{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,7]],"date-time":"2026-07-07T05:23:12Z","timestamp":1783401792585,"version":"3.54.6"},"reference-count":8,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2011,7,14]],"date-time":"2011-07-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1310601600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J of Applied Econometrics"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>SUMMARY<\/jats:title><jats:p>This paper analyzes how the establishment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 has affected the relationship between innovation and competition. Using the same dataset as Aghion <jats:italic>et al.<\/jats:italic> (Competition and innovation: an inverted\u2010u relationship. <jats:italic>Quarterly Journal of Economics<\/jats:italic> 2005; 120(2):701\u2013728) I find a structural break in the early 1980s. Taking this break into consideration, the inverted\u2010U empirical relationship between innovation and competition found by Aghion <jats:italic>et al.<\/jats:italic> does not hold. In fact, I find that there is a positive innovation\u2013competition relationship during the period 1973\u20131982 and no relationship at all in the 1983\u20131994 period. Copyright \u00a9 2011 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1002\/jae.1262","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,7,15]],"date-time":"2011-07-15T06:33:51Z","timestamp":1310711631000},"page":"160-166","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":67,"title":["Innovation and competition: An unstable relationship"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"27","author":[{"given":"Juan A.","family":"Correa","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2011,7,14]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1162\/0033553053970214"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307\/2951764"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/1468-0262.00405"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/1468-0297.00022"},{"issue":"7","key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","first-page":"281","article-title":"Preliminary injunction: a new and potent weapon in patent litigation","volume":"68","author":"Foster JJ","year":"1986","journal-title":"Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","volume-title":"Innovation and its Discontents","author":"Jaffe AB","year":"2004"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0167-2231(98)00023-2"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1257\/0002828054825501"}],"container-title":["Journal of Applied Econometrics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1002%2Fjae.1262","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1002\/jae.1262","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,23]],"date-time":"2023-09-23T20:19:39Z","timestamp":1695500379000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/jae.1262"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2011,7,14]]},"references-count":8,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,1]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1002\/jae.1262"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/jae.1262","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0883-7252","1099-1255"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0883-7252","type":"print"},{"value":"1099-1255","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2011,7,14]]}}}