Archive for the ‘Innovation’ Category
posted by Orly Lobel
What a rollercoaster week of incredibly thoughtful reviews of Talent Wants to Be Free! I am deeply grateful to all the participants of the symposium. In The Age of Mass Mobility: Freedom and Insecurity, Anupam Chander, continuing Frank Pasquale’s and Matt Bodie’s questions about worker freedom and market power, asks whether Talent Wants to Be Free overly celebrates individualism, perhaps at the expense of a shared commitment to collective production, innovation, and equality. Deven Desai in What Sort of Innovation? asks about the kinds of investments and knowledge that are likely to be encouraged through private markets versus. And in Free Labor, Free Organizations,Competition and a Sports Analogy Shubha Ghosh reminds us that to create true freedom in markets we need to look closely at competition policy and antitrust law. These question about freedom/controls; individualism/collectivity; private/public are coming from left and right. And rightly so. These are fundamental tensions in the greater project of human progress and Talent Wants to Be Free strives to shows how certain dualities are pervasive and unresolvable. As Brett suggested, that’s where we need to be in the real world. From an innovation perspective, I describe in the book how “each of us holds competing ideas about the essence of innovation and conflicting views about the drive behind artistic and inventive work. The classic (no doubt romantic) image of invention is that of exogenous shocks, radical breakthroughs, and sweeping discoveries that revolutionize all that was before. The lone inventor is understood to be driven by a thirst for knowledge and a unique capacity to find what no one has seen before. But the solitude in the romantic image of the lone inventor or artist also leads to an image of the insignificance of place, environment, and ties…”. Chapter 6 ends with the following visual:
Dualities of Innovation:
Individual / Collaborative
Passion / Profit
And yet, the book takes on the contrarian title Talent Wants to Be Free! We are at a moment in history in which the pendulum has shifted too far. We have too much, not too little, controls over information, mobility and knowledge. We uncover this imbalance through the combination of a broad range of methodologies: historical, empirical, experimental, comparitive, theoretical, and normative. These are exciting times for innovation research and as I hope to convince the readers of Talent, insights from all disciplines are contributing to these debates.
November 16, 2013 at 12:56 pm Posted in: Antitrust, Articles and Books, Behavioral Law and Economics, Book Reviews, Bright Ideas, Economic Analysis of Law, Empirical Analysis of Law, Employment Law, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Law and Psychology, Symposium (Talent Wants to be Free), Technology Print This Post No Comments
posted by Shubha Ghosh
I have enjoyed the discussion on Orly’s book and thought of an interesting analogy to sports that is worth sharing. The inspiration was Haddock, Jacobi, & Sag, “League Structure & Stadium Rent Seeking–The Role of Antitrust Revisited,” 65 Florida Law Review 1 (2013), an offprint of which appeared in my box the other day. I recommend the article for those interested in regional economic development, sports franchising, antitrust and composing a title for an academic article without using a colon. The ideas below are inspired by the article but represent my own views, not those of the authors.
Free agency in sports is desirable along the lines of Orly’s argument. Talented players are not locked into a particular team and can auction their skills off to the highest bidder. I think the case is strong for free agency as benefitting individuals and society. One can complain about rent seeking and about the dynamics that lead to improper behavior like doping. As far as rent seeking, it is a loaded term like piracy or pornography, acting more as a conclusive label rather than an analytical concept. Orly’s argument supports rent seeking when it benefits talent and helps to unlock it. As far as the dark side of competition (doping or cheating), those can be handled through other means than limiting free agency.
Does the free agency argument translate over into the firm or organizational level? As Haddock, Jacobi, & Sag point out, there is lots of wasteful behavior as sports teams threaten to move in order to get better franchise deals from cities. I understand their argument to be that the industrial structure of sports franchises in the United States leads to such opportunistic behavior as strapped and often desperate cities cannot effectively respond to the threat of exit by a team. They contrast the US sports team structure with that in the UK, where teams rely more on fan support rather than public subsidies. Consequently, municipalities often have several sports teams that compete among themselves.
I found this example fascinating for the purposes of this symposium. First of all, the free agency point maps readily onto Orly’s point. Competition among players is perhaps more effective and arguably more fair than competition among teams where players are locked into the firm and its mechanisms (if any) for internal competition. At the same time, arguments for free competition do not readily transfer over to the franchising level given the industrial organization of teams and their relationship with cities. The answer to the problems Haddock et al. identify for sports franchising in the US lies in altering the political and market structure within which bargaining and competition for franchises occur. The example illustrates the relationship between individual mobility, competition internal to an organization, and the background structure of competition that defines how interactions among and within organizations play out.
posted by Deven Desai
There is a hidden paradox in Talent Wants to be Free: There is time to lock down, and a time to set free (maybe to sow, reap, and more too). Lobel notes that some work indicates that early stage industries may benefit from lock down. But she also makes the observation that a company locking down talent may be in decline. What can we make of this possible paradox?
I think that it shows how difficult it is for any company or industry to truly innovate. As Lobel notes, when things plateau, talent should be loosened up. Why? I suggest that the old hack of the Innovator’s Dilemma is in play. As a company is used to a certain business there are many reasons it won’t move on to the next thing. And it may not be able to see or be willing to work on the next thing. The folks who are into crazy late night work, start-up adrenaline, and the chance to press the edge of whatever field they are in find that the company has become stale. That may also be an industry. I believe that the convergence of businesses is part of why Silicon Valley companies looked to limit talent movement. They both did not want their core people help competitors build rival services and found that folks may be tempted to move to a seemingly new place. For example, a social network person may have jumped to Google to build Google + if their old firm was stable or a search technologist to Amazon or FaceBook, and so on. The respective verticals may be stale and converging. So the leaders start to find ways to keep labor in place (and probably sneak folks to their outfits as much as they can nonetheless). Is there another option? Sure.
Start a Bell Labs, Skunk Works, or Google X. In the short term at least, some of the best folks may stay and set up the next stage of your company. But as the scenario planning and related literature show, sooner or later the company will fail to turn that work into something. When that happens, some of the talent may be frustrated and leave. Again, the need for the payoff, the we planned for X and delivered X vortex takes hold and down the drain we spin. The upside is that other companies will lurk at the edge of the collapse and pick out the best of the wreckage. The key as Lobel argues is that the human capital be able to picked up. If not, the stalling, collapsing company keeps hold of good folks who might do great work elsewhere.
posted by Deven Desai
Professor Lobel’s book raises many questions. That is a good thing. I like books that connect to ideas that have been pinging about my brain and that spur new ones. Talent Wants to be Free does those things. For now, I will look at something that always lurks in this space for me: What type of innovation are we talking about?
