Strategic Use and Adaptation of Intellectual Property Rights Systems in Information and Communications Technologies-based Research comments on

IPRs ICTs enterprise organization an iron triangle?

expanding knowledge base  searchable, linkable globalized reach/access enriched, contextualized objects expansion of codified knowledge

expanded strategic landscape II expanded tools for controlling, mediating access expanded scope of IP strategies expanded use value of openness diversity of organizational models increased relative value of tacit knowledge

contrasting models for funded research narrowly focused: Bayh-Dole –research agency funds single university program –university grants exclusive license in most cases massively distributed: Networks of Excellence –heterogenous teams –large, multifaceted programs –divergent IP interests –“strategic use” of IPR

high potential transactions costs for complex projects (4-6%?) –policy implications –need for reporting

factors favoring different models for knowledge transfer open strong network effects unknown applications & opportunities –low barriers –use in research –importance of creativity very large market –incentive unnecessary –centralized planning not desirable alternative means of appropriating returns –first mover advantages, complements controlled well-defined development path substantial barriers to commercialization –development costs –commercialization costs high returns relative to transaction costs delimited, identified market

intellectual property vs. human capital –costs and benefits of student participation –long-term freedom to operate

strategic importance to universities copyright –by practice abandoned to publishers patent –usually assigned on exclusive basis database –may be critical to ongoing research lines

changing perspective of the university copyright: expressed knowledge –traditional dual perspective: producer and user –user interests dominate at institutional level  but roles are realigned by information technology patent: technology –traditional: producer of unpatentable science  becoming upstream producer of technology  university becomes both producer and user of patented processes (esp. biotech, software) increased exposure as user, esp. with virtual elimination of research exemption database: data repeat user, occasional producer

expanded strategic landscape II expanded tools for controlling, mediating access expanded scope of IP strategies increased use value of openness

Steve Lawrence, Online or Invisible?, Nature, Volume 411, Number 6837, p. 521, frequently cited articles more likely to be found online

the relationship between ICT and IPR copyright, database protection argument –digitization/Internet increase vulnerability, require stronger protection to promote access  Directive 2001/29/EC, DMCA patent argument –an increasingly important part of the economy deserves patent protection  directive on computer-implemented inventions

need for clearer understanding of IP options and strategies –exclusive vs. nonexclusive cross-licensing –value of openness in building networks strategic IP commons –specific alternative models –complementarities –impact on education