Live Coding the Law: Improvisation, Code, and Copyright

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Zeilinger
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Electronic Music ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Programming Environments ◽  
Intellectual Property Policy ◽  
Improvised Music ◽  
The Law ◽  
Cultural Commons ◽  
Property Regimes

This article concerns the emerging creative practice of live coding (i.e., the real-time programming of electronic music in text-based programming environments), and explores how this practice can be deployed as a tactic of resistance against the overreach of restrictive intellectual property policy. I begin by surveying definitions of copyright and patent law, and related issues, to situate live coding in the field of existing perspectives on cultural ownership. Drawing on legal theory and critical discourse on improvised music in other genres, I then argue that the dynamic, palimpsestic, and improvisational qualities of live coding contradict many of copyright law's core assumptions regarding the nature of “fixed” works of art. These contradictions can be usefully mobilized for the purpose of resisting legal and economic enclosures of the digital cultural commons. As I conclude, live coding can, from its current, inherently ambivalent position on copyright matters, develop a strong, performance-based critical stance against the imbalances and shortcomings of intellectual property regimes and outdated notions of exclusive cultural ownership. Integrating artistic practices with ongoing and emerging critiques of intellectual property, such resistance can go a long way towards highlighting readily available opportunities to oppose and confound the law.

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 “Technologies of the law/ law as a technology”

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Biagioli ◽  
Marius Buning
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
Specialized Language ◽  
The Law

Historians of science and technology and STS practitioners have always taken intellectual property very seriously but, with some notable exceptions, they have typically refrained from looking “into” it. There is mounting evidence, however, that they can open up the black box of IP as effectively as they have done for the technosciences, enriching their discipline while making significant contributions to legal studies. One approach is to look at the technologies through which patent law construes its object – the invention – in specific settings and periods by examining procedures, classifications, archives, models, repositories, patent specifications (in both their linguistic and pictorial dimensions), and the highly specialized language of patent claims. More ambitiously, we could treat intellectual property as a technology itself. Patent law does not evolve either by merely articulating its doctrine in response to technological developments. The line between what does and does not count as invention may be redrawn with the emergence of new objects and technologies, but is not determined by them. It is this constructive feature of the law that we are trying to capture with the notion of law as technology. We hope that thinking about the technologies of the law and the law as technology will bring into question what we mean by both “technology” and “law”.

scholarly journals The Role of Patent Law in Knowledge Codification

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Tacit Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Codified Knowledge ◽  
Know How ◽  
Knowledge Codification ◽  
Prior Art ◽  
Property Regimes

Recent studies of knowledge production have increasingly recognized the role of codified knowledge in the operation of social organizations. But the literature on knowledge production has to date recognized only in passing the role of intellectual property in this process. This paper applies the insights of knowledge production to the features of intellectual property regimes, both to flesh out the analysis of tacit knowledge codification, and to illuminate the role of intellectual property in the firm. Patents, for example, constitute an explicitly codified form of technical knowledge, providing a stable common code for technical know-how, partially ameliorating the risks associated with loss of tacit knowledge. Codification through the patent system also provides important stability to attendant tacit knowledge. Patent doctrines regarding prior art, interference practice, and infringement all address the balance of tacit and codified knowledge. By functioning as a codification mechanism, patents may facilitate employee movement and entrepreneurial business spin-offs. Thus, aside from the usual justifications for patents in terms of incentive or disclosure, patenting may help to secure knowledge against loss or dissipation.

