Are economic ideas a sustainable commons? A study of the exchange of creative economics

In this essay I claim that productive markets need not necessarily involve clearly defined and enforced property rights, upon which a price system can be used to allocate resources. I shall pursue this thought by an examination of the mechanisms that facilitate the exchange of economic ideas, and link academic norms to the emerging theoretical justification for open source software, and “free culture”.economic ideas, commons, free culture, journals

Could There be a Right to Own Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property typically involves claims of ownership of types, rather than particulars. In this article I argue that this difference in ontology makes an important moral difference. In particular I argue that there cannot be an intrinsic moral right to own intellectual property. I begin by establishing a necessary condition for the justification of intrinsic moral rights claims, which I call the Rights Justification Principle. Briefly, this holds that if we want to claim that there is an intrinsic moral right to phi, we must be able to show that (a) violating this right would typically result in either a wrongful harm or other significant wrong to the holder of the right, and (b) the wrongful harm or other wrong in question is independent of the existence of the intrinsic right we are trying to justify. I then argue that merely creating a new instance of a type is not the kind of action which can wrongfully harm the creator of that type. Insofar as there do seem to be wrongs involved in copying a published poem or computer program, these wrongs presuppose the existence of an intrinsic right to own intellectual property, and so cannot be used to justify it. I conclude that there cannot be an intrinsic right to own intellectual property

The Duty to license software in a dominant market position : the essential facility doctrine

Tutkielma käsittelee tietokoneohjelmistojen pakkolisensiointia määräävässä markkina-asemassa. Tutkielman erityisenä näkökulmana aiheeseen on se, onko Euroopan unionin oikeuden mukaan tietokoneohjelmistojen pakkolisensiointi määräävässä markkina-asemassa mahdollista ja jos on, niin mitkä tekijät vaikuttavat immateriaalioikeuksien pakkolisensiointivelvoitteeseen. Tutkielma jakautuu viiteen pääjaksoon, joista ensimmäisessä esitellään tutkimusongelma sekä tutkielman rakenne tarkemmin. Toisessa pääjaksossa kuvataan yleisellä tasolla tekijänoikeuden pääperiaatteita, tietokoneohjelmistojen tekijänoikeussuojaa sekä tietokoneohjelmistoihin liittyviä erityispiirteitä että ilmiöitä. Kolmas jakso sisältää kuvauksen määräävän markkina-aseman väärinkäytöstä Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 102 artiklan mukaan. Neljäs pääjakso käsittelee pakkolisensiointia määräävässä markkina-asemassa. Jakso jakaantuu neljään alajaksoon, joista ensimmäisessä alajaksossa tarkastellaan immateriaalioikeuden ja kilpailuoikeuden vastakkainasettelua. Toinen alajakso sisältää kuvauksen niin sanotusta olennainen toimintaedellytys-opista (”the essential facility doctrine”) sekä siitä, kuinka immateriaalioikeuteen liittyvät tapaukset tulisi tulkita tämän opin mukaan. Kolmannessa alajaksossa tarkastellaan Euroopan unionin oikeuskäytäntöä ja sitä kuinka olennainen toimintaedellytys-oppi on kehittynyt oikeuskäytännössä immateriaalioikeuksien osalta. Neljäs alajakso sisältää erityisiä huomioita pakkolisensioinnista, kun kyseessä ovat immateriaalioikeudet. Tutkielman viides ja viimeinen pääjakso sisältää johtopäätelmän siitä, voidaanko määräävässä markkina-asemassa oleva yhtiö velvoittaa myöntämään lisenssi tietokoneohjelmistoonsa sekä esitetään joitakin aiheeseen liittyviä avoimia kysymyksiä jatkotutkimusten kannalta. Tutkimuksessa käydään läpi aiheeseen liittyvää lainsäädäntöä ja oikeuskäytäntöä sekä aiheesta tuotettua oikeustieteellistä kirjallisuutta, joiden perusteella pyritään tulkitsemaan millä edellytyksin immateriaalioikeuksia voidaan pakkolisensioida. Tutkimuksen mukaan olemassa olevan oikeuskäytännön valossa määräävässä markkina-asemassa oleva yhtiö voidaan velvoittaa lisensioimaan tietokoneohjelmistoja tiettyjen edellytysten täyttyessä