I wonder about most discussions about innovation and disruption that focus on the private sector. Something, which for want of better or less exhausted words, we call innovation or disruption occurs at the firm level. But slowing down, we should parse these ideas. Marianna Mazzucuto has done some great work on the way the state is needed and has contributed to the innovations we all celebrate. Again, there are distinctions, as it may be that the work occurs at the state level (basic research), or that the state funded the core research. The counter-punch is that states may make big bets that pay off and they often make big bets that fail. That they fail seems a silly critic (though the linked Economist article makes it). I wonder whether any large institution struggles with two things. On the one hand, placing big bets at all takes bravery and/or vision. And on the other, what parts of the state or private sector carry forward that work is a big issue.
In other words, how much do market incentives skew focus for any of these outfits? Did Bell Labs or Parc do work that Mazzucuto would say was analogous to the state work? I think so. Today is Google doing some of that work? Microsoft Research? Sure. But in what way? The need for short-term payoffs is a problem for the core work that may then be transferred under Lobel’s ideals. Companies talk of moon shots and at the same time want them to occur within a year. Big leaps on the moon take years, perhaps more than a decade, of work to get to the wow moment.
Now it may be that an overall sector leads to great outcomes and breakthroughs, and thus the talent movement within a sector is needed as part of that process. Still I wonder at whether many of the areas the book considers and the issues about talent mobility relate more to applied innovations rather than bedrock work fueling a shift at a national or global economic scale. Remember Schumpeter drew on work that looked at long cycles and breakthroughs in fields that spawned many companies and sub-industries. So although I think it is wise to let talent be free, I wonder about whether that leads to better small steps (e.g., tweaks to phones, social networking, etc.) more than the sort of innovations that spur massive shifts in industry.
posted by Orly Lobel
I promised Victor Fleisher to return to his reflections on team production. Vic raised the issue of team production and the challenge of monitoring individual performance. In Talent Wants to Be Free I discuss some of these challenges in the connection to my argument that much of what firms try to achieve through restrictive covenants could be achieved through positive incentives:
“Stock options, bonuses, and profit-sharing programs induce loyalty and identification with the company without the negative effects of over-surveillance or over-restriction. Performance-based rewards increase employees’ stake in the company and increase their commitment to the success of the firm. These rewards (and the employee’s personal investment in the firm that is generated by them) can also motivate workers to monitor their co-workers. We now have evidence that companies that use such bonus structures and pay employees stock options outperform comparable companies .”
But I also warn:
“[W]hile stock options and bonuses reward hard work, these pay structures also present challenges. Measuring employee performance in innovative settings is a difficult task. One of the risks is that compensation schemes may inadvertently emphasize observable over unobservable outputs. Another risk is that when collaborative efforts are crucial, differential pay based on individual contribution will be counterproductive and impede teamwork, as workers will want to shine individually. Individual compensation incentives might lead employees to hoard information, divert their efforts from the team, and reduce team output. In other words, performance-based pay in some settings risks creating perverse incentives, driving individuals to spend too much time on solo inventions and not enough time collaborating. Even more worrisome is the fear that employees competing for bonus awards will have incentives to actively sabotage one another’s efforts.
A related potential pitfall of providing bonuses for performance and innovative activities is the creation of jealousy and a perception of unfairness among employees. Employees, as all of us do in most aspects of our lives, tend to overestimate their own abilities and efforts. When a select few employees are rewarded unevenly in a large workplace setting, employers risk demoralizing others. Such unintended consequences will vary in corporate and industry cultures across time and place, but they may explain why many companies decide to operate under wage compression structures with relatively narrow variance between their employees’ paychecks. For all of these concerns, the highly innovative software company Atlassian recently replaced individual performance bonuses with higher salaries, an organizational bonus, and stock options, believing that too much of a focus on immediate individual rewards depleted team effort.
Still, despite these risks, for many businesses the carrots of performance-based pay and profit sharing schemes have effectively replaced the sticks of controls. But there is a catch! Cleverly, sticks can be disguised as carrots. The infamous “golden handcuffs”- stock options and deferred compensation with punitive early exit trigger – can operate as de facto restrictive contracts….”
All this is in line with what Vic is saying about the advantages of organizational forms that encourage longer term attachment. But the fundamental point is that stickiness (or what Vic refers to as soft control) is already quite strong through the firm form itself, along with status quo biases, risk aversion, and search lags. The stickiness has benefits but it also has heavy costs when it is compounded and infused with legal threats.
November 15, 2013 at 12:05 am Posted in: Behavioral Law and Economics, Bright Ideas, Contract Law & Beyond, Corporate Finance, Corporate Law, Economic Analysis of Law, Empirical Analysis of Law, Employment Law, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Symposium (Talent Wants to be Free), Technology, Uncategorized Print This Post No Comments
posted by Anupam Chander
In Talent Wants to Be Free, Orly Lobel’s masterfully demonstrates the importance to business, employees, and society at large of workers who are free to move and free to innovate. The symposium this week has seen well-deserved praise heaped on the book from many of the nation’s leading scholars in the area. Lobel, a legal academic, explains the law in a way that non-lawyers (and even lawyers seeking a summary of the law of covenants not to compete, confidentiality agreements, and trade secret) will greatly appreciate.
The shift she describes is part of the larger move from status to contract that has marked modernity—a world in which individuals make and remake themselves. I have myself embraced this model in my own way in my book The Electronic Silk Road. I accordingly find myself entirely sympathetic to Lobel’s prescription. In that book, I describe and embrace the ways that production processes are now splintered across the globe, with global supply chains now including services, not just manufactured parts, supplied in disparate locations. There is liberation implicit in this—on the Internet, no one knows what class or caste into which you were born (though cultural markers are never entirely absent, even in cyberspace). Equally important, it allows individuals in developing countries to participate in lucrative markets in developed countries that would deny those individuals visas.
