Intellectual property law is only one of many legal institutions that can help promote, stifle, or govern knowledge production. For example, government transfers rewards to innovators through tax incentives, grants, and prizes; regulates innovation through the administrative state (the EPA, FTC, SEC, CPFB, etc.); creates legal rules and infrastructures that can help sustain or undermine commons-based production; and influences innovation through law and institutions related to immigration, tort law, education, and more. How do forms of law and governance beyond IP promote innovation, as well as values such as equity, privacy, and democracy? How should these systems be combined, both with one another and with IP law? At the national, local, and international levels, the state plays a critical role in innovation, both by acting directly to fund and support it, and by serving as a meta-institution that establishes the parameters of other approaches to innovation, whether they be market or commons-based.
What role should the state play in innovation law, and where and how does the state play that role? How do we design a state that is institutionally capable of responding to the challenge of innovating, as well as designing innovation institutions? (For example, should we aim for an “experimental” approach to innovation policy, and can we identify different kinds of innovation law or examples of state intervention that are more or less resilient vis-à-vis dynamics of capture, corruption, waste, etc.?) Are there positive or negative examples of state-led innovation that we can learn from? And what might they teach us about the kind of state that we need to facilitate innovation?
This event is sponsored by Thomson Reuters and OMR (Oscar M. Reubhausen Fund)