The Limitation of Intellectual Property in the Name of Competition

Intellectual property (“IP”) is often credited with providing an incentive for inventors to develop their creativity. Through IP protection, inventors can recoup their investment and make a profit. That idea, which has inspired legislators worldwide, is currently challenged in the European case law on competition. In the last twenty years, five cases have limited, in the name of competition, the possibility for firms to use IP rights acquired in conformity with applicable laws. These cases are examined in this article. I analyze the scope of the emerging jurisprudence and investigate the arguments articulated, in support of their position, by the European instances involved

An empirical study of unfair terms in online auction contracts in the UK: Evidence for the need for better enforcement mechanisms

This paper studies the terms of 28 online auction sites. It uncovers that, in this industry, unfair terms are common. The paper focusses on a small number of clauses but conclusively shows that enforcement in the UK is insufficient. The reasons for this insufficiency are explored and solutions proposed

Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era--The Human-like Authors are Already Here- A New Model

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are creative, unpredictable, independent, autonomous, rational, evolving, capable of data collection, communicative, efficient, accurate, and have free choice among alternatives. Similar to humans, AI systems can autonomously create and generate creative works. The use of AI systems in the production of works, either for personal or manufacturing purposes, has become common in the 3A era of automated, autonomous, and advanced technology. Despite this progress, there is a deep and common concern in modern society that AI technology will become uncontrollable. There is therefore a call for social and legal tools for controlling AI systems’ functions and outcomes. This Article addresses the questions of the copyrightability of artworks generated by AI systems: ownership and accountability. The Article debates who should enjoy the benefits of copyright protection and who should be responsible for the infringement of rights and damages caused by AI systems that independently produce creative works. Subsequently, this Article presents the AI Multi- Player paradigm, arguing against the imposition of these rights and responsibilities on the AI systems themselves or on the different stakeholders, mainly the programmers who develop such systems. Most importantly, this Article proposes the adoption of a new model of accountability for works generated by AI systems: the AI Work Made for Hire (WMFH) model, which views the AI system as a creative employee or independent contractor of the user. Under this proposed model, ownership, control, and responsibility would be imposed on the humans or legal entities that use AI systems and enjoy its benefits. This model accurately reflects the human-like features of AI systems; it is justified by the theories behind copyright protection; and it serves as a practical solution to assuage the fears behind AI systems. In addition, this model unveils the powers behind the operation of AI systems; hence, it efficiently imposes accountability on clearly identifiable persons or legal entities. Since AI systems are copyrightable algorithms, this Article reflects on the accountability for AI systems in other legal regimes, such as tort or criminal law and in various industries using these systems

Comparative analysis of national approaches on voluntary copyright relinquishment

The report considers first the question of how copyright is justified, as this may have some bearing on whether a country will allow an author to make a voluntary statement leading to the expiration of his/her rights. Copyright can variously be described as a natural right, as a reward for creators, as a stimulus for creativity, as a property right, as an economic reward and as part of the public interest. Two justifications are explored, the moral and the utilitarian. The moral justification places the existence of intellectual property as a natural result of the right of the creator to anything he or she produces. The moral element of copyright has given way to the economic one, but the existence of moral rights, particularly important in civil law jurisdictions, continues to strongly represent the elements of copyright as a personality right

Intellectual Property Law and the Right to Repair

This Article posits that intellectual property law should accommodate consumers’ right to repair their products. In recent years, there has been a growing push towards state legislation that would provide consumers with a “right to repair” their products. Currently, twenty states have pending legislation that would require product manufacturers to make available replacement parts and repair manuals. Unfortunately, though, this legislation has stalled in many of the states. Manufacturers have been lobbying the legislatures to stop the enactment of these repair laws based on different concerns, including how these laws may impinge on their intellectual property rights. Indeed, a right to repair may not be easily reconcilable with the United States’ far-reaching intellectual property rights regime. For example, requiring manufacturers to release repair manuals could implicate a whole host of intellectual property laws, including trade secrets. Similarly, employing measures that undercut a manufacturer’s control of the market for replacement parts might conflict with patent exclusivity. Nonetheless, this Article holds that intellectual property laws should not be used to prevent a right to repair from being fully implemented. In support of this claim, this Article develops a theoretical framework that justifies a right to repair in a manner that is consistent with intellectual property protection. Based on this theoretical foundation, this Article then explores, for the first time, the various intellectual property rules and doctrines that may be implicated in the context of the current repair movement. As part of this analysis, this Article identifies areas where intellectual property rights could prevent repair laws from being fully realized, even if some of the states pass the legislation, and recommends certain reforms that are necessary to accommodate the need for a right to repair and enable it to take hold