When I moved to Northern California a decade and a half ago, I carried my Midwestern and East Coast sensibilities with me. When a former student told me he was leaving his job after just one year at one of the leading technology law firms, Wilson, Sonsini, I was not entirely sure this was wise. He joined an important Silicon Valley operating company, and worked there for two or three years. He surprised me by then informing me that he was returning to Wilson, Sonsini. I would have thought that his leaving his law firm after such a short time might have made him persona non grata there, but he returned there certainly a lot more knowledgeable about the needs of the firm’s clients. Wilson, Sonsini clearly understood the virtues of freedom of employees—seeing it not as a sign of instability or disloyalty, but a marker of curiosity, dynamism, and ambition. Lobel would certainly approve, both of the employee and of the employer.
posted by Orly Lobel
Each in his own sharp and perceptive way, Brett Frischmann, Frank Pasquale and Matthew Bodie present what are probably the hardest questions that the field of human capital law must contemplate. Brett asks about a fuller alternative vision for line drawing between freedom and control. He further asks how we should strike the balance between regulatory responses and private efforts in encouraging more openness. Finally, he raises the inevitable question about the tradeoffs between nuanced, contextual standards (what, as Brett points out, I discuss as the Goldilocks problem) versus rigid absolute rules (a challenge that runs throughout IP debates and more broadly throughout law). Frank and Matt push me on the hardest problems for any politically charged debate: the distributive, including inadvertent and co-optive, effects of my vision. I am incredibly grateful to receive these hard questions even though I am sure I am yet to uncover fully satisfying responses. Brett writes that he wanted more when the book ended and yes, there will be more. For one, Brett wanted to hear more about the commons and talent pools. I have been invited to present a new paper, The New Cognitive Property in the Spring at a conference called Innovation Beyond IP at Yale and my plan is to write more about the many forms of knowledge that need to be nurtured, nourished, and set free in our markets.
Matt describes his forthcoming paper where he demonstrates that “employment” is reliant on our theory and idea of the firm: we have firms to facilitate joint production but we need to complicate our vision of what that joint production, including from a governance perspective, looks like. “Employers are people too” Matt reminds us, as he asks, “Do some of the restrictions we are talking about look less onerous if we think of employers as groups of people?” And my answer is yes, of course there is a lot of room for policy and contractual arrangements that prevent opportunism and protect investment: my arguments have never been of the anarchic flavor “let’s do away with all IP, duties of loyalty, and contractual restrictions”. Rather, as section 2 (chapters 3-8) of Talent Wants to Be Free is entitled we need to Choose Our Battles. The argument is nicely aligned with the way Peter Lee frames it: we have lots of forms of control, we have many tools, including positive tool, to create the right incentives, let us now understand how we’ve gotten out of balance, how we’ve developed an over-control mentality that uses legitimate concerns over initial investment and risks of opportunism and hold-up to allow almost any form of information and exchange to be restricted. So yes: we need certain forms of IP – we have patents, we have copyright, we have trademark. Each one of these bodies of law too needs to be examined in its scope and there is certainly some excess out there but in general: we know where we stand. But what about human capital beyond IP? And what about ownership over IP between employees and employers?
So yes, we need joint inventorship doctrines for sure when two inventors work together. But what about firm-employee doctrines? Do we need work-for-hire and hired-to-invent doctrines? Here we arrive to core questions about the differences between employment versus joint ventures or partnerships between people. And even here, the argument is that we continue to need during employment certain firm protections over ownership. But the reality is that so many highly inventive and developed countries, diverse as Finland, Sweden, Korea, Japan, Germany, and China, all have drawn more careful lines about what can fall under “service inventions” or inventions produced within a corporation. These countries have some requirement for fair compensation of the employee, some stake in inventions, rather than a carte blanche to everything produced within the contours of the firm. The key is a continuous notion of sharing, fairness and boundaries that we’ve lost sight of. Intense line-drawing as Brett would have it that is based on context and evidence, not on an outdated version of the meaning of free markets.
What about non-competes and trade secrets? Again, my argument is that these protections alternate, they should be discussed in relation to one another, and we need to understand their logic, goals, and the cost/benefit of each given that they exist in a spectrum. Non-competes is the harshest restriction: an absolute prohibition post-employment to continue in one’s professional path outside the corporation. This is unnecessary. The empirics are there to support their absolute ban rather than the fine dance that of balancing that is needed with some of the other protections. Sure it makes life momentarily easier for those who want to use non-competes, but over time, not only can we all live without that harsh tool, we will actually benefit from ceding that chemical weapon in the battle over brains and instead employ more conventional arms. And yet, even in California, this insight doesn’t and shouldn’t extend to partnerships. The California policy against non-competes is limited to the employment context. If two people, as in Matt’s hypo, are together forming a business, their joint property rights in that business suggest to us that allowing some form of a covenant not to compete will be justified. There will still be a cost to positive externalities but the difference between the two forms of relationships allow for absolute ban in one and a standard of reasonableness for the other. And yes, as Brett alludes to, the world is not black and white and we will have to tread carefully in our distinctions between employees and partners.
I completely agree with Matt and Frank that there are fundamental injustices created by our entire regime of work law. Talent Wants to Be Free takes those deep structures into account in developing the more immediate and positive vision for better innovation regimes and richer talent pools. Matt writes that a more radical alternative lies within Talent but “deserves more exegesis: namely, whether we should eliminate the concept of employment entirely.” What if people will always be independent contractors?, he asks. The reforms promoted in Talent Wants to Be Free, allowing more employees more control over their human capital, indeed bring these two categories – employees and independent contractors – closer together in some respects. But far more would be needed to shift our work relations to be more “democratic and egalitarian: a post-industrial Jeffersonian economy.” As both Frank and Matt show, in their own scholarship and in their provocative comments here, this will require us to rethink so much of the world we live in.
Frank Pasquale’s review is so rich that I hope he extends and publishes it as a full article. Frank says that “for every normative term that animates [Orly’s] analysis (labor mobility, freedom of contract, innovation, creative or constructive destruction) there is a shadow term (precarity, exploitation, disruption, waste) that goes unexplored.” I would agree that the background rules that define our labor market, at will employment, inequality, class and power relations, are not themselves the target of the book. They do however deeply inform my analysis. To me, the symmetry I draw between job insecurity and the need for job opportunity is not what Frank describes as a “comforting symmetry”. It is a call for the partial correction of an outrageous asymmetry. And yes, as I mentioned at the very beginning of the symposium, I hoped in writing the book to shift some of the debates about human capital from the stagnating repetition of arguments framed as business-labor which I view not only as paralyzing and strategically unwise but also as simply incorrect and distorting. There is so much more room for win-win than both businesses and labor seem to believe. On that level, I think Frank and I actually disagree about what we would define as abuse. I do in fact believe that many of us can passionately decide to give monetary gains in return for a job that provides intangible benefits of doing something we love to do. Is that always buying into the corporate fantasy? Is that always exploitation? Don’t all of us do that when we become scholars? Still, of course I agree with many of the concrete examples that Frank raises as exploitation and precarious work – he points to domestic workers, which is a subject I have written about in a few articles (which I just realized I should probably put on ssrn - Family Geographies: Global Care Chains, Transnational Parenthood, and New Legal Challenges in an Era of Labor Globalization, 5 CURRENT LEGAL ISSUES 383 (2002) and Class and Care, 24 HARVARD WOMEN’S LAW JOURNAL 89 (2001)]. Frank describes a range of discontent in such celebrated workplaces as Silicon Valley giants, which I too am concerned with and have thought about how new hyped up forms of employment can become highly coercive. Freeing up more of our human capital is huge, but yes, I agree, it doesn’t solve all the problems of our world and by no means should my arguments about the California advantage in the region’s approach to human capital and knowledge flow be read as picturing everything and anything Californian as part of a romantic ideal.
