Search results for ""Jessica Silbey" "The Eureka Myth""

Book SynopsisAre innovation and creativity helped or hindered by our intellectual property laws? In the two hundred plus years since the Constitution enshrined protections for those who create and innovate, we're still debating the merits of IP laws and whether or not they actually work as intended. Artists, scientists, businesses, and the lawyers who serve them, as well as the Americans who benefit from their creations all still wonder: what facilitates innovation and creativity in our digital age? And what role, if any, do our intellectual property laws play in the growth of innovation and creativity in the United States? Incentivizing the progress of science and the useful arts has been the goal of intellectual property law since our constitutional beginnings. The Eureka Myth cuts through the current debates and goes straight to the source: the artists and innovators themselves. Silbey makes sense of the intersections between intellectual property law and creative and innovative activity by centTrade Review"Ultimately, The Eureka Myth does truly 'chart new terrain for our understanding of . . . scientific and artistic innovation and the intellectual property that purports to sustain them' (pp.5–6). Silbey offers unique insights into the work and motivations of creators and innovators and makes an original and thoughtful contribution to the discourse on intellectual property rights. The Eureka Myth would be a good addition to an academic law library collection, and it is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in intellectual law and policy."—Morgan M. Stoddard, Law Library Journal"The purpose of intellectual property laws is to promote the 'progress of science and useful arts' by securing property rights for authors and creators . . . Silbey articulates a compelling challenge to the incentive argument . . . A compelling counter to common assumption about IP law, backed by interesting anecdotal evidence, that will interest IP law scholars and practitioners . . . Recommended."—C. Fruin, CHOICE"The Eureka Myth substantially advances our understanding of why and how artists, scientists, businesses, and the lawyers who serve them use intellectual property as part of broader strategies, and how both economic and moral claims about creativity and IP match—and mismatch—with the formal law."—Rebecca Tushnet, Georgetown University Law Center"The Eureka Myth enriches our empirical understanding of the roles that intellectual property laws play in the lives of individual creators in scientific, and more literary and artistic fields. This provocative book explains why creators sometimes under-enforce their rights, and contrary to the common assumptions of IP specialists, it shows that individual creators rarely think of intellectual property rights as an inducement to be creative."—Pamela Samuelson, Berkeley Law School"The relationship between intellectual property law and human creativity is too often assumed rather than interrogated. By listening to creators, Silbey uncovers new and different reasons why people create and how intellectual property matters. This wise and luminous book is required reading for anyone who claims to understand IP law."—Julie E. Cohen, Georgetown University"At last—a book that provides the only sound basis for sound policy. Silbey did the hard work of asking those who create why they create and what they need to keep creating. In place of phony political bromides like 'I stand with artists,' we can finally hear what artists themselves say. We should listen."—Bill Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel, GoogleTable of ContentsContents and AbstractsIntroduction: Introduction chapter abstractThe introduction introduces the book as a qualitative empirical interview study with artists, scientists, engineers and business people in creative and innovative industries. It situates the book as an investigation into the motives and mechanisms of creative and innovative work and in the context of the theoretical and quantitative literature on IP and its success at achieving the "progress of science and the useful arts," a Constitutional goal. Based on analysis of the accounts from the interviews, the introduction describes how there exists a diversity of reasons for and mechanisms by which creative and innovative work gets made and distributed, only a small part of which is intellectual property law. This challenges core principles of IP law, especially an assumption that exclusivity through property rights is essential to stimulating art, science and technological progress. 1Inspired Beginnings chapter abstractChapter 1 traces the features of a specific story form, "the origin story" throughout the interviews. An "origin story" begins with an inspired moment that sets the person or organization on its path. Origin stories serves particular purposes. They explain how a culture or society began (e.g., Genesis). They infuse an aspect of everyday life with special significance by explaining why things are as they are (e.g., "you were born that way"). They guide how things should evolve in the future (e.g., "the agreement memorializes our future intentions"). Each interviewee explains a milestone in their professional life in terms of an origin story, referring to a past that has unique significance for making sense of the present. Chapter 1 canvasses these origin stories to explain how most describe the embarkation of their work in art or science mostly due to intrinsic or serendipitous forces, unrelated to IP. 2Daily Craft: Work Makes Work chapter abstractChapter 2 explores the varied ways the interviewees describe their daily work. Similarities