The Cambridge Handbook of Commons Research Innovations

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Urban Infrastructure ◽  
Shared Resources ◽  
Cultural Goods ◽  
The Commons ◽  
New Applications

The commons theory, first articulated by Elinor Ostrom, is increasingly used as a framework to understand and rethink the management and governance of many kinds of shared resources. These resources can include natural and digital properties, cultural goods, knowledge and intellectual property, and housing and urban infrastructure, among many others. In a world of increasing scarcity and demand - from individuals, states, and markets - it is imperative to understand how best to induce cooperation among users of these resources in ways that advance sustainability, affordability, equity, and justice. This volume reflects this multifaceted and multidisciplinary field from a variety of perspectives, offering new applications and extensions of the commons theory, which is as diverse as the scholars who study it and is still developing in exciting ways.

The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M. Salzberger
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Physical Property ◽  
Microeconomic Theory ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Commons

This paper focuses on the normative analysis of intellectual property rights, in light of the technological revolution of the Internet and accompanying technologies. After a brief overview of the various philosophical justifications for awarding intellectual property rights, it identifies two major Law and Economics paradigms for the analysis of intellectual property: the incentives paradigm, which is founded upon the public goods analysis of neo-classical microeconomic theory, and the tragedy of the commons literature, which is based on the economic analysis of externalities. The paper raises several points of critique towards both frameworks of analysis and especially towards their inability to point to the desirable extent of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the direction of their reform required as the result of the recent technological revolution. It further criticizes the dominant contemporary Law and Economics writings in this field as shifting to a new proprietary paradigm that pre-assumes information to be an object of property, overlooking its fundamental differences from physical property and focusing on its management rather than on its initial justifications. The paper is concluded with some tentative thoughts on the general notion of “Property Rights” in light of the contemporary approach concerning intellectual property.

Ethnographic Explorations of Intellectual Property

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary J. Coombe ◽  
Susannah Chapman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Cultural Goods ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Goods ◽  
International Trade Agreements ◽  
Moral Economies ◽  
The Law ◽  
Cultural Commons

Ethnographic research into intellectual property (IP) gained traction in the mid-1990s. During this period international trade agreements mandated that all states introduce minimum IP protections, property rights in intangible goods were expanded to encompass new subject areas, international Indigenous Peoples’ human rights were being negotiated, and protecting biodiversity became a global policy concern. Anthropologists considered IP extension in terms of the processes of commodification the law enabled, the cultural incommensurability of the law’s presuppositions in various societies, the implications of these rights for disciplinary research and publication ethics, and the modes of subjectification and territorialization that the enforcement of such laws engendered. Recognizing that IP clearly constrains and shapes the circulation of goods through the privatization of significant resources, critical anthropological examinations of Western liberal legal binary distinctions between public and private goods also revealed the forms of dispossession enabled by presuming a singular cultural commons. Anthropologists showed the diversity of publics constituted through authorized and unauthorized reproduction and circulation of cultural goods, exploring the management of intangible cultural goods in a variety of moral economies as well as the construction and translation of tradition in new policy arenas. The intersection of IP and human rights also prompted greater disciplinary reflexivity with respect to research ethics and publication practices. Analyzing how IP protections are legitimated and the activities that their enforcement delegitimizes, ethnography illustrated how the law creates privileged and abject subjectivities, reconfigures affective relationships between people and places, and produces zones of policing and discipline in processes of territorialization.

scholarly journals ¿Es éticamente aceptable la propiedad intelectual de los derechos de autor?

2021 ◽  
pp. 91-130
Author(s):  
Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Tragedy Of The Commons ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The One