November 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm Posted in: Behavioral Law and Economics, Book Reviews, Bright Ideas, Empirical Analysis of Law, Employment Law, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Law and Inequality, Law and Psychology, Symposium (Talent Wants to be Free), Technology, Uncategorized Print This Post No Comments
posted by Orly Lobel
Both Vic Fleisher and Shubha Ghosh in their thoughtful commentary about Talent Wants to Be Free invoke the theory of the firm to raise question about the extent of desirable freedom in talent and knowledge flows. In its basic iteration, the theory of the firm suggests that arms-length contracting will not be optimal when one party has the ability to renegotiate and hold the other party up, which is the conventional rational for the desirability of talent controls. This is what I describe in the book as the Orthodox Model of employment intellectual property: firms fear making relational investment in employees and then having the employees renegotiate the contract under a threat of exit. Firms respond through mobility restrictions aimed at eliminating the transaction costs of this kind of opportunism. In the book, I accept, at least for some situations, this aspect of the benefits and confidence that are created for firms in internalizing production and ensuring ongoing loyalty by all players. The orthodox model thus explains post-employment controls as necessary to encourage optimal investment within the corporation. More company controls = more internal R&D and human capital investment. The new model developed in the book doesn’t deny these benefits but argues that the orthodox model is incomplete. The Dynamic-Dyadic Model asks about the costs and benefits when controls are employed. It suggests that yes, often, protecting human capital and trade secret investments is often in the immediate interest of a company, but that too much control becomes a double-edged sword. This is because of both the demotivating effects on employee performance when lateral markets are reduced and because over-time, although information leakage and job-hopping by talented workers may provide competitors with undue know-how, expertise, and technologies, constraining mobility reduces knowledge spillovers and information sharing that outweigh the occasional losses. The enriched model is supported by a growing body of empirical evidence that finds that regions with less controls and more talent freedom, such as California, have in fact more R&D investment, quicker economic growth and greater innovation.
Vic is of course right that one solution to this problem is to recreate high-powered (market-like) incentives for performance within the firm. This is an aspect that I am greatly interested in and I analyze it in Talent Wants to Be Free as the question of whether controls and restrictions can effectively alternate with the carrots of performance-based compensation, vesting interests, loyalty inducing work environments, employee stock options and so forth. I too like Shubha am a fan of Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty and have found it useful in analyzing employment relations. I view the behavioral research as shedding light on these questions of what these intra-firm incentives need to look like in order to preserve the incentive to innovate. In a later post I will elaborate on the monitoring and motivational tradeoffs that exist in individual and group performance.
More generally, though, the research suggests that at least in certain industries, most paradigmatically fast-paced, high-tech fields, innovation is most likely when the contracting environments have thick networks of innovators that are mobile (i.e. Silicon valley) and firms themselves are horizontally networked. The flow of talent and ideas is important to innovation and rigid boundaries of the firm can stifle that interaction even with the right intra-firm incentives. The benefits in terms of innovation rise in these structures of denser inter-firm connections, but also, the costs of opportunism that drive the conventional wisdom are in fact lower than the traditional theory of the firm would predict. This is because talent mobility is a repeated game and at any given moment, a firm can be on either side of the raiding and poaching. Policies against talent controls have the effect of reducing the costs of opportunistic renegotiation by ensuring the firm can hire replacement innovators when it loses its people. To push back on Vic’s phrasing, talent wants to be appreciated and free. MIT economist Daron Acemoglu’s analysis of investments and re-investments in workers as a key ingredient of production and growth is helpful in understanding some of this dynamic. People invest in their own human capital without knowing the exact work they will eventually do, just as companies must make investment decisions in technology and capital funds without always knowing who they will end up hiring. Acemoglu describes the positive upward trajectory under these conditions of uncertainty: When workers invest more in their human capital, businesses will invest more because of the prospects of acquiring good talent. In turn, workers will invest more in their human capital as they may end up in one or more of these companies. The likelihood of finding good employers creates incentives for overall investments in human capital.
November 13, 2013 at 1:12 am Posted in: Behavioral Law and Economics, Economic Analysis of Law, Empirical Analysis of Law, Employment Law, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Symposium (Talent Wants to be Free), Technology, Uncategorized Print This Post No Comments
posted by Orly Lobel
This is a thrilling week for Talent Wants to Be Free. I am incredibly honored and grateful to all the participants of the symposium and especially to Deven Desai for putting it all together. It’s only Monday morning, the first official day of the symposium, and there are already a half a dozen fantastic posts up, all of which offer so much food for thought and so much to respond to. Wow! Before posting responses to the various themes and comments raised in the reviews, I wanted to write a more general introductory post to describe the path, motivation, and goals of writing the book.
Talent Wants to Be Free: Why We Should Learn to Love Leaks, Raids and Free Riding comes at a moment in time in which important developments in markets and research have coincided, pushing us to rethink innovation policy and our approaches to human capital. First, the talent wars are fiercer than ever and the mindset of talent control is rising. The stats about the rise of restrictions over human capital across industries and professions are dramatic. Talent poaching is global, acquisition marathons increasingly focus on the people and their skills and potential for innovation as much as they look at the existing intellectual property of the company. And corporate espionage is the subject of heated international debates. Second, as a result of critical mass of new empirical studies coming out of business schools, law, psychology, economics, geography, we know so much more today compared to just a few years ago about what supports and what hinders innovation. The theories and insights I develop in the book attempt to bring together my behavioral research and economic analysis of employment law, including my experimental studies about the effects of non-competes on motivation, my theoretical and collaborative experimental studies about employee loyalty and institutional incentives, and my scholarship about the changing world of work, along with theories about endogenous growth and agglomeration economies by leading economists, such as Paul Romer and Michael Porter, and new empieircal field studies by management scholars such as Mark Garmaise, Olav Sorenson, Sampsa Samila, Matt Marx, and Lee Fleming. Third, as several of the posts point out, these are exciting times because legislatures and courts are actually interested in thinking seriously about innovation policy and have become more receptive to new evidence about the potential for better reforms.