in accounts coalesce around the dimensions of time, space and labor. Most articulate a common respect for constant and committed daily work, focusing on the importance of physical spaces (studio, lab, desk) and time spent. Distinct metaphors and word patterns illuminate the expressive focus on time, space and labor, highlighting a misfit between IP protection and the interviewees' aspirations or expectations for reward. Interviewees describe work with natural metaphors (e.g., harvesting or fishing), implying that the physical labor dignifies the output. This contrasts with IP, which does not reward labor or time. Interviewees translate their intellectual work into tangible output, comparing their work to real or personal property. Ironically, describing the value of their work in material terms strengthens the possessive impulse manifesting as property claims that are more robust than IP law provides. 3Making Do With A Mismatch chapter abstractChapter 3 describes the transitions from beginnings and everyday work to the business of developing a career in IP-rich fields. Interviewees provide diverse accounts of "making do" in creative and innovative industries. Although some interviewees describe direct reliance on specific forms of IP, many business models rely only indirectly on IP rights. Indeed, most interviewees embrace a system of IP that is "leaky" or misaligned insofar as IP is not the optimal avenue for achieving professional goals. Interviewees rarely describe the need to exercise the full range of exclusivity to which IP law entitles them. Although IP rights are both under-enforced and over-enforced at times, the most common strategy interviewees describe is to relax IP rights in order to achieve three common goals: a sustainable business, productive and satisfying relationships, and a measure of autonomy in life and work. 4Reputation chapter abstractChapter 4 describes how interviewees value reputation and attribution. When asked to describe some of the most contentious infractions during their career, interviewees describe reputational free riding, not economic free riding. And where the two intersect (which is often, especially in the trademark context), language of dignity and desert rather than economic harm dominates. Moreover, interviewees assert a desire for reputational control from IP law where it rarely exists. This Chapter analyzes the common accounts and metaphors that predominate in stories of reputational injury – stories of family, bodily integrity and life or death. Understandably, emotions run high in this context and the language seeking to justify the entitlement to reputational control often resemble stronger rights and obligations than IP (or neighboring regimes) provide. Over-protection in these situations can lead to misuse of IP laws or an increasing frustration from artists and scientists that IP law is irrelevant to them. 5Instruction: How Lawyers Harvest IP chapter abstractChapter Five describes how IP intervenes as an external force shaping and directing art and science. IP law affecting the work's on-going vitality is largely absent until a lawyer or business partner intervenes. IP arrives later for creative and innovative work trajectory and comes with a coach. Interviewees describe lawyers as disruptive and distracting, whereas the lawyer describes herself as bringing tools to facilitate work or business. When the lawyer is welcome, it is when she has translated IP into client interests resonating with everyday work or goals. The lawyer's varied characterizations of IP in terms the client accepts correlates to jurisprudential categories of legality (e.g., natural law, distributive justice). This invites the conclusion that IP's form and purpose, shaped by legal advice and client concerns, is not predetermined by legal rules or economic principles, but is constitutive of creativity and innovation and influenced by preexisting interests and motivations. 6Distribution: How IP Circulates chapter abstractDissemination is the ultimate goal of IP and a dominant reason interviewees pursue their work. Interviewees describe managing formal and informal agreements outlining the nature and scope of distribution. These agreements vary, from free and promiscuous sharing to circumscribed and discriminating price schemes. The propertization of the work (protecting it through exclusivity) is sometimes a precondition to fulfilling distribution goals, which include: earning a living, building relationships, sustaining professional autonomy and challenging core competencies. But interviewees describe how relaxed distribution networks satisfy most personal and professional goals. Indeed, strictly controlling dissemination – what IP law provides – is only one distributional method and not the most common. This chapter analyzes the interviews for accounts of the many forms dissemination takes and the reasons for engaging in it, unpacking the relationships between exclusive rights to distribution on the one hand and dissemination as a form of professional and personal success on the other. Conclusion: Conclusion chapter abstractThe book closes with a summary of how U.S. intellectual property regimes are misaligned with the needs of and hopes for those engaging in creative and inventive work. It further suggests reasons for and ways that the IP system should remain misaligned: to promote choice and flexibility for creators and innovators (whether or not they own or claim IP rights). But the conclusion also suggests places in our IP system where some relaxation of our IP system might usefully occur in order to facilitate core concerns of IP-rich fields and their audience as accounted for in the interview data.

