The Daily Summit - Intellectual property Archives

[Intellectual property]

December 05, 2003

As if IP in the real world wasn't complex enough, there's a lot of chatter at the moment about intellectual property in virtual worlds (Second Life, There or agoraXchange, for example). James Grimmelmann has a superb (but long!) introduction to the issues...

David Steven @ 08:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 25, 2003

On the web, and from a few months back, Douglas Clement asks whether innovation requires intellectual property rights and, along the way, provides a good primer on the economics behind WSIS's IP debates.

Clement talks to Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine who argue in a much-talked about paper that patents and copyrights create "intellectual monopolies" which, like any other monopoly, leave us all worse off in the long-run.

According to Clement, Boldrin and Levine have made a "formidable assault on the conventional wisdom about innovation and the need to protect intellectual property."

"The reaction for now is surprise and disbelief," Boldrin admits. "We'll see. In these kinds of things, the relevance is always if people find the suggestion interesting enough that it's worth pushing farther the research. All we have made is a simple theoretical point."

David Steven @ 08:55 AM | TrackBack

November 16, 2003

The IPR Hot Potato. There's little agreement over Intellectual Property Rights in advance of the summit. As ever, it's hardly surprising that ideas and information (specifically, who owns them and what does it cost to buy them) go to the heart of the "digital divide". To quote the WSIS draft declaration "a fair balance has to be struck between IPR protection... and... its use, and knowledge-sharing".

So, on one hand, WSIS-watchers will be looking closely at the attitude of big "advanced developing" countries like Brazil, Mexico, China and India - who have interests on either side of the IPR digital-information divide. Richer countries see a strict regime of intellectual property protection as essential to encourage innovation and creativity, while ranged between them are those who believe the "fair balance" concept is mean, misguided and based on a false analogy with ownership of physical property. Of course, those who promote communication rights believe "the best way to 'protect' creations of the intellect is to allow them to be used".

Andrew Taussig @ 02:58 PM

Back

Top