As someone who teaches and writes in the fields of employment law, I wrote the book in the hopes that we can move beyond what I viewed as a stale conversation that framed these issues of non-competes, worker mobility, trade secrets and ownership over ideas as labor versus business; protectionism versus free markets (as is often the case with other key areas of my research such as whistleblowing and discrimination). A primary goal was to shift the debate to include questions about how human capital law affects competitiveness and growth more generally. Writing about work policy, my first and foremost goal is to understand the nature of work in its many evolving iterations. Often in these debates we get sidetracked. While we have an active ongoing debate about the right scope of intellectual property, under the radar human capital controls have been expanding, largely without serious public conversation. My hope has been to encourage broad and sophisticated exchanges between legal scholars, policymakers, business leaders, investors, and innovators.
And still, there is so much more to do! The participants of the symposium are pushing me forward with next steps. The exchanges this week will certainly help crystalize a lot of the questions that were beyond the scope of the single book and several new projects are already underway. I will mention in closing a couple of other colleagues who have written about the book elsewhere and hope they too will join in the conversation. These include a thoughtful review by Raizel Liebler on The Learned FanGirl, a Q&A with CO’s Dan Solove, and other advance reviews here. Once again, let me say how grateful and appreciative I am to all the participants. Nothing is more rewarding.
November 11, 2013 at 5:25 pm Posted in: Behavioral Law and Economics, Book Reviews, Corporate Law, Economic Analysis of Law, Empirical Analysis of Law, Employment Law, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Symposium (Talent Wants to be Free), Technology, Uncategorized Print This Post No Comments
posted by Peter Lee
Orly’s ambitious and thought-provoking book covers a significant amount of intellectual ground. She deftly navigates covenants not to compete, nondisclosure agreements, trade secrets, and intellectual property assignments to provide a compelling argument for the free flow of talent in the modern economy. Orly’s work raises a host of questions that space constraints no doubt prevented her from more fully exploring, and I would encourage her to extend her analyses in subsequent work.
One aspect of Orly’s work that I found particularly intriguing is that it reveals a central irony about information. The title of her book is a play on Stewart Brand’s famous phrase “information wants to be free.” While this statement has a contemporary ring, the observation that information is “slippery” and readily appropriable has a long pedigree and has had significant legal and policy ramifications. As Orly notes, Thomas Jefferson invoked the freely appropriable nature of technical information to help justify exclusive rights on inventions. More formally, economists have long characterized technical knowledge as a public good that is nonrival, nonexcludable, and capable of nearly costless transmission. The “slipperiness” of technical information is now largely taken for granted and provides significant theoretical justification for exclusive rights on knowledge assets. Indeed, IP scholars such as Polk Wagner have argued that information’s natural tendency to slip through cracks and build upon itself should alleviate concerns that strict exclusive rights can bottle up knowledge. Information, after all, wants to be free.
Orly’s account of the talent wars, however, reveals that much information does not naturally want to be free. As Orly recognizes, much technical information is tacit and personal to a particular creator or inventor. Such tacit knowledge takes the form of intangible know-how that is difficult and sometimes impossible to codify. Importantly, even when an invention is disclosed in a patent, much valuable technical knowledge related to that invention often remains tacit and is not formally shared. The inadequacy of patent disclosure and the difficulty of transmitting tacit knowledge create a need for companies licensing patents to somehow obtain this information. This is evident, for example, in university patenting and technology transfer, a field that Orly addresses. Empirical accounts of academic technology transfer show that private companies, in parallel to licensing university patents, often seek direct interactions with faculty inventors precisely to obtain their patent-related tacit knowledge.
The tacit, sticky nature of technical information relates to another theme that permeates Orly’s work: agglomeration economies and the importance of place. In theory, patents adequately disclose the inventions they cover, which has the effect of reducing transaction costs in licensing negotiations. Among other implications, such ex ante disclosure should make licensing negotiations less sensitive to geographic proximity; at least with respect to appropriating technical knowledge, a potential licensee should not have a great need to interact directly with an inventor, for the patent itself discloses the technology. However, empirical studies of academic licensing show that licenses tend to cluster around licensor universities. To be sure, a host of factors helps explain such clustering, from universities’ commitment to local economic development to the spatially concentrated nature of professional networks (a theme that Orly also highlights). But the need for faculty inventors to literally sit down with licensee firms to convey patent-related tacit knowledge also contributes to such agglomeration. While some information can be transmitted by reading a patent a thousand miles away, sometimes transferring patent-related technical knowledge requires side-by-side demonstrations of a new technology or that ever-valuable personal conversation over a cup of coffee.
In subtle ways, Orly’s work thus offers a cogent exposition of the limits of patent law and formal technology transfer. In theory, the patent system provides a public repository of technical knowledge from which all can draw in their innovative pursuits. At the very least, licensees themselves should be able to rely on the disclosure of patents to adapt licensed inventions for commercial use. However, much information is not freely appropriable. Even when an invention is disclosed, much information remains tacit and personal to the inventor. Thus, patents are inherently limited as a vehicle for disclosing and transferring technologies, thereby creating a need for much costlier, geographically constrained, tacit knowledge transfer between individuals.
In a broader sense, Orly’s observations highlight an interesting paradox about the “freedom” of information. In the classic economic account, the ease of appropriating technical information represents a problem. This problem is resolved by subjecting technical information to exclusive rights, thus shoring up incentive to invent. However, Orly’s study reveals that much information is subject to a different problem: it is too difficult to appropriate, as it resists formal codification and disclosure. This creates a need for a different type of policy intervention, one that focuses on enhancing the mobility of the underlying sources of information—people—rather than information itself. Paradoxically, the fact that much information is not truly free provides all the more reason that the talent generating that information should be.
November 11, 2013 at 12:46 pm Tags: human capital, innovation, patent law, tacit knowledge Posted in: Innovation, Intellectual Property, Symposium (Talent Wants to be Free), Technology, Uncategorized Print This Post No Comments
posted by Brett Frischmann
I applaud Orly for this excellent contribution. There is much to praise and much to comment on. I was particularly attracted to the interdisciplinary perspective of the book and its heavy reliance on and reporting of studies in economics, psychology, and other literatures—including but not limited to Orly’s original research. The book provides an excellent discussion of various dimensions of innovation studies. It also provides compelling descriptions of many different real world contexts where the lessons from the academic studies play out on the ground. The combination is quite amazing. I also think it is quite important that she focused attention on people, and the human, social and intellectual capital that actually drives innovation across sectors. Too often, innovation studies lose sight of the actual people involved. Orly’s book covers so much ground and connects with various topics I’m also interested in. It is difficult for me to pick a particular topic of theme to comment on in this blog post. (I’m tempted, for example, to push her to say more about technology transfer offices at universities and how they’ve evolved over time in terms of their approach to control. I also would like to hear *much* more about the application of commons governance ideas.) Instead, I’ll say something about the broad ambition of the book.