Read more less

Book SynopsisAre innovation and creativity helped or hindered by our intellectual property laws? In the two hundred plus years since the Constitution enshrined protections for those who create and innovate, we're still debating the merits of IP laws and whether or not they actually work as intended. Artists, scientists, businesses, and the lawyers who serve them, as well as the Americans who benefit from their creations all still wonder: what facilitates innovation and creativity in our digital age? And what role, if any, do our intellectual property laws play in the growth of innovation and creativity in the United States? Incentivizing the progress of science and the useful arts has been the goal of intellectual property law since our constitutional beginnings. The Eureka Myth cuts through the current debates and goes straight to the source: the artists and innovators themselves. Silbey makes sense of the intersections between intellectual property law and creative and innovative activity by centTrade Review"Ultimately, The Eureka Myth does truly 'chart new terrain for our understanding of . . . scientific and artistic innovation and the intellectual property that purports to sustain them' (pp.5–6). Silbey offers unique insights into the work and motivations of creators and innovators and makes an original and thoughtful contribution to the discourse on intellectual property rights. The Eureka Myth would be a good addition to an academic law library collection, and it is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in intellectual law and policy."—Morgan M. Stoddard, Law Library Journal"The purpose of intellectual property laws is to promote the 'progress of science and useful arts' by securing property rights for authors and creators . . . Silbey articulates a compelling challenge to the incentive argument . . . A compelling counter to common assumption about IP law, backed by interesting anecdotal evidence, that will interest IP law scholars and practitioners . . . Recommended."—C. Fruin, CHOICE"The Eureka Myth substantially advances our understanding of why and how artists, scientists, businesses, and the lawyers who serve them use intellectual property as part of broader strategies, and how both economic and moral claims about creativity and IP match—and mismatch—with the formal law."—Rebecca Tushnet, Georgetown University Law Center"The Eureka Myth enriches our empirical understanding of the roles that intellectual property laws play in the lives of individual creators in scientific, and more literary and artistic fields. This provocative book explains why creators sometimes under-enforce their rights, and contrary to the common assumptions of IP specialists, it shows that individual creators rarely think of intellectual property rights as an inducement to be creative."—Pamela Samuelson, Berkeley Law School"The relationship between intellectual property law and human creativity is too often assumed rather than interrogated. By listening to creators, Silbey uncovers new and different reasons why people create and how intellectual property matters. This wise and luminous book is required reading for anyone who claims to understand IP law."—Julie E. Cohen, Georgetown University"At last—a book that provides the only sound basis for sound policy. Silbey did the hard work of asking those who create why they create and what they need to keep creating. In place of phony political bromides like 'I stand with artists,' we can finally hear what artists themselves say. We should listen."—Bill Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel, GoogleTable of ContentsContents and AbstractsIntroduction: Introduction chapter abstractThe introduction introduces the book as a qualitative empirical interview study with artists, scientists, engineers and business people in creative and innovative industries. It situates the book as an investigation into the motives and mechanisms of creative and innovative work and in the context of the theoretical and quantitative literature on IP and its success at achieving the "progress of science and the useful arts," a Constitutional goal. Based on analysis of the accounts from the interviews, the introduction describes how there exists a diversity of reasons for and mechanisms by which creative and innovative work gets made and distributed, only a small part of which is intellectual property law. This challenges core principles of IP law, especially an assumption that exclusivity through property rights is essential to stimulating art, science and technological progress. 