We intend to analyze the plausibility of the two kind of ethical justi-fications that are most commonly used in order to defend the concept of an «intellectual property» of copyrights. Firstly, we will examine justifications of property based on natural law, like the one originally provided by John Locke. We will argue, with the help of authors like Lysander Spooner, that the same arguments that Locke uses for property in general are entirely appli-cable to intellectual property, although this is certainly a peculiar kind of property. Secondly, we will examine whether or not we can apply to inte-llectual property the same two arguments that Utilitarian authors use for justifying property in general: the «tragedy of the commons» argument and the scarcity argument. We will claim that the first one is fully pertinent here, and that the second one is not: but this is a problem of that kind of justifi-cation of property in general, and not a problem of intellectual property as such. Key words: Intellectual property, copyright, Ethics, John Locke, Lysander Spoo-ner, Benjamin Tucker, plagiarism, Utilitarianism, iusnaturalism, natural law, commons, scarcity. Código JEL: Z0. Resumen: Se trata aquí de examinar cuán razonables resultan los dos tipos más frecuentes de justificaciones éticas que se suelen dar para abogar a favor de la existencia de una propiedad intelectual de los derechos de autor. En primer lugar, analizaremos las justificaciones de corte iusnaturalista, re-montables a John Locke. Defenderemos, con ayuda de autores como Lysan-der Spooner, que, aun cuando la propiedad intelectual es un tipo de propie-dad en cierto sentido distinto a aquella en la que Locke seguramente estaba pensando, aun así son plenamente pertinentes para ella los mismos argu-mentos que Locke ya adujo para las propiedad «material». En segundo lugar, consideraremos la aplicabilidad al caso de la propiedad intelectual de los dos argumentos utilitaristas que se suelen usar con miras a justificar la propiedad privada en general: el argumento de la «tragedia» de los bie-nes comunales y el de la escasez de recursos. Argüiremos que el primer tipo de argumento es plenamente aplicable al caso de la propiedad de dere-chos de autor; y que, aunque el segundo ciertamente no lo es, en todo caso ello no representa seguramente un problema para la propiedad intelectual, sino para la capacidad de ese argumento a la hora de dar cumplida cuen-ta de todos los tipos de propiedades existentes. Palabras clave: Propiedad intelectual, derechos de autor, ética, John Locke, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, plagio, utilitarismo, iusnaturalismo, dere-cho natural, bienes comunales, escasez.

Give Us Back Our Tragedy: Nonrivalry in Intellectual Property Law and Policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 633-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oren Bracha
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Tragedy Of The Commons ◽  
Information Goods ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Distinct Category ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Commons

Abstract Information goods form the most distinct category of nonrival resources in regard to which one person’s ability to use the resource is not lessened by another person’s use. Nonrival goods are not subject to the tragedy of the commons and as a result the most common modern justification for property rights is absent in regard to them. Therefore intellectual property rights, unlike many other property rights, may perform a beneficial function only with respect to the dynamic incentive to produce information goods. With respect to static use of existing information, intellectual property rights serve no beneficial function and always have a negative effect. This fundamental and ostensibly well-understood element of intellectual property theory has important implications for the policy analysis of intellectual property rights compared to other institutional alternatives (including a commons) and for the design of such rights. Because it poses a fundamental challenge to the idea of a uniform theory of property, the assumption of nonrivalry of information has been subjected to attacks by scholars who sought to introduce the tragedy of the commons to this realm and reintegrate intellectual property rights into standard property analysis. Other scholarship rejects the attacks on nonrivalry but often obscures the full implications of this feature of information goods. This article explains the centrality of nonrivalry in the policy analysis of information goods and the challenge it poses to a unified theory built on the concept of the tragedy of the commons. It explains the unfortunate tendency to obscure the full implications of nonrivalry, explores the various attempts to restore a tragedy of the commons framework to the analysis of information goods, and exposes the flaws of these arguments. The article concludes by explaining the implications of the nonrivalry of information goods for a properly understood general theory of property built around the salient positive and normative features of resources.

scholarly journals Propriedade intelectual, comunidades tradicionais e patrimônio imaterial em museus de ciência e tecnologia │ Intellectual property, traditional communities and intangible heritage in museums of science and technology

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Janaina Cardoso de Mello
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Cultural Goods ◽  
Intangible Heritage ◽  
Popularization Of Science ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
And Training ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