Orly presents the book as new wisdom – a “dynamic model” — to challenge conventional wisdom – the “orthodox model” – about the necessity of strict control over talented employees, ideas, and various other complementary resources that drive creative and innovative progress and economic growth. I think the book does a wonderful job of pointing out the many ways in which theoretical and empirical work across many fields of inquiry combine to challenge if not completely undermine the conventional wisdom. Controls on the flow of ideas and employees often backfire and are costly to the firm and the public. Orly describes very well the substantial benefits – benefits all too often ignored or assumed away – in sustaining the freedom to operate, to move, to experiment, to tinker, and so on. She effectively makes the case for a much more nuanced approach to thinking about innovation and the various ways in which freedom (to operate, to move, to think, to experiment, to ride, etc.) impact innovation and social welfare more generally.
That said, I don’t think the book supplies a fully formed alternative vision, theory or model about what degree of control/freedom may be needed to sustain innovation. The Goldilocks nature of the problem, which Orly describes, surfaces throughout, and it is hard to know where or how to strike the right balances as a matter of public policy (law) and private strategy (corporate practice). The book at times seems to suggest that it will offer a solution or that the solution might be absolute freedom / no control. But that is not really what the book ends up saying, as I understand it. In the end, we remain stuck with the problem of nuance and variety and context- or industry-specific balancing. Frankly, I don’t think this is a bad result at all; it’s probably where we need to be if we’re basing our judgments in reality.
For some reason, I was surprised when the book ended. I wanted more. I expected more. In a sense, this is a good thing because the book provoked me to think about and look for more. But I wonder whether the final part of the book could have tied the themes together a bit more tightly and at least proposed a research agenda for developing a more nuanced approach to innovation. Many of the pieces of the puzzle are in Orly’s book. But the puzzle remains incomplete.
posted by Deven Desai
This week Concurring Opinions is hosting a symposium on Professor Orly Lobel’s book, Talent Wants to be Free: Why We Should Learn to Love Leaks, Raids, and Free Riding. In simplest terms, Professor Lobel takes on some thorny problems in innovation policy debates including whether to lock down talent and ideas or to embrace the movement of people and knowledge. Though these tensions seem easy to understand, the natural desire to keep what one has means arguments to tie up whatever seems to be giving one an advantage creates larger debates about optimal control and outcomes. Professor Lobel’s work tangles with these core ideas and more.
Professor Lobel is leading thinker on the intersection of employment law, intellectual property law, regulatory and administrative law, torts, behavioral economics, health policy, consumer law and trade secrets as they relate to innovation. She is the Don Weckstein Professor of Labor and Employment Law at University of San Diego School of Law and holds an SJD and LLM fro Harvard as well as an LLB from Tel Aviv University. She is a member of the American Law Institute and the recipient of research grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the American Bar Association litigation Fund, the Searle-Kauffman Fellowship, the Southern California Innovation Project, and Netspar, University of Tilburg. We are honored to have her join us for the symposium as our great list of guest authors engage with her book.
Our line-up of authors include Matt Bodie, Anupam Chander, Danielle Citron, Catherine Fisk, Vic Fleischer, Brett Frischmann, Shubha Ghosh, Ron Gilson, Peter Lee, and Frank Pasquale. We look forward to everyone’s contributions.
posted by Shubha Ghosh
Orly’s book is terrific. Let’s just get that straight. The book is filled with the kind of creative energy that Orly’s reform proposals seek to release. But the emerging (or worse, entrenched) fud in me had to react to the celebration of freedom that the book exhorts. Throughout the past several centuries of human history, perhaps through all of human history, appeals to freedom have interrupted periods of dominance, control, and centralization. “Talent Wants to be Free” is another example of the pendulum swinging away from centralized control. Whether that is a rightward or leftward swing, I will leave for others to sort out. While Orly does not extol “stealing this book,” the arguments against over regulation by government (in the form of strong intellectual property laws) and against overly bureaucraticized mega-corporations have a Hoffmanesque quality. Of course, nothing wrong with that, but the skeptic in me wonders if unalloyed freedom is unquestionably a good thing.
Orly appeals to competition as an engine of innovation, and she points to many examples that limit the liberating force of competition. The proposition that competition fuels innovation is hard for anyone, in my mind, to contest. Harder still is understanding what competition is. Spencerian renditions of Darwin as applied to social dynamics has been a recipe for disaster and elitism, leading to the very concentration that Orly decries. If competition is meant to guide innovation, it cannot be hard core laissez-faire. Is competition then the nicely diagrammed exposition of Econ 101, channeling Alfred Marshall into prices being driven to MC and minimum AC, profits dissipated, surpluses maximized, or perhaps the more elaborate auctioneering process Pareto optimally? Although an elegant formulation, the technical rendition of the dirty world of markets ignores the details of transactions and transacting, the role of legal rules and of technicians like corporate attorneys, accountants, and bankers. Perhaps Coase has the right take on competition as a form of endless bargaining and negotiation as social costs and benefits are readily transformed, transaction costs willing, into private ones. I have no doubt that competition drives innovation, but the hard question is what kind of competition. It is easy, however, to translate competition into unfettered freedom. That translation in my mind does not wholly work.
What is lost in translation by rendering competition as ”freedom” is recognizing the need for organization to help free individuals reach their potential. Organization writ large here includes the family, the school, the business entity, and, yes, the state. Freedom without organization is anarchy and anarchy leads to either dissipation of energy into entropy (and yes that is a nod to the ideas of Thomas Pynchon, especially Gravity’s Rainbow in which flights of freedom give way Icarus-like to crashing and destruction) or to dominance and concentration by the powerful (another nod). Neither is conducive to innovation.
