positive intellectual rights and information exchange
TRANSCRIPT
Positive Intellectual Rights and Information
ExchangesPhilippe Aigrain
Hui Zheng 311289827
Historical Prologue
The Crisis and the Risk of a Tragedy of Enclosures
Digging the Foundation
Public Domain and Public Space
Creator Rights
Keeping Patentability Where It Belongs
Integrity, Libel and Redress
Introduction
Intellectual Property:
Granting the ability to restrict usage of intellectual entities
Negative effects of such a
restriction.
Re-foundation of intellectual property: a wider societal production and exchange
A new framework should be set up
Historical Prologue
1930s – mid1950s (revolution):information technologyinformation control centersbiotechnology
1960s-1970s the information revolution was described.
1980s: Two contradictory processes,
1.New area of free creation and exchange of info
Internet revolution; free software
2. Huge industries being reshaped or born.
highly depend on the ability to
gain and control information and knowledge entities.
Difficulty:
fight against oligopolies’ rules without cutting innovation resources of free knowledge.
The Crisis and the Risk of a Tragedy of Enclosure
common-based peer production
cheaper and easier to duplicate and exchange
New activities: immature
enthusiasm but uncertainty of realization.
Expectations and Concerns for Creator
property management-based business & Old forms of business
Cooperative usage intellectual property as a life vest to
construct new oligopolies disease
Disease symptoms:
Multinationals asking governments to put a 16 in jail for creating software that could be used to illegal copy protected content.
Patents on genetic sequences to which governments are still giving a hand.
Protected e-books or digital TV settings won’t let you transfer or quote contents without risking to be charges with breaking the law
Proposals to make people collectively liable for the compound virtual loss of income that may result from their disputably illicit behavior.
Long-lasting damage
a new tragedy of enclosures if a positive foundation is not established
Digging the Foundations
intellectual property -- the only way
but current framework is poor.
attempts failed.
Definition of intellectual entity:
an artefact constructed under control of human minds;
using other such constructs and signals or information extracted from the physical world;
that can be made perceptible to other humans or executed to control technical process;
can be separated from the carrier or signal that embodies it.
Direct rights:
R1 To create new intellectual entities, including by making use of preexisting ones
R2 To make one’s creation publicR3 To be acknowledges as creator of all or part of an intellectual
entityR4 To obtain economic nor noneconomic reward for one’s
creation, in proportion to the interest others show for it.R5 To access any intellectual entity that ha been made publicR6 To quote extract of an intellectual entity whatever its media,
for the purpose of information, analysis, critique, teaching, research or the creation of other intellectual entities.
R7 To redress mistakes, libelous statements, false information or erroneous attributions.
R8 To give reference, link to or create inventories of intellectual entities produced by others as soon as they have been made public.
Essential parametersC1 The size of the initial investment necessary to create an intellectual entity
before it can first be used or accessed
C2 Whether the entity is created once and then accessed without modifications or on the contrary incrementally created and revised through sequences of usage and creation. The intellectual rights framework influences the nature of the entities.
C3 Whether the creation is individual or collective
C4 Whether the creation is or not the embodiment of knowledge about the physical world or about society.
C5 The relation between the entity and action on the physical world at one extremity to intellectual entities whose only link with physical processes arises when they are mapped into physically perceptible signals.
C6 Whether the usage of the entity is of such a nature that one needs to allow long lasting appropriation to make possible for this usage to develop in a sustainable manner
Public Domain and Public Space
In pre-digital era:Public domain was fed by extinction of
rights
In digital era: People contribute directly to the
public domain
Is there any valid reason to limit voluntary contribution to the public domain?
Principle : The voluntary contribution of one’s
creation to the public domain is a right that can not be restricted by any commercial interest.
Some entities are considered naturally belonging to public domain.
Industrial applications (gene sequence patents)
Default principle: intellectual entities belong to the public
domain, except if allowing their temporary appropriation is absolutely needed and does not result in unacceptable consequence.
Protection technology should not block the possibility of quotation and access.
Creator Rights
Patent and Copyright:Patent: limited scope, mechanical
inventions, high entry cost
Copyright: major scheme
Two business models
Centralized media
Decentralized media
=> inefficiency of remuneration
Copyright-based remuneration can be enforced by the assent of most to pay as to reward creators.
Choices:
Which licensing model they desire
Maintain physical carriers such as books’ accessing and using links.
Mix of compositions in a symphony: special cases as a reminder.
Finally, the duration of copyright should be made shorter
Keeping Patentability Where IT Belongs
Patent criteria
C1= big investmentC4= not a discoveryC5= design for physical devices and
processesC6= not lasting appropriation
needed for deployment of usage.
Birth of information-based technology:
challenge traditional patent protection
causing a drift on extending patentability to more entities.
National Rifle Association argument:
Dangerous mistakes: gene sequence and computer program
Some claimed to defend themselves in competition.
The meta-machine deserves patent protection but the software tools should not be covered by patents.
Software does not meet the criteria.
Softwares are not mechanical inventions.
Integrity, Libel and Redress
false information dissemination and privacy
two approaches: strengthen the control before
information publishing;
try to constitute positive counterweights to the potentially dangerous trend
investing in the positive right approach
How can the positive rights approach turn into a widespread reality?
Free software Additional safeguards
avoid misuse of voluntary contributions.
true Renaissance
BibliographyFrischmann, Brett M and Lemley, Mark A 2007, ‘positive externalities in
intellectual property’ Columbia Law Review, Volume 107, Issue 1, pp. 257 – 301
Megan Schliesman, 2008 ‘Intellectual Freedom’, Language Arts, Volume 85, Issue 3, p. 221
Guenin, Louis M, 2005, ‘Intellectual Honesty’, Synthese, Volume 145, Issue 2, pp. 177 - 232
Barnett, Jonanthan M 2009, ‘Is intellectual property trivial?’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 157, Issue 6, p. 1691
Weckert, John, 1997, ‘Intellectual Property rights and computer software’, Business Ethics, Volume 6, Issue 2, p. 101
Tylor, N, 2000, ‘Review: intellectual property rights in software’ The Computer Bulletin, Volume 42, Issue 5, p. 31
Roy Tennant, 1999, ‘Copyright and intellectual proterty rights’ Library Journal, Volume 124, Issue 13, p. 34