RESUMO As concepções patrimoniais que muitas vezes aprisionavam o bem cultural imaterial na idéia de “usos e costumes sem valor para comercialização”, pois a essência da preservação seria mais importante do que sua mercantilização, têm caído por terra nas últimas décadas com as discussões de promoção de sustentabilidade, redução da informalidade econômica, combate à exclusão social e elaboração de políticas públicas. Propõe-se nesse trabalho que os museus de ciência e tecnologia no Brasil devem atuar na difusão e popularização da C,T&I junto à sociedade, envolvendo órgãos governamentais, instituições científicas/comerciais e universidades na extensão tecnológica direcionada às associações de artesãos para a informação/formação, a apropriação e o uso de instrumentais que garantam os direitos de Propriedade Intelectual na conquista da cidadania e elevação da qualidade de vida individual e coletiva. Considera-se que a existência de distintas formas/concepções de registro, quando atuam de forma colaborativa, congregando o museu como um importante aliado na popularização da C,T&I junto à sociedade, servem com maior eficácia à proteção dos produtos e modos de saber-fazer, complementando as lacunas presentes na legislação.Palavras-chave: Museus; Tecnologia; Propriedade Intelectual; Conhecimentos Tradicionais; Registro.           ABSTRACT The patrimonial conceptions which often imprisoned intangible cultural goods in the idea of "uses and customs without value for marketing", because the essence of preservation would be more important than its commoditization, have fallen apart in recent decades due to discussions promoting sustainability, reduction of economic informality, combating social exclusion and public policy development. It is proposed in this work that museums of science and technology in Brazil should act in the dissemination and popularization of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) in society, involving government agencies, scientific institutions/universities in technological extension and directed to artisans' associations for information and training, ownership and the use of instruments that guarantee intellectual property rights in attaining  citizenship and the quality of individual and collective life. It is considered that the existence of different forms/designs of registry, when operating collaboratively, attracting the museum as an important ally in the popularization of STI can be more effective for the protection of products and know-how, complementing present gaps in legislation.Keywords: Museums; Technology; Intellectual Property; Traditional Knowledge; Record.

scholarly journals Isu Tuntutan Harta Intelek Sebagai Harta Sepencarian:Analisis Kritis dari Perspektif Syariah dan Undang-Undang

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-87
Author(s):  
Marina Abu Bakar ◽  
Noor Asyimah Ramli ◽  
Saad Gomaa Gomaa Zaghloul ◽  
Ahmed Ramadan Mohamed Ahmed ◽  
Meryem Abous ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Married Couple ◽  
Physical Property ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The State ◽  
Shared Resources ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
Islamic Jurisprudence ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Husband And Wife

