Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Rules regulating access to knowledge are no longer the exclusive province of lawyers and policymakers and instead command the attention of anthropologists, economists, literary theorists, political scientists, artists, historians, and cultural critics.
This burgeoning interdisciplinary interest in “intellectual property” has also expanded beyond the conventional categories of patent, copyright, and trademark to encompass a diverse array of topics ranging from traditional knowledge to international trade. Though recognition of the central role played by “knowledge economies” has increased, there is a special urgency associated with present-day inquiries into where rights to information come from, how they are justified, and the ways in which they are deployed.
Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property, edited by Mario Biagioli, Peter Jaszi, and Martha Woodmansee, presents a range of diverse—and even conflicting—contemporary perspectives on intellectual property rights and the contested sources of authority associated with them. Examining fundamental concepts and challenging conventional narratives—including those centered around authorship, invention, and the public domain—this book provides a rich introduction to an important intersection of law, culture, and material production.
of copy to original but only one of scale. Models do not have originals. We cannot say whether the “original” was the machine or the model—whether the model was scaled down or the machine scaled up.43 When a model was entered as evidence of the claim to be covered by the privilege, it functioned as the invention itself—it presented the invention. Furthermore, models were used not so much as static boundary markers of the invention’s claim but rather as a way to demonstrate the functioning of the
context of his concern about the bureaucratization of the courts and the loss of a “legal mind” behind judicial opinions. Joseph Vining, “Law and Enchantment: The Place of Belief,” Mich. L. Rev. 86:3 (Dec. 1987): 577–597, at 577; “Justice, Bureaucracy, and Legal Method,” Mich. L. Rev. 80:2 (Dec. 1981): 248–258, at 253. 3. 17 U.S. Code Sec. 102(a)(1). 4. U.S. Constitution, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8. 5. Oren Bracha, “Geniuses and Owners: The Construction of Inventors and the Emergence of American
to Inventors, p. 1. 51. Hints to Inventors, pp. 3–5. 52. Hints to Inventors, p. 7, italics and font changes omitted. 53. United States Patent Law, 1863, p. 23. 54. United States Patent Law, 1863, p. 34, emphasis in original. 55. Scientific American Reference Book, 1876, p. 10. 56. Paul Israel, Edison: A Life of Invention (New York: Wiley, 1998), p. 80. 57. For examples of Edison’s work with patent attorneys, see Reese V. Jenkins et al., The Papers of Thomas A. Edison (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
“Possessing Culture”: Political Economies of Community Subjects and Their Properties. In M. Busse and V. Strang, eds., Ownership and Appropriation. London: Berg, 105–127. ———. (2009). The Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and their Politics, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 5: 493–518. ———. (2005a). Protecting Traditional Environmental Knowledge and New Social Movements in the Americas: Intellectual Property, Human Right or Claims to an Alternative Form of Sustainable Development?
Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) was charged with making suggestions for changes to the law with respect to software. It was therefore only in 1980 that Congress implemented these changes and explicitly added software to chapter 17 of the U.S. Copyright Statute as something that could be considered copyrightable by law.32 The 1980 amendment to the copyright law answered one of three lingering questions about the copyrightability of software: is software copyrightable? Congress