Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development

William van Caenegem, Christopher Arup

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Conclusion William van Caenegem and Christopher Arup The editors started out by articulating the sense that intellectual property (IP) law’s primary function in sustaining the realisation of creativity in society, whether in technology or the arts, was at risk of being relegated to secondary status. The growth of the edifice of IP law seemed to be casting a shadow over IP’s true goals. At the same time we were conscious of the multifarious voices in the universities which are addressing specific issues concerning IP, innovation and creativity. There appeared to be a growing divide between these voices of scholarly concern about IP and the support for expanding intellectual property rights (IPRs) evident in certain quarters of industry, government and the professions. That divide might be evidence of a malaise about IP’s true goals, though it might just reflect the different roles that academics and practitioners play. We therefore thought it would be worthwhile to invite a number of colleagues to contribute papers to this collection. The papers would be brought under the heading of contemporary critiques of IP law. The broadly unifying theme would be the contemporary role of IP in stimulating innovation and creativity. As part of this endeavour, we were also tempted to try to tease out some extra strands in IP scholarship. We wanted to show how IP law scholarship had grown beyond its preoccupation with the analytical study and representation of rules (of patents or copyright law for instance).
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIntellectual Property Policy Reform
Subtitle of host publicationFostering Innovation and Development
EditorsChristphper Arup, William van Caengem
PublisherEdward Elgar Publishing
Pages306-310
Number of pages5
ISBN (Print)9781848441637
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

reform policy
intellectual property
innovation
Law
creativity
right of ownership
patent
editor
profession
art
industry
university

Cite this

van Caenegem, W., & Arup, C. (2009). Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. In C. Arup, & W. van Caengem (Eds.), Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development (pp. 306-310). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848449039.00023
van Caenegem, William ; Arup, Christopher. / Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. editor / Christphper Arup ; William van Caengem. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. pp. 306-310
@inbook{6102dee8494e45519c015a5e874dfd78,
title = "Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development",
abstract = "Conclusion William van Caenegem and Christopher Arup The editors started out by articulating the sense that intellectual property (IP) law’s primary function in sustaining the realisation of creativity in society, whether in technology or the arts, was at risk of being relegated to secondary status. The growth of the edifice of IP law seemed to be casting a shadow over IP’s true goals. At the same time we were conscious of the multifarious voices in the universities which are addressing specific issues concerning IP, innovation and creativity. There appeared to be a growing divide between these voices of scholarly concern about IP and the support for expanding intellectual property rights (IPRs) evident in certain quarters of industry, government and the professions. That divide might be evidence of a malaise about IP’s true goals, though it might just reflect the different roles that academics and practitioners play. We therefore thought it would be worthwhile to invite a number of colleagues to contribute papers to this collection. The papers would be brought under the heading of contemporary critiques of IP law. The broadly unifying theme would be the contemporary role of IP in stimulating innovation and creativity. As part of this endeavour, we were also tempted to try to tease out some extra strands in IP scholarship. We wanted to show how IP law scholarship had grown beyond its preoccupation with the analytical study and representation of rules (of patents or copyright law for instance).",
author = "{van Caenegem}, William and Christopher Arup",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.4337/9781848449039.00023",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781848441637",
pages = "306--310",
editor = "Christphper Arup and {van Caengem}, {William }",
booktitle = "Intellectual Property Policy Reform",
publisher = "Edward Elgar Publishing",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

van Caenegem, W & Arup, C 2009, Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. in C Arup & W van Caengem (eds), Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 306-310. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848449039.00023

Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. / van Caenegem, William; Arup, Christopher.

Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. ed. / Christphper Arup; William van Caengem. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. p. 306-310.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development

AU - van Caenegem, William

AU - Arup, Christopher

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Conclusion William van Caenegem and Christopher Arup The editors started out by articulating the sense that intellectual property (IP) law’s primary function in sustaining the realisation of creativity in society, whether in technology or the arts, was at risk of being relegated to secondary status. The growth of the edifice of IP law seemed to be casting a shadow over IP’s true goals. At the same time we were conscious of the multifarious voices in the universities which are addressing specific issues concerning IP, innovation and creativity. There appeared to be a growing divide between these voices of scholarly concern about IP and the support for expanding intellectual property rights (IPRs) evident in certain quarters of industry, government and the professions. That divide might be evidence of a malaise about IP’s true goals, though it might just reflect the different roles that academics and practitioners play. We therefore thought it would be worthwhile to invite a number of colleagues to contribute papers to this collection. The papers would be brought under the heading of contemporary critiques of IP law. The broadly unifying theme would be the contemporary role of IP in stimulating innovation and creativity. As part of this endeavour, we were also tempted to try to tease out some extra strands in IP scholarship. We wanted to show how IP law scholarship had grown beyond its preoccupation with the analytical study and representation of rules (of patents or copyright law for instance).

AB - Conclusion William van Caenegem and Christopher Arup The editors started out by articulating the sense that intellectual property (IP) law’s primary function in sustaining the realisation of creativity in society, whether in technology or the arts, was at risk of being relegated to secondary status. The growth of the edifice of IP law seemed to be casting a shadow over IP’s true goals. At the same time we were conscious of the multifarious voices in the universities which are addressing specific issues concerning IP, innovation and creativity. There appeared to be a growing divide between these voices of scholarly concern about IP and the support for expanding intellectual property rights (IPRs) evident in certain quarters of industry, government and the professions. That divide might be evidence of a malaise about IP’s true goals, though it might just reflect the different roles that academics and practitioners play. We therefore thought it would be worthwhile to invite a number of colleagues to contribute papers to this collection. The papers would be brought under the heading of contemporary critiques of IP law. The broadly unifying theme would be the contemporary role of IP in stimulating innovation and creativity. As part of this endeavour, we were also tempted to try to tease out some extra strands in IP scholarship. We wanted to show how IP law scholarship had grown beyond its preoccupation with the analytical study and representation of rules (of patents or copyright law for instance).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881978174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4337/9781848449039.00023

DO - 10.4337/9781848449039.00023

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781848441637

SP - 306

EP - 310

BT - Intellectual Property Policy Reform

A2 - Arup, Christphper

A2 - van Caengem, William

PB - Edward Elgar Publishing

ER -

van Caenegem W, Arup C. Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. In Arup C, van Caengem W, editors, Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2009. p. 306-310 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848449039.00023