Jointly acquired property is the property obtained during the marriage of a husband and wife as a result of their shared resources or efforts. However, in this era of digitilization, the claim form of jointly acquired property has changed from a purely physical property to an intellectual property. Therefore, the claim for jointly acquired property also involves the intellectual property of the married couple gained during the marriage period. Although jointly acquired property is an exclusive right of the husband and wife in a marriage, but this property claim can also be made by third parties other than the marriage couple. In fact, there is a fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) in the state of Kelantan that allowed such claim.  As a sequence from this issue, this research aims to study the issue of intellectual property claim as a husband and wife jointly acquired property and analyze the issue of intellectual property claim as husband and wife jointly acquired property according to Islamic and legal perspective. This research is a qualitative  research where the data were collected through the books of classical and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence literatures related to jointly acquired property in Islam, jointly acquired property fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) in the state of Kelantan and jointly acquired property cases in the Shariah Court. These data were then analyzed using a content analysis approach. The results of the research found that the Shariah Court took into account the facts and evidences of the case by the Plaintiff in deciding the claim and the rate of division of claims against jointly acquired property. In fact, it was also found that until now, there have been no cases related to intellectual property claims as jointly acquired property reported by the Syariah Court in Malaysia. The results of the research may provide guidance to the parties involved in the process of claiming jointly acquired property such as muftis, Sharie lawyers and judges in the Shariah Court in deciding the law related to intellectual property for cases involving jointly acquired property claims in Malaysia.  Abstrak Harta sepencarian adalah harta yang diperolehi dalam masa perkahwinan seorang suami dengan isterinya hasil daripada sumber-sumber atau usaha mereka bersama. Namun begitu, pada era digitalisasi ini, bentuk tuntutan harta sepencarian telah berubah daripada harta yang bersifat fizikal semata-mata kepada harta yang berbentuk intelek. Oleh yang demikian, tuntutan harta sepencarian juga turut melibatkan harta intelek pasangan yang diperolehi dalam tempoh perkahwinan tersebut. Walaupun harta sepencarian adalah hak eksklusif suami isteri dalam perkahwinan, tetapi tuntutan harta sepencarian juga boleh dibuat oleh pihak ketiga selain daripada pasangan kepada perkahwinan tersebut. Malah, terdapat fatwa di negeri Kelantan yang membenarkan tuntutan sebegini. Urutan daripada ini, kajian ini bertujuan mengkaji isu tuntutan harta intelek sebagai harta sepencarian suami isteri dan menganalisis isu tuntutan harta intelek sebagai harta sepencarian suami isteri mengikut perspektif syarak dan undang-undang. Kajian ini adalah kajian berbentuk kualitatif di mana data dalam kajian ini dikumpul melalui kitab-kitab fiqh klasik dan kontemporari berkaitan harta sepencarian dalam Islam, fatwa harta sepencarian di negeri Kelantan dan kes-kes harta sepencarian di Mahkamah Syariah. Data-data ini kemudiannya dianalisis menggunakan pendekatan analisis kandungan. Hasil kajian mendapati bahawa Mahkamah Syariah mengambil kira fakta kes dan pembuktian kes oleh Plaintif dalam memutuskan tuntutan dan kadar pembahagian tuntutan terhadap harta sepencarian. Malah, didapati juga bahawa sehingga kini, tiada kes berkaitan tuntutan harta intelek sebagai harta sepencarian yang dilaporkan oleh Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia. Hasil kajian yang dikemukakan dapat memberikan panduan kepada pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam proses tuntutan harta sepencarian seperti mufti, peguam syarie dan hakim di Mahkamah Syariah dalam memutuskan hukum berkaitan harta intelek bagi kes-kes yang melibatkan tuntutan harta sepencarian di Malaysia.

scholarly journals Innovation Centric Knowledge Commons—A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Model

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Muralidharan Ramakrishnan ◽  
Anup Shrestha ◽  
Jeffrey Soar
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Shared Resources ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Institutional Analysis And Development ◽  
Iad Framework

Commons theory is one of the influential economic theories that study the governance of shared resources, including knowledge. This paper provides a comprehensive view of the application of the concept of the commons towards supporting innovation in the Knowledge Management (KM) literature. A systematic literature review identified forty-four (44) relevant research papers discussed the commons published in twenty-three (23) high-impact KM journals. The research found that the application of commons in KM literature covers diverse areas, including Intellectual Property, Knowledge Cities, and Industrial Commons, that are related to innovation. The study found that extant literature does not adequately address innovation-centric knowledge. To address the gap, a conceptual model is presented to apply the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to Open Innovation.

Competition and IP Policy for AI— Socio-economic Aspects of Innovation

2021 ◽  
pp. 403-418
Author(s):  
Anselm Kamperman Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
White Paper ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Decision Systems ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Consumer Interests ◽  
New Applications

With the publication of its White Paper on Artificial Intelligence—A European Approach to Excellence and Trust, the European Commission has set the stage for regulatory measures to ensure that the diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) will remain acceptable to market participants, data subjects, and citizens. While recognizing the immense promise that AI holds for economic development, it also points to serious concerns over privacy, accuracy, and equity of automated decision systems, and economic dominance and abuse by platform providers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have, from the perspective of competition law and policy, always raised questions about the justification of their exercise in light of economic dominance. The use of AI in traditional business models involving sales and online services, but also new applications such as Internet of Things (IoT), digital twinning and AI of Things (AIoT), otherwise known as Edge Computing, is set to create new forms of dominance that is reinforced by intellectual property in relation to data, software, and trade secrecy. This chapter deals with the intellectual property system and how it may have to be adapted for its continued acceptance as instrument to engender trust in the sustainable development of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) platform technologies, and AI in particular. It is argued that competition policy that recognizes and safeguards consumer interests in AI-dominated markets is key to the smooth functioning of such a platform economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document