Conclusion: Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Fostering Innovation and Development

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).