to digital networks with decentralized 3D printing.
{"title":"3D Printing of Spare Parts Via IP License Contracts","authors":"B. Westerweel, Jing-Sheng Song, R. Basten","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3372268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372268","url":null,"abstract":"Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, has the potential to shift supply chains from global networks that rely on centralized production with traditional manufacturing technologies to largely digital networks with decentralized, local 3D printing, i.e., digital inventory. One type of firm that is particularly well positioned to drive this transition are original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), who design and produce capital goods. In this paper we propose that the OEM acts as an intellectual property (IP) licensor by selling spare parts designs, rather than physical spare parts. With these designs a buyer can print spare parts locally at much shorter lead times and at lower setup costs. We consider both an OEM who serves multiple identical buyers, and an OEM who serves two non-identical buyers. For both cases we characterize the optimal IP license contract. This determines which customers opt for the IP license channel and which remain in the traditional centralized sales channel, thus creating insights into the degree to which a supply chain decentralizes. We numerically show this to occur in a surprisingly large number of cases and we observe significant profit increases for OEMs who adopt this new business model. Our results thus show that IP licensing by OEMs can become a major enabler in the transition to digital networks with decentralized 3D printing.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128739552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Copyright and patent law – granting rights in very different kinds of entities, but nonetheless lumped together as “intellectual property” – are almost universally regarded as having the same theoretical underpinnings. The philosophical significance of the differences between these two areas of law thus remain almost entirely unexplored. Just one example of this tendency to theoretically unify copyrights and patents is Seana Shiffrin’s Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property, which challenges Lockean theories of IP rights. But the present paper argues that Shiffrin’s challenge succeeds in the context of patents but not copyrights, due to significant differences between the two; and in so doing, it unearths and disentangles the philosophical implications of these distinctions between copyrights and patents – and, indeed, of distinctions within the “copyright” and “patent” bundles of rights themselves – including their numerous revisionary implications for existing law from the perspective of the Lockean framework. The article thus calls attention to intellectual property’s under-explored philosophical complexity, as well as the doctrinal and practical stakes of the questions it raises, so that we begin considering them far more carefully than they have yet been.
{"title":"Intellectual Property, Independent Creation, and the Lockean Commons","authors":"Mala Chatterjee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3327897","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3327897","url":null,"abstract":"Copyright and patent law – granting rights in very different kinds of entities, but nonetheless lumped together as “intellectual property” – are almost universally regarded as having the same theoretical underpinnings. The philosophical significance of the differences between these two areas of law thus remain almost entirely unexplored. Just one example of this tendency to theoretically unify copyrights and patents is Seana Shiffrin’s Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property, which challenges Lockean theories of IP rights. But the present paper argues that Shiffrin’s challenge succeeds in the context of patents but not copyrights, due to significant differences between the two; and in so doing, it unearths and disentangles the philosophical implications of these distinctions between copyrights and patents – and, indeed, of distinctions within the “copyright” and “patent” bundles of rights themselves – including their numerous revisionary implications for existing law from the perspective of the Lockean framework. The article thus calls attention to intellectual property’s under-explored philosophical complexity, as well as the doctrinal and practical stakes of the questions it raises, so that we begin considering them far more carefully than they have yet been.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"141 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113998962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In an invited response to an article by Prof. Michael Risch, Prof. Osenga reexamines some of the conclusions drawn by his study of early American Patents and what they suggested about inventors' perceptions of patentability.
{"title":"What Do America's First Patents Have to Do with Today's?","authors":"K. Osenga","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/2m98d","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/2m98d","url":null,"abstract":"In an invited response to an article by Prof. Michael Risch, Prof. Osenga reexamines some of the conclusions drawn by his study of early American Patents and what they suggested about inventors' perceptions of patentability.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127731577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amazon is considered the preeminent online retailer in the world. It operates in varying areas from robotics, movie databases, web services, audio books, food markets, etc. Its expansive reach is a matter of e-commerce highly dependent on the logos and Amazon trademarks, such as the Amazon smiling face, the Amazon logo, etc. The E-commerce industry falls into the category of internet and software services according to S&P's Industry Surveys on "Internet Software & Services". E-commerce can be categorized into two major segments on the internet: business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B). Amazon.com falls into the B2C category, because Amazon's main target is consumers. Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world. But it operates with a great deal of competitors. Below is a chart of the main competitors Amazon deals with in the economy.