Thoughts on an Improvisation

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Lassonde
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Late Afternoon ◽  
Intellectual Property Policy ◽  
The Law

On June 20, 2009, late afternoon, I improvised with Joe Sorbara as part of Lex Non Scripta, Ars Non Scripta: Law, Justice & Improvisation, a conference organised by the McGill Centre for Intellectual Property Policy as well as the Improvisation, Community and Social Practice research project. The performance entitled “Improvised Contemporary Movement and Sound Performance” took place at Sala Rossa in Montreal. I was moving, using corporeal mime and other movement techniques, and Joe was making sound with various percussion objects. Joe and I were improvising based on a score that we developed together. The score was spatially defined in the shape of a line that we followed as we improvised. The coordination of our movements and sounds was also defined. Although primarily Joe was the musician and I was the mover, sometimes the line was blurred between who was moving and who was producing sound. Our improvised performance lasted around 17 minutes. This commentary aims to build on those 17 minutes by exploring the improvisational structure of the performance and examining this structure as the “law” of our improvisation. This text will also reflect on the broader relationship between law and improvisation.

scholarly journals Ukrainian experience in implementation of the flexible provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in the context of European integration and the pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 140-145
Author(s):  
Oksana Kashyntseva ◽  
Yaroslav Iolkin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Global Trends ◽  
National Drug ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Holding Back ◽  
Patented Inventions

Keywords: intellectual property, human rights, patients' rights, pharmaceutical nationalism,protectionism, vaccines, generics, COVID-19 The article concerns the analysis of global trends in theparadigm of intellectual property rights on the objects used in the diagnosis, preventionand treatment of COVID-19. The experience of the implementation of pharmaceuticalnationalism policies provided by the EU, Canada and Israel are presented in the article.The authors provide the legal backgrounds of the need for Ukraine to be a co-sponsor ofthe IP waivers proposals, which are submitted to the TRIPS Council by some membersof the WTO. The authors stress the need for Ukraine to use the historic opportunity forthe development of the national pharmaceutical industry, which would contribute tothe interests of the domestic patient, and make proposals for the necessary changes tonational legislation.The authors also stressed the position of the governments of Germany and France.Thus, in Germany there is the Law on Governmental Use of Patented Inventions duringa Pandemic. The law provides, inter alia, for amendments to the Patent Law, accordingto which the Federal Ministry of Health has the right to authorize the use of relevantpatents to ensure the production and supply of pharmaceuticals or medical devices.In 2020, France adopted the Emergency Law № 2020-290 to combat theCOVID-19 epidemic, which introduced Article 3131 15 of the French Public HealthCode. This rule authorizes the Prime Minister to issue orders to recover or seize allgoods and services necessary to combat the disaster, to temporarily control the price ofproducts and, if necessary, to take any measures to ensure that patients are providedwith appropriate drugs to deal with the disaster, related to health. It is useful forUkraine to use the experience of Canada in terms of facilitating negotiations with majorvaccine manufacturers to establish national drug production and in terms of developinglegislation in the field of compulsory licensing.It is obviously, voluntary licences from patent owners, which provide for the fulltransfer of technology, and not just patent disclosure, are the most effective tool for thenational production of biosimilars. However, international experience shows that pharmaceuticalcompanies are holding back the issuance of compulsory licences. Therefore,our government's biosecurity portfolio should include an effective tool for compulsory licensingor emergency use of biosimilars and generic drugs by the Government.

scholarly journals PARTICULARITIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IN GEORGIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 311
Author(s):  
Maka Salkhinashvili ◽  
Giuli Giguashvili
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Property Development ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law

The article examines the nature and significance of intellectual property in Georgia. The issue is highly interesting both from theoretical and practical viewpoints. The Law on patents was adopted in Georgia in 1999 and has undergone many changes since then. The Law was significantly improved as a result of 2010 amendments. In general terms, the intellectual property is a field of law, which governs and defines the property rights and personal non–property rights in the field of creative activity. To explore these issues, the article makes reference to a number of earlier assumptions, historical context and past approaches. Some authors use the term ‘patent pyramid,’ comparing it to a casino, where three persons are engaged in a state or sometimes inter–state innovative game. The article looks at the issue in the context of Georgia. Georgia declared independence in 1991, which also marked the beginning of new era in the field of inventions. Georgia’s National Centre of Intellectual Property – Georgian Patent – was established in 1992. Georgia is a member of The World Trade Organization (WTO) established in 1993. Hence the UN–approved requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) related to the intellectual property are binding upon Georgia, as are the requirements pertaining to the industrial property. We conclude that Georgia’s Patent Law needs further improvements, as the improved law is likely to contribute to the intellectual property in Georgia and lead to significant reduction in a number of disputes in the given field.

