Motivation

Like Nick below, I found myself focusing on p. 31 of Benkler’s piece in which he points out the (presumably inadvertent) effects that large-scale, societally-based legal measures and the bias it might give one toward deregulatory measures. My initial reaction, at least considering the long-term incarceration example of Bramam, is that we ought to at least consider how a structure that is premised on cooperative actors and mutual community bonds would work and start encouraging some local implementation of such measures.

It makes sense to me that such systems may need to be built from the ground up rather than on top of existing systems, that they will, in Benkler’s words, require “significant reform and reconceptualization of what the the organizational system is about and how it adapts to sustain a cooperative dynamic.”

In the IP realm, and I suppose I mark myself here as a small IP person, it might be interesting to look at how other countries that have more collectivist, community focused, cultures structure their IP regimes. Or at least how they structured them before the United States came in an lobbied to have them adopt protectionist, U.S.-friendly policies. [This may require a bit of historical research given how many signatories the Berne Convention now has)

My overall point, however, is that other countries — take Japan, for example — have had IP structures that promoted community through devices like compulsory licensing. Perhaps in our American minds “compulsory licensing of IP” sounds a lot like sanctioning, but it could be viewed as governmental regulation designed to encourage teamwork and group applications.

Someone who knows more about Japanese IP feel free to step in here and show me how/if those types of IP laws stifled creativity and innovation.