Although Orly makes somes reference to Coase, I felt that there was not appreciation of his “A Theory of the Firm,” which demonstrated that organization within an entity might be preferable to the freedom of exchange that is a hallmark of competition. But Coase’s notion of the firm was not supplanting competition, Instead, by internalizing exchange, competition of sorts is brought into the organization as individuals vie for position within the hierarchy. In this way, Coase is not justifying the Soviet state or centralized planning, both of which are ineffective and in opposition to innovation. Instead, consistent with Orly’s vision of freedom, the Coasean firm internalizes competition but also must confront competition that occurs through exit or dissent in order to avoid the exact forms of concentration that Orly correctly finds as antithetical to innovation.
My point here is that freedom is worthless without some form of organization that provides soil for freedom’s fruit. One example of this is the concern over D2P, a new acronym a colleague recently assaulted on my overly taxed brain. It stands for “Distribution to Product” and refers to the difficulty of going from labs to markets. Freedom within the university certainly leads to the creation of all sorts of inventions and new works. The problem is the lack of institutions for facilitating the movement from the creative stage to the commercialization stage. That movement is not dependent solely on the freedom of inventor, financier, marketer, and corporate attorney. Instead such movement is impeded by too much freedom and not enough organization. Perhaps I am just raising dull questions about practical details. But my point is that extolling freedom without organization may be as big a problem as extolling centralized control over freedom,
I will end with an advertisement for myself. I have been working on a piece on nonprice competition and intellectual property, and I plan to write it after I finish my articles on the Federal Circuit’s contract law jurisprudence and Holmes’ intellectual property jurisprudence at the Mass and US Supreme Courts. The nonprice competition piece draws on Hirshcman’s theory of nonprice competition from his “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.” Before I expand that piece into 50+ pages, let me try to distill that article-to-be into a few sentences.
Exit and voice serve as ways to promote competition through signals other than price. Orly’s book provides a vivid and forceful exposition of exit and voice as examples of freedom. But loyalty is necessary since organizations often act as the incubator for freedom. The problem is that loyalty can quash freedom through acts of provincialism, xenophobia, and blind faith. The difficult balance requires structuring loyalty so as not to supplant exit and voice but to channel those two freedoms into creating dynamic, evolving organizations that promote innovation. In short, organization without freedom is tyranny, but freedom, without organization, is anarchy, with all its attendant costs.
Heads Up 3D Printing and more: The Georgetown Law Journal Volume 102 Symposium: “Law in an Age of Disruptive Technology”
posted by Deven Desai
As you know Gerard and I have been working up our paper Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing and the Digitization of Things . It will be part of The Georgetown Law Journal Volume 102 Symposium: “Law in an Age of Disruptive Technology” which will take place on Friday November 8, 2013. There will be panels about driverless cars and mass surveillance as well. We hope to see many of you there. (RSVP at this link).
It is a great honor to be part of this lineup:
Keynote Address by Professor Neal Katyal
Chaired by Professors Deven Desai and Gerard Magliocca
Driverless Cars & Tort Liability
Chaired by Professor Bryant Walker Smith
Mass Surveillance Technology
Chaired by Professor Christopher Slobogin
posted by Deven Desai
Danielle and I are happy to announce that next week, Concurring Opinions will host an online symposium on Professor Anupam Chander’s The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce. Professor Chander is a professor at U.C. Davis’s King Hall School of Law. Senators, academics, trade representatives, and pundits laud the book for its clarity and the argument Professor Chander makes. He examines how the law can facilitate commerce by reducing trade barriers but argues that consumer interests need not be sacrificed:
On the ancient Silk Road, treasure-laden caravans made their arduous way through deserts and mountain passes, establishing trade between Asia and the civilizations of Europe and the Mediterranean. Today’s electronic Silk Roads ferry information across continents, enabling individuals and corporations anywhere to provide or receive services without obtaining a visa. But the legal infrastructure for such trade is yet rudimentary and uncertain. If an event in cyberspace occurs at once everywhere and nowhere, what law applies? How can consumers be protected when engaging with companies across the world?
But will the book hold up under our panel’s scrutiny? I think so but only after some probing and dialogue.
Our Panelists include Professor Chander as well as:
And of course
Danielle Citron and I will be there too.
October 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm Posted in: Cyberlaw, DRM, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Political Economy, Privacy, Symposium (The Electronic Silk Road), Technology, Trade, Web 2.0 Print This Post One Comment
posted by Amy Kapczynski
I’m writing this from an airplane somewhere over the US-Canadian border. I forgot my copy of Coding Freedom at home, and was cursing my ineptitude. But then it occurred to me that, given the subject, I could probably find a copy online. Sure enough, I downloaded a pdf via the airport wifi. (For free! – those Canadians…).
This, in the most mundane of ways, is a simple reenactment of what Gabriella Coleman writes of so compellingly in her new book. Gabriella, inspired no doubt in part by her years of exposure to hacking culture, struck a deal with her publishers. The resulting CC license gives all of us who might want to read the book more freedom to do what we want with it – read it on any device, search it, and even pull it up in an airport so we can file a nearly-too-late contribution to a terrific online discussion. Gabriella didn’t know I’d forget my book at home when she decided to negotiate the license. But she did have the sense – I assume – that she needed something more than copyright law to help her achieve what she wanted from her book. Which was in part to give to the rest of us more freedom than standard copyright law would allow.
But how far does that freedom go? This is surely one of the most important and interesting questions about this new form of making software, and the new legal forms that attend it. So that’s what I want to focus on here. One of the book’s great strengths is the spectacularly detailed and clear-eyed account that it provides of hacker culture, or at least a certain hacker culture. As it points out, this is a culture that is built upon a deep commitment to the pleasures of technology (like Ed Felten, I loved the bit on hacker humor), a ferocious conception of self-help and meritocratic ordering, and also to an overt aversion to things “political.”
As a few others have in the course of this discussion, I wonder too about the limits of a form of practical revolution that starts here. How far can this new mode of production take us, if it is characterized by technoelitism, an aversion to politics, and by a subject position that is decidedly fairly privileged and high-skilled? After all, you can’t be part of this crowd and lack access to a computer and internet connection, or be bereft of free time.
September 20, 2013 at 9:55 pm Tags: Coding Freedom, Hacking, innovation, Production Posted in: Innovation, Intellectual Property, Symposium (Coding Freedom), Technology, Uncategorized Print This Post No Comments
posted by Frank Pasquale
Magazines like The Economist mock industrial policy while piling praise on the private sector. But the more one knows about the intertwining of state and market in health care, defense, telecommunications, energy, and banking, the less realistic any strict divide between “public” and “private” appears. Moreover, even the internet sector, that last bastion of venture capital and risk-taking, is more a creature of state intervention than market forces. As Mariana Mazzucato argues:
Whether an innovation will be a success is uncertain, and it can take longer than traditional banks or venture capitalists are willing to wait. In countries such as the United States, China, Singapore, and Denmark, the state has provided the kind of patient and long-term finance new technologies need to get off the ground.