scholarly journals Patents and non-invasive prenatal testing: Is there cause for concern?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Hawkins
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Personalised Medicine ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Legal Structures ◽  
The Law

Abstract Intellectual property rights are key to the translation of discoveries into clinical use in personalised medicine. This article explores the interaction of intellectual property rights, specifically patents, with the field of genomic personalised medicine, through empirical work investigating the role that patents play in the development and delivery of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Single gene testing (SGT) and NIPT represent examples of two different types of innovation likely to be important in personalised medicine, and which operate differently in terms of how the law is applied in practice. In SGT, on the one hand, previous studies demonstrate that patents have little impact on practice for those developing genetic tests in the public sector in the UK because they are largely ignored. In contrast, however, this qualitative interview study finds that law and law-in-practice in NIPT are much more convergent than found in SGT. Those involved in the development and delivery of NIPT are more aware of patents, and balance the costs and benefits of greater engagement or compliance with patent law, in relation to factors such as freedom to operate, litigation, and licensing, in favour of compliance. Compliance can take different forms; licensing is compliance, as is forbearance from using a patented invention in the absence of a patent licence. This article explores the factors relevant to patent law compliance in NIPT, and further considers the implications for the field of personalised medicine. It argues that, as the prevalent means to promote openness, access, and affordability in biomedicine are founded on the existing legal structures of intellectual property rights, such solutions will only be effective and adopted when these existing legal structures of intellectual property law are recognised and respected in the relevant field. It is therefore essential that such solutions only be deployed with a nuanced understanding of the operation of the law-in-practice.

scholarly journals Is There a New Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property?

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Holbrook
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Current State ◽  
Descriptive Account ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Ip Law ◽  
The Impact

This Article is the first to comprehensively interrogate the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent interventions in extraterritoriality as it relates to the three historical forms of federal intellectual property: patent, copyright, and trademark. In this manner, it fills an important gap in the literature because most assessments of the presumption focus only on one area of law. Moreover, this Article offers a novel comparative assessment of the evolution of the presumption across the patent, copyright, and trademark regimes, offering both a descriptive account of the state and evolution of the law, as well as a normative assessment of whether the current state of the law best effectuates the policies that justify these forms of protection. In reviewing the application of the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence in these three areas of intellectual property, the Article concludes that the Supreme Court’s effort to standardize the law of extraterritoriality has failed. Lower courts’ engagement with the presumption has been, at best, inconsistent. There are times where the courts simply ignore the Court’s recent cases, relying on previous cases and doctrine without pausing to reconsider whether those doctrines survive the Supreme Court’s latest changes to the law. The Article also concludes that this inconsistency cannot be justified based on the differing policies surrounding copyright, trademarks, and patents. This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the state of the law of extraterritoriality in copyright, trademark, and patent, as it stood before the Supreme Court’s recent intervention. This review demonstrates that all three disciplines were treating extraterritoriality very differently, and none were paying much attention to the presumption against extraterritoriality. Part II reviews a tetralogy of recent Supreme Court cases, describing the Court’s attempt to formalize its approach to extraterritoriality across all fields of law. Part III analyzes the state of IP law in the aftermath of this tetralogy of extraterritoriality cases. It concludes that there has been some impact on patent law, but virtually none on copyright or trademark. The Article assesses whether there is a new extraterritoriality for intellectual property and concludes that there is not: The Supreme Court’s efforts, at least in IP, have not led to greater coherence. While there may be reasons for the lower courts’ failure to follow the framework, it does represent a missed opportunity for cross fertilization, at least among intellectual property regimes, if not across all fields of law. It also offers a call for the consideration of comity—looking to foreign law and potential conflicts—in deciding whether to apply U.S. law extraterritorially.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document