Efficient Algorithms for Envy-Free Stick Division With Fewest Cuts

Given a set of n sticks of various (not necessarily different) lengths, what is the largest length so that we can cut k equally long pieces of this length from the given set of sticks? We analyze the structure of this problem and show that it essentially reduces to a single call of a selection algorithm; we thus obtain an optimal linear-time algorithm. This algorithm also solves the related envy-free stick-division problem, which Segal-Halevi, Hassidim, and Aumann (AAMAS, 2015) recently used as their central primitive operation for the first discrete and bounded envy-free cake cutting protocol with a proportionality guarantee when pieces can be put to waste.Comment: v3 adds more context about the proble

Comparing the value revelance of R&D reporting in Germany: standard and selection effects

On the basis of accounting and market data for firms and groups listed on German stock exchanges between 1997 and 2003, we show that the value relevance of R&D information under German accounting standards can be superior to that provided by US-GAAP and IAS. The results, obtained while dynamically controlling for partial freedom of firms to choose a standard in a modified Q model, show that the risk of IAS/US-GAAP misinforming investors during "bear market" periods is more relevant than their comparative advantage over the prudence principle of the German Commercial Code in "bull market" periods. Using the approach chosen for this study, it is possible not only to draw a clear dividing line between standard and selection effects but also to disentangle them along theoretical lines more clearly than in earlier studies. --Accounting standards,standard selection,R&D,value relevance,Germany

Who do you trust while Shares are on a Roler-Coaster Ride? Balance Sheet and Patent Data as Sources of Investor Information During Volatile Market Times

We originally investigate the comparative usefulness of patent data as a source of investor information depending on the market cycle (bull/bear market). Based on comprehensive data for firms listed on German exchanges between 1997 and 2002, we demonstrate that patent data contain complementary explanatory power to accounting data irrespective of the standard used to prepare the financial statement (German GAAP, IAS and US GAAP). Moreover, we provide original evidence that only patent data are able to provide plausible investor information in both bull-market and bear-market periods, whereas accounting information overvalues intangible assets in bull markets and undervalues them in bears.Investor information, market value, patents

Measuring patent assessment quality-Analyzing the degree and kind of (in)consistency in patent offices' decision making

We argue that consistent decision making in judging a patent's validity and basing this on its underlying technological quality are important elements of patent office service ("assessment") quality. To understand which level of assessment quality patent offices (can) provide, particularly in new technological areas, we study the concordance of the European Patent Office's (EPO) granting and opposition decisions for individual patents. Using the biotechnology industry in the 1980s (an emerging patenting area then) as an example, we find no empirical evidence that the EPO provided maximal or optimal assessment quality as far as can be told from bibliographic indicators. We discuss research limitations and consequences of this first empirical analysis, and suggest ideas for refinements in future work. © 2007

Chance and Competitive Advantage

Chance or randomness as a mechanism to induce performance heterogeneity among originally homogeneous firms has recently been introduced to the resource-based view of the firm. In this paper, we demonstrate how chance can engender variation in performance among initially identical firms even in the absence of firm-level capability differences. Departing from the positional school of strategy, we show how and when firms in systemic industries benefit from the chance of staking positions vis-à-vis competitors in complex technology landscapes. Expectedly, the chance of making choices early and repeatedly increases a firm’s profitability. Also, the value of repeated chance is higher during the early stages of an industry’s evolution than during its later phases. Importantly, however, this latter effect is exacerbated by increases in competition

Der rechtliche Rahmen: Raumordnungsgesetz, Landesplanungsgesetze und Raumordnungsverordnung

De Vorschriften zum Raumordnungsverfahren enthalten gegenüber dem früheren Bundesrecht wesentliche Verbesserungen. So werden die Länder nun zur Durchführung von Raumordnungsverfahren neben der Aufstellung von Raumordnungsplänen verpflichtet und es ist obligatorisch eine Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung vorgeschrieben. Ferner ist der Prüfungskatalog auf sämtliche raumbedeutsamen Belange ausgedehnt worden. Die in ganz Deutschland geltenden Regelungen von §§ 15 und 16 ROG ergeben mit dem weiter geltenden, ergänzenden oder abweichenden Landesrecht in der Zusammenschau ein für die Raumordnung bedeutendes Verfahrensinstrument, das einerseits wichtige Verfahrenspfeiler enthält (z.B. Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung) und andererseits dennoch eine an das raumbedeutsame Vorhaben flexibel angepasste Verfahrenssteuerung erlaubt. Von erheblichem Nachteil ist - vor allem für die Anwendungspraxis -, dass die mit der Föderalismusreform 2006 angestrebte klare Zuordnung der Gesetzgebungskompetenzen und die beabsichtigte Entflechtung der Verantwortlichkeiten auch und gerade für das Raumordnungsverfahren nicht nur nicht erreicht worden ist, sondern die Verflechtungen vergrößert worden sind. Darüber hinaus sind wichtige, strittige Punkte nicht umfassend oder (noch) nicht geregelt worden. Dies gilt zum einen für die Frage nach einer Pflicht zur Prüfung aller in Betracht kommenden anderweitigen Standort- oder Trassenalternativen durch den Träger der Planung oder Maßnahme nebst Vorlage entsprechender Unterlagen. Ein weiterer wichtiger Punktbetrifft die Erhöhung der Bindungswirkungen des Ergebnisses eines Raumordnungsverfahrens. Eine Weiterentwicklung des Rechtsrahmens wird im Beitrag von Priebs/Reitzig in Teil C dargestellt und diskutiert.The regulations relating to spatial planning procedures have been significantly improved compared to earlier federal legislation. States are now obliged to carry out spatial planning procedures as well as producing spatial planning plans, and the list of issues to be assessed has been extended to include all concerns relevant to spatial structure. The regulations in §§ 15 and 16 of the Federal Spatial Planning Act apply to the whole of Germany and, together with further supplementary or divergent state legislation, form an impressive procedural tool for spatial planning. This contains, on the one hand, important procedural buttresses (e.g. public participation) but, on the other hand, also allows procedures to be flexibly adapted to suit the project at hand. In view of the importance of public participation, this should not only be stipulated as standard practice in the individual states but also be made mandatory in federal law. A great disadvantage - especially in practice - is that while the 2006 federalism reform aimed to clarify allocations of legislative powers and disentangle areas of responsibility, as far as spatial planning procedures are concerned it was not only unsuccessful but interlinkages and overlaps have actually increased. There are also other controversial issues that have not (yet) been resolved. This is especially true of the duty to assess alternative sites or routes for projects, including the requirement to present the relevant documentation. Another important point concerns the increase in the binding nature of the findings of a spatial planning procedure. The 'further development of the legal framework' is presented and discussed in Section C

testing current theory on value drivers of innovations within a structural two-stage discrete choice simultaneous equation model

Patent indicators are widely used to assess innovative output. Despite the large variety of empirical studies in the field, however, the precise meaning of these indicators and their obvious relation to patent value is still based on assumptions and intuitions. This paper provides the first empirical test of patent indicators as value measures in the structural form. It disentangles the different effects reflected in patent indicators and enhances our understanding why inventions are valuable at all. Using a newly assembled data set on European polymer patents, current assumptions on the innovation incentives set by patentability requirements (novelty, inventive activity) are tested. The estimations are carried out using a custom-tailored two stage discrete choice probit model yet unknown in the literature. The results support the assumptions that novelty and inventive activity enhance a patent’s value. They confirm the importance of backward citations, family size, and forward citations as va lue indicators. However, they expand on and partly break with the respective explanations why patent indicators correlate with profitability