Are Intellectual Property Rights Evolving Towards the Enclosure of the ‘Intangible Commons’?

Escalona Reynoso, Rafael (2010): Are Intellectual Property Rights Evolving Towards the Enclosure of the ‘Intangible Commons’? Published in: The Current, The Public Policy Journal of the Cornell Institute for Public Affairs , Vol. 14, No. 1 (2010): pp. 29-42.

Abstract

Advancements in the areas of Information Technologies (IT) and the New Life Sciences (NLS) are helping redefine the boundaries of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Although the fast growth of these technological areas may very well be fueled by the existence of the IPR system itself, in recent years there has been a shift in the IPR system moving "upstream" in the research cycle, a movement which may actually discourage future research innovation. This document addresses some of the most recent public policy issues surrounding IPRs and delves into the case of biotechnology (biotech) to provide examples of how advancements in this area are helping redefine concepts like ownership, property, and rights over things and ideas. Lastly, it presents arguments to suggest that in an era where information has become the most valuable asset, alternative forms of IPR protection in which numerous proprietors share rights simultaneously could help better promote a steady expansion of scientific activity and artistic expression.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights; Information Technologies; Biotech; systems; innovation; public policy; research cycles
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L16 - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics: Industrial Structure and Structural Change ; Industrial Price Indices; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O2 - Development Planning and Policy > O21 - Planning Models ; Planning Policy; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R5 - Regional Government Analysis; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R5 - Regional Government Analysis > R58 - Regional Development Planning and Policy

References

Robert A. Bohrer, A Guide to Biotechnology Law and Business (Carolina Academic Press, 2007), 71-107.

James Boyle, “The Second Enclosure Movement And The Construction Of The Public Domain,” Law & Contemporary Problems no.33 (Winter/Spring 2003a), 33-74.

James Boyle, “Enclosing the Genome: What the Squabbles over Genetic Patents Could Teach Us,” in Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project, ed. F. Scott Kieff (San Diego, Calif.: Elsevier Academic Press, 2003b), 97-118.

James Boyle, “Fencing Off Ideas,” DAEDALUS 13 (Spring 2002), 13-25.

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 2. (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1979), 2.

Bruce G. Carruthers and Laura Ariovich, “The Sociology of Property Rights,” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004), 23–46.

Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, “Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Source,” Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 66 (Winter/Spring 2003), 111.

Steven Hilgartner, “Acceptable Intellectual Property,” Journal of Molecular Biology 319 no.4 (2002), 943-46.

Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), 3.

Sheila Jasanoff, “Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States.” (Princeton University Press, 2006), 13-38.

Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (New York, Penguin Press, 2004), 83-173, 188-207.

Keith E. Maskus and Jerome H. Reichman, “The Globalization of Private Knowledge and the Privatization of Global Public Goods,” Journal of Economic Law 7 no.2 (2004), 279 -320.

UNEP, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2002), Art.3(i)

USPTO Online, “Patents,” Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures, http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/index.jsp (accessed on November 12, 2010).