{"title":"Porter Analysis: A Business Strategy of Amazon.com Through a Value Chain and Comparative Advantage Analysis of Amazon's Trademarks and Intangibles","authors":"Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3234380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3234380","url":null,"abstract":"Amazon is considered the preeminent online retailer in the world. It operates in varying areas from robotics, movie databases, web services, audio books, food markets, etc. Its expansive reach is a matter of e-commerce highly dependent on the logos and Amazon trademarks, such as the Amazon smiling face, the Amazon logo, etc. The E-commerce industry falls into the category of internet and software services according to S&P's Industry Surveys on \"Internet Software & Services\". E-commerce can be categorized into two major segments on the internet: business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B). Amazon.com falls into the B2C category, because Amazon's main target is consumers. Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world. But it operates with a great deal of competitors. Below is a chart of the main competitors Amazon deals with in the economy.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131231002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Within the broader concept of the commons, Open Design (OD) refers to a specific model of development, manufacture and distribution of products of industrial design, applied art and other physical artefacts. A defining element of this model is the open and collaborative work-flow that characterises the production of the artefacts. Another defining element is the employment of licences – when necessary – that allow modification and further distribution of the products. Finally, the use of the Internet to share digital blueprints of computerized numerical control or CNC machines to manufacture the products is another recurring element. OD found a receptive ecosystem within the context of 3D printing, where designers share their blueprints in the form of CNC files which can be directly executed by a 3D printer in order to make the product. Examples of collections of files intended to be printed in 3D are becoming very popular on the Internet (see e.g. Thingiverse). But Open Design is not limited to the internet and the digital dimensions even though it has therein found a particularly prosperous terrain: creators of objects can share their plans in many other forms in order to allow anyone to manufacture their creations. Open Design has therefore thrived within so called FabLabs, i.e. workshops where the sharing of manufacturing machines, know-how and knowledge is combined with the free availability of blueprints and plans.
{"title":"Open Design","authors":"S. Dusollier, T. Margoni","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3196120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3196120","url":null,"abstract":"Within the broader concept of the commons, Open Design (OD) refers to a specific model of development, manufacture and distribution of products of industrial design, applied art and other physical artefacts. A defining element of this model is the open and collaborative work-flow that characterises the production of the artefacts. Another defining element is the employment of licences – when necessary – that allow modification and further distribution of the products. Finally, the use of the Internet to share digital blueprints of computerized numerical control or CNC machines to manufacture the products is another recurring element. OD found a receptive ecosystem within the context of 3D printing, where designers share their blueprints in the form of CNC files which can be directly executed by a 3D printer in order to make the product. Examples of collections of files intended to be printed in 3D are becoming very popular on the Internet (see e.g. Thingiverse). But Open Design is not limited to the internet and the digital dimensions even though it has therein found a particularly prosperous terrain: creators of objects can share their plans in many other forms in order to allow anyone to manufacture their creations. Open Design has therefore thrived within so called FabLabs, i.e. workshops where the sharing of manufacturing machines, know-how and knowledge is combined with the free availability of blueprints and plans.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124077732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mercedes Campi, Marco Dueñas, M. Barigozzi, G. Fagiolo
This paper analyses whether the strengthening of intellectual property rights (IPRs) systems affects decisions of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As), and whether their influence is different for developed and developing countries and across industrial sectors. We estimate an extended gravity model to study bilateral flows of M&As using data for the post-TRIPS period (1995-2010) and two different indexes that measure the strength of IPRs systems at the country level. We find that IPRs influence decisions of cross-border M&As and facilitate the creation of investment linkages. However, we detect a heterogeneous impact of IPRs on M&As depending on specificities of countries and sectors.
