法律创新

B. Khan
{"title":"法律创新","authors":"B. Khan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190936075.003.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Administered systems involve regulation, while efficient markets in ideas require secure property rights and appropriate adjacent institutions. Disruptive technologies typically lead to institutional bottlenecks, which then require accommodations in legal rules and their enforcement. U.S. policy toward innovation and enterprise has always been distinguished by the central role of law and the judiciary. The evolution of legal rules and standards in the United States reveals a remarkable degree of flexibility and responsiveness to innovations. In the short run, the common law economized on legal adjustment costs through “adjudication by analogy,” whereas, in the long run, socioeconomic changes wrought by major inventions ultimately produced more fundamental adjustments in adjacent institutions. This institutional elasticity can be contrasted with the lack of transparency and rigidity that characterized most administered innovation institutions.","PeriodicalId":423757,"journal":{"name":"Inventing Ideas","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innovations in Law\",\"authors\":\"B. Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190936075.003.0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Administered systems involve regulation, while efficient markets in ideas require secure property rights and appropriate adjacent institutions. Disruptive technologies typically lead to institutional bottlenecks, which then require accommodations in legal rules and their enforcement. U.S. policy toward innovation and enterprise has always been distinguished by the central role of law and the judiciary. The evolution of legal rules and standards in the United States reveals a remarkable degree of flexibility and responsiveness to innovations. In the short run, the common law economized on legal adjustment costs through “adjudication by analogy,” whereas, in the long run, socioeconomic changes wrought by major inventions ultimately produced more fundamental adjustments in adjacent institutions. This institutional elasticity can be contrasted with the lack of transparency and rigidity that characterized most administered innovation institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":423757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Inventing Ideas\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Inventing Ideas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190936075.003.0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inventing Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190936075.003.0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

管理体系涉及监管,而理念上的有效市场需要有保障的产权和适当的相邻制度。颠覆性技术通常会导致制度瓶颈,然后需要在法律规则及其执行方面进行调整。美国的创新和企业政策一直以法律和司法机构的核心作用而著称。美国法律规则和标准的演变显示出对创新的显著灵活性和反应能力。从短期来看,普通法通过“类比裁决”节省了法律调整成本,而从长期来看,重大发明带来的社会经济变化最终会在相邻制度中产生更根本的调整。这种制度弹性与大多数管理创新机构缺乏透明度和刚性形成鲜明对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Innovations in Law
Administered systems involve regulation, while efficient markets in ideas require secure property rights and appropriate adjacent institutions. Disruptive technologies typically lead to institutional bottlenecks, which then require accommodations in legal rules and their enforcement. U.S. policy toward innovation and enterprise has always been distinguished by the central role of law and the judiciary. The evolution of legal rules and standards in the United States reveals a remarkable degree of flexibility and responsiveness to innovations. In the short run, the common law economized on legal adjustment costs through “adjudication by analogy,” whereas, in the long run, socioeconomic changes wrought by major inventions ultimately produced more fundamental adjustments in adjacent institutions. This institutional elasticity can be contrasted with the lack of transparency and rigidity that characterized most administered innovation institutions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信