Race Specific Patents, Commercialization, and Intellectual Property Policy
Open accessAbstract
This paper introduces the concept of race specific patents through an archival analysis of published patents which are interpreted textually and through the lens of intellectual property policy. Race specific patents are patents for inventions that are aimed at racially or ethnically defined markets. The paper documents these patents, categorizes them, and uses the tools of economic and critical theory to understand them from the perspective of intellectual property policy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
By continuing to embrace color-blindness, the U.S. Supreme Court solidified its role as 'guardian of the racial caste' because it denies the history and complexity of race, races, and racism in the United States.
“By continuing to embrace color-blindness, the U.S. Supreme Court solidified its role as 'guardian of the racial caste' because it denies 'the history and complexity of race, races, and racism in the United States' (Ghosh 2008, 53-54).”
From Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society (2017) · cites this paper as Ghosh 2008
The footnote to the discussion on p. 463 quotes the Supreme Court endorsing a color-blind position, and the discussion on pp. 464–465 describes how strict color-blindness can fail to address continuing racial stereotypes. But the paper does not call the Court a “guardian of the racial caste” or say that the Court denies “the history and complexity of race, races, and racism in the United States.” Searches for both quoted phrases found no match in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Crenshaw, K. (2018) · Feminist Legal Theory · doi:10.4324/9780429500480-5 · Cited by 9,510 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 725 (1961) (finding state action when private discriminatory conduct was "intertwined" with the state). But see Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 179 (1972) (granting of liquor license did not sufficiently implicate the state in private discriminatory behavior to create constitutional state action). The Court's analysis in Shelley v. Kraemer has been questioned, but the case offers an important analogy for discussing the role of constitutional state action in patent law since the public entity is quite clearly creating private rights. For a discussion of the controversy over the Shelley decision, see Mark D. Rosen, Was Shelley v. Kraemer Incorrectly Decided? Some New Answers, 95
- Comparative Observations, 3 CHI. J. INT'L L. 435, 442-43 (2002) (analyzing the place of state action in the social democratic state); Cass R. Sunstein, State
- Action Is Always Present, 3 CHI. J. INT'L L. 465, 465-67 (2002) (arguing that state action also exists in the classic liberal state although the state assumes a different set of affirmative obligations).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017) · Race Ethnicity and Education · doi:10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Fractured landscapes: The racialization of home buyout programs and climate adaptation
Zavar, E., & Fischer, L. A. (2021) · Current Research in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100043 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ghosh, S.
- Affiliations
- Southern Methodist University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ghosh, Shubha
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 409-494
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3125717253
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Buffalo law review
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Intellectual Property and Patents
- Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Law
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
- Keywords
- patent commercialization, intellectual property policy, patent abuse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