{"title":"Do Intellectual Property Rights Influence Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions?","authors":"Mercedes Campi, Marco Dueñas, M. Barigozzi, G. Fagiolo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2805067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2805067","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses whether the strengthening of intellectual property rights (IPRs) systems affects decisions of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As), and whether their influence is different for developed and developing countries and across industrial sectors. We estimate an extended gravity model to study bilateral flows of M&As using data for the post-TRIPS period (1995-2010) and two different indexes that measure the strength of IPRs systems at the country level. We find that IPRs influence decisions of cross-border M&As and facilitate the creation of investment linkages. However, we detect a heterogeneous impact of IPRs on M&As depending on specificities of countries and sectors.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126468322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Setting aside various foundational moral entanglements, I will offer an argument for the protection of intellectual property based on individual self-interest and prudence. In large part, this argument will parallel considerations that arise in a prisoner’s dilemma game. After sketching the salient features of a prisoner’s dilemma, I will briefly examine the nature of intellectual property and how one can view content creation, exclusion, and access as a prisoner’s dilemma. In brief, allowing content to be unprotected in terms of free access leads to a sub-optimal outcome where creation and innovation are suppressed. Finally, I will argue that adopting the institutions of copyright, patent, and trade secret is one way we can avoid these sub-optimal results.
{"title":"Intellectual Property and the Prisoner's Dilemma: A Game Theory Justification of Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets","authors":"A. Moore","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2825252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2825252","url":null,"abstract":"Setting aside various foundational moral entanglements, I will offer an argument for the protection of intellectual property based on individual self-interest and prudence. In large part, this argument will parallel considerations that arise in a prisoner’s dilemma game. After sketching the salient features of a prisoner’s dilemma, I will briefly examine the nature of intellectual property and how one can view content creation, exclusion, and access as a prisoner’s dilemma. In brief, allowing content to be unprotected in terms of free access leads to a sub-optimal outcome where creation and innovation are suppressed. Finally, I will argue that adopting the institutions of copyright, patent, and trade secret is one way we can avoid these sub-optimal results.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130658773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stimulating innovation and growth in the so-called ‘creative economy’ is a current policy objective for national regulators. One policy lever traditionally applied to the creative sector is intellectual property, in particular the scope and term of protection offered by copyright. Increased copyright protection limits the size of the public domain by restricting access to and use of cultural expressions. Opposition to expansion and further enclosure of the cultural public domain was previously articulated in terms of access to a commons of information. Following the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property in 2011, copyright reform in the UK context has been increasingly framed in terms of economic policy objectives. This paper reviews two economic approaches which shape how researchers and policymakers discuss the public domain in debates about IP reform: an economic welfare approach which weighs increases in producer and consumer surplus under different policy configurations and an economics of innovation approach which considers the value of the public domain as a reservoir of ideas for innovators and firms. I argue that economic definitions of the public domain should be augmented by a consideration of the democratic requirements of freedom of expression and access to information. The consequences of this re-figuration of the public domain for the public interest and access to information are discussed.
