There have been several challenges to the architectonics of the domestic and global regimes that define and provide protection to property interests. These challenges include advances in technology, changes in product configuration and market structure, perceived evolution in innovation paradigms, and shifts in the perspectives of individuals and groups with respect to access to and use of products of the mind. In principle, such is not a new phenomenon. It is, in fact, an inherent attribute of most systems to address the delicate balance between the demands of those who have lent their hands, minds, talents, and time to the creation of new works and those who desire access to the creative products. However, there appears to be current urgency to revisit these various topics. Whatever the catalyst, the issues are very dynamic, and at times, the interests considered are extraordinarily pressing and dramatic. Misunderstanding punctuates the discussion for many potential reasons, such as failure of inquiry, failure to truly appreciate the presumptions and perspectives of others in the dialogue, or intentional or unintentional nondisclosure of assumptions. This has, in fact, led to continuing tension, and often, unsatisfactory outcomes in the global intellectual property community. This Article will discuss certain innovations and the conditions that have precipitated the current focus upon intellectual property regimes. Further, it will propose consideration of four discriminant and differential factors that might be used in developing a responsible protocol to cogently evaluate various considered approaches to recognizing and adjusting the myriad and sometimes competing interest in products of the mind.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||104|
|Journal||University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law|
|State||Published - Jun 2011|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)