Apple is a perfect example. In its early stages, the company received government cash support via a $500,000 small-business investment company grant. And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the Internet, GPS, touch-screen displays, and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency bankrolled the Internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS. So, although the United States is sold to us as the model example of progress through private enterprise, innovation there has benefited from a very interventionist state.
VC’s and other financiers exaggerated their role in promoting innovation in order to get capital gains tax breaks. And while they retreat ever further from taking risks on game-changing advances in productivity, the tax breaks endure, starving the state of the revenues it needs to continue subsidizing innovation. The California Ideology gradually undoes its own material foundations, but its adherents are unfazed. They are content to reap the benefits of past decades of government investment. From Silicon Valley to Wall Street, seed corn is the tax-cutters’ favorite meal.
posted by Frank Pasquale
The stories we tell ourselves about inequality matter. As incomes of the top 0.1% and top 0.01% grow ever more stratospheric, “low wage workers are paid less now than they were from the 1950s-1970s.” Is this just, as Steve Schwartzman suggests, the natural consequence of globalization? Tim Harford suggested as much in the FT last week:
The uncomfortable truth is that market forces – that is, the result of freely agreed contracts – are probably behind much of the rise in inequality. Globalisation and technological change favour the highly skilled. . . . [A]t the very top, winner-take-all markets are emerging, where the best or luckiest entrepreneurs, fund managers, authors or athletes hoover up most of the gains.
The most important word in that paragraph is “luckiest.” What deserves comment is Harford’s argument that “freely agreed contracts” are deciding who is “hoovering up” the most. He elaborates a bit later:
Read the rest of this post »
posted by William McGeveran
In the hubbub surrounding this week’s acquisition of the blogging platform Tumblr by born-again internet hub Yahoo!, I thought one of the most interesting observations concerned the regulation of pornography. It led, by a winding path, to a topic near and dear to the Concurring Opinions gang: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally immunizes online intermediaries from liability for the contents of user-generated content. (Just a few examples of many ConOp discussions of Section 230: this old post by Dan Solove and a January 2013 series of posts by Danielle Citron on Section 230 and revenge porn here, here, and here.)
Apparently Tumblr has a very large amount of NSFW material compared to other sites with user-generated content. By one estimate, over 11% of the site’s 200,000 most popular blogs are “adult.” By my math that’s well over 20,000 of the site’s power users.
Predictably, much of the ensuing discussion focused on the implications of all that smut for business and branding. But Peter Kafka explains on All Things D that the structure of Tumblr prevents advertisements for family-friendly brands from showing up next to pornographic content. His reassuring tone almost let you hear the “whew” from Yahoo! investors (as if harm to brands is the only relevant consideration about porn — which, for many tech journalists and entrepreneurs, it is).
There is another potential porn problem besides bad PR, and it is legal. Lux Alptraum, writing in Fast Company, addressed it. (The author is, according to her bio, “a writer, sex educator, and CEO of Fleshbot, the web’s foremost blog about sexuality and adult entertainment.”) She somewhat conflates two different issues — understandably, since they are related — but that’s part of what I think is interesting. A lot of that user-posted porn is violating copyright law, or regulations meant to protect minors from exploitation, or both. To what extent might Tumblr be on the hook for those violations?
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Symposium on China’s Transition from Manufacturing to Innovation Economy Hosted by Cardozo Law Review’s Online Journal
NEW YORK, NY, April 29, 2013 — All eyes are on China in the twenty-first century, as it emerges as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. At the same time, losses in various industries are attributed to piracy—a substantial amount of which is alleged to occur within China’s borders—and the Chinese government is routinely criticized for its weak enforcement measures against counterfeiting activities and intellectual property infringement on its soil.Cardozo Law Review de•novo’s online symposium, “China Re-Rising?: Innovation and Collaboration for a Successful Twenty-First Century” focuses on China’s overall transition from a manufacturing to an innovation economy and how this transition affects IP policies and industries around the world.
The online symposium – located at http://cardozolawreview.com/de-novo-2013.html - features articles from practitioners, industry corporate counsel, professors, and Chinese IP law specialists. Esteemed participants include Chen Wang, the Deputy Chief IP Counsel of E.I. du Pont de Nemours Company; Jonathan Sallet, a Partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP; and Professor Peter Yu, the Kern Family Chair in Intellectual Property Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Law Center at Drake University Law School.
About the Articles:
Professor Yu discusses the slowly-begun change in discourse around China’s intellectual property system, particularly in the field of patents. He presents the reader with five key questions on the state of Chinese intellectual property law and policy. His answers suggest that the future of China’s intellectual property system is dualistic and dynamic—while massive piracy and counterfeiting does continue, this ongoing issue is balanced by China’s rise as a patent power.
Professors Murphy and Orcutt discuss China’s patent subsidy program—an aspect of China’s national innovation strategy that aims to increase domestic patents and innovation through government subsidies to pay for domestic inventors’ legal costs associated with obtaining patents. Noting that the program has been criticized for failing to fund truly valuable or innovative patents, the Authors propose a unique two-stage, three-dimensional relative value technique for the Chinese government to implement in evaluating whether to fund a given patent application through the subsidy program.
Ms. Wang and Mr. Sallet in turn criticize the Chinese government’s metric-based approach to innovation. They posit that China’s emphasis on numerical goals to domestic patenting actually hampers Chinese innovation by directing resources away from research and the development of truly valuable inventions. The Authors further discuss how China’s metric-based approach frustrates the ability of multi-national corporations to collaborate effectively with Chinese companies. They conclude by identifying steps the Chinese government can take to increase local innovation through effective international collaboration.
Professor Shao calls for a holistic perspective of the Chinese innovation economy, law, and policies. His Article offers a historical and cultural perspective that aims to make a holistic approach possible for Western scholars and practitioners, who lack the knowledge of Chinese history and culture necessary to understand the context of China’s current policies. He concludes by proposing that innovation still can, and should, be the bridge to China’s successful economic transition.
Professors Murphree and Breznitz discuss China’s innovation strategy through the lens of its failed attempts to develop globally successful technology standards. The Authors attribute these failures to fragmented production and structured uncertainty implicit in the Chinese domestic market. Despite these failures, the Authors acknowledge that Chinese companies’ participation in even failed attempts does produce tangible benefits, like receiving lower royalty rates on goods they produced.
View the online symposium at http://cardozolawreview.com/de-novo-2013.html