{"title":"Defining the Public Domain in Economic Terms – Approaches and Consequences for Policy","authors":"K. Erickson","doi":"10.5324/EIP.V10I1.1951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5324/EIP.V10I1.1951","url":null,"abstract":"Stimulating innovation and growth in the so-called ‘creative economy’ is a current policy objective for national regulators. One policy lever traditionally applied to the creative sector is intellectual property, in particular the scope and term of protection offered by copyright. Increased copyright protection limits the size of the public domain by restricting access to and use of cultural expressions. Opposition to expansion and further enclosure of the cultural public domain was previously articulated in terms of access to a commons of information. Following the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property in 2011, copyright reform in the UK context has been increasingly framed in terms of economic policy objectives. This paper reviews two economic approaches which shape how researchers and policymakers discuss the public domain in debates about IP reform: an economic welfare approach which weighs increases in producer and consumer surplus under different policy configurations and an economics of innovation approach which considers the value of the public domain as a reservoir of ideas for innovators and firms. I argue that economic definitions of the public domain should be augmented by a consideration of the democratic requirements of freedom of expression and access to information. The consequences of this re-figuration of the public domain for the public interest and access to information are discussed.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129668059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Intangible assets include intellectual property (IP), such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. There are numerous reasons for valuing intangible assets, and different approaches have historically been employed. The historical methods of IP valuation share a common drawback ─ the failure to critically evaluate the IP per se. The IP valuation approach set forth herein utilizes both a critical evaluation of the strength of the IP, as well as a market analysis of the key (or “target”) technology covered by the IP. The market analysis yields a value of the key technology. A critical evaluation of the IP is then carried out. For the critical evaluation, the IP (e.g., patent) is carefully reviewed to determine how well (or poorly) the IP covers the key technology, and how strong (or weak) is the underlying IP. The strength of the IP is evaluated by carrying out a detailed and exhaustive due diligence review of the IP and a freedom-to-operate (FTO) clearance review of the key technology. The asset strength approach for IP valuation is unique in that it includes an assessment of the strength/weakness of the underlying IP.
{"title":"Intellectual Property Valuation: Asset Strength Approach (Evaluation of the Strength of an Asset Against the Commercial Technology Covered by the Asset)","authors":"G. Speier, Raj Gupta","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2615115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2615115","url":null,"abstract":"Intangible assets include intellectual property (IP), such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. There are numerous reasons for valuing intangible assets, and different approaches have historically been employed. The historical methods of IP valuation share a common drawback ─ the failure to critically evaluate the IP per se. The IP valuation approach set forth herein utilizes both a critical evaluation of the strength of the IP, as well as a market analysis of the key (or “target”) technology covered by the IP. The market analysis yields a value of the key technology. A critical evaluation of the IP is then carried out. For the critical evaluation, the IP (e.g., patent) is carefully reviewed to determine how well (or poorly) the IP covers the key technology, and how strong (or weak) is the underlying IP. The strength of the IP is evaluated by carrying out a detailed and exhaustive due diligence review of the IP and a freedom-to-operate (FTO) clearance review of the key technology. The asset strength approach for IP valuation is unique in that it includes an assessment of the strength/weakness of the underlying IP.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115486982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyzes the role of expenditures on property right protection within a standard quality ladder model of endogenous growth. We develop a model where quality of each good improves as a result of innovation. Once the innovator develops a higher quality good there is an exogenously given rate at which the good is targeted for imitation. We allow the innovator to undertake expenditure to protect the good from imitation and thereby reducing the effective probability of imitation. We show that the total intensity of property right protection is inversely related to the cost of property right protection and the effectiveness of the property right system. We also find a subsidy that reduces the per unit cost of property right protection has the same impact as an improvement in the efficiency of the property right system. In both cases the intensity of innovation goes up. We then consider the growth implications of the model and show that in the steady state the economy grows at a constant rate. However, during the transition to the steady state the rate of growth is positively related to the rate of innovation.
{"title":"Endogenous IPR Protection Expenditure and Economic Growth","authors":"Richard Cothren, R. Radhakrishnan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2561621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2561621","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the role of expenditures on property right protection within a standard quality ladder model of endogenous growth. We develop a model where quality of each good improves as a result of innovation. Once the innovator develops a higher quality good there is an exogenously given rate at which the good is targeted for imitation. We allow the innovator to undertake expenditure to protect the good from imitation and thereby reducing the effective probability of imitation. We show that the total intensity of property right protection is inversely related to the cost of property right protection and the effectiveness of the property right system. We also find a subsidy that reduces the per unit cost of property right protection has the same impact as an improvement in the efficiency of the property right system. In both cases the intensity of innovation goes up. We then consider the growth implications of the model and show that in the steady state the economy grows at a constant rate. However, during the transition to the steady state the rate of growth is positively related to the rate of innovation.","PeriodicalId":237857,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Other Intellectual Property Law & Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129963691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：