1Inspired Beginnings chapter abstractChapter 1 traces the features of a specific story form, "the origin story" throughout the interviews. An "origin story" begins with an inspired moment that sets the person or organization on its path. Origin stories serves particular purposes. They explain how a culture or society began (e.g., Genesis). They infuse an aspect of everyday life with special significance by explaining why things are as they are (e.g., "you were born that way"). They guide how things should evolve in the future (e.g., "the agreement memorializes our future intentions"). Each interviewee explains a milestone in their professional life in terms of an origin story, referring to a past that has unique significance for making sense of the present. Chapter 1 canvasses these origin stories to explain how most describe the embarkation of their work in art or science mostly due to intrinsic or serendipitous forces, unrelated to IP. 2Daily Craft: Work Makes Work chapter abstractChapter 2 explores the varied ways the interviewees describe their daily work. Similarities in accounts coalesce around the dimensions of time, space and labor. Most articulate a common respect for constant and committed daily work, focusing on the importance of physical spaces (studio, lab, desk) and time spent. Distinct metaphors and word patterns illuminate the expressive focus on time, space and labor, highlighting a misfit between IP protection and the interviewees' aspirations or expectations for reward. Interviewees describe work with natural metaphors (e.g., harvesting or fishing), implying that the physical labor dignifies the output. This contrasts with IP, which does not reward labor or time. Interviewees translate their intellectual work into tangible output, comparing their work to real or personal property. Ironically, describing the value of their work in material terms strengthens the possessive impulse manifesting as property claims that are more robust than IP law provides. 3Making Do With A Mismatch chapter abstractChapter 3 describes the transitions from beginnings and everyday work to the business of developing a career in IP-rich fields. Interviewees provide diverse accounts of "making do" in creative and innovative industries. Although some interviewees describe direct reliance on specific forms of IP, many business models rely only indirectly on IP rights. Indeed, most interviewees embrace a system of IP that is "leaky" or misaligned insofar as IP is not the optimal avenue for achieving professional goals. Interviewees rarely describe the need to exercise the full range of exclusivity to which IP law entitles them. Although IP rights are both under-enforced and over-enforced at times, the most common strategy interviewees describe is to relax IP rights in order to achieve three common goals: a sustainable business, productive and satisfying relationships, and a measure of autonomy in life and work. 4Reputation chapter abstractChapter 4 describes how interviewees value reputation and attribution. When asked to describe some of the most contentious infractions during their career, interviewees describe reputational free riding, not economic free riding. And where the two intersect (which is often, especially in the trademark context), language of dignity and desert rather than economic harm dominates. Moreover, interviewees assert a desire for reputational control from IP law where it rarely exists. This Chapter analyzes the common accounts and metaphors that predominate in stories of reputational injury – stories of family, bodily integrity and life or death. Understandably, emotions run high in this context and the language seeking to justify the entitlement to reputational control often resemble stronger rights and obligations than IP (or neighboring regimes) provide. Over-protection in these situations can lead to misuse of IP laws or an increasing frustration from artists and scientists that IP law is irrelevant to them. 5Instruction: How Lawyers Harvest IP chapter abstractChapter Five describes how IP intervenes as an external force shaping and directing art and science. IP law affecting the work's on-going vitality is largely absent until a lawyer or business partner intervenes. IP arrives later for creative and innovative work trajectory and comes with a coach. Interviewees describe lawyers as disruptive and distracting, whereas the lawyer describes herself as bringing tools to facilitate work or business. When the lawyer is welcome, it is when she has translated IP into client interests resonating with everyday work or goals. The lawyer's varied characterizations of IP in terms the client accepts correlates to jurisprudential categories of legality (e.g., natural law, distributive justice). This invites the conclusion that IP's form and purpose, shaped by legal advice and client concerns, is not predetermined by legal rules or economic principles, but is constitutive of creativity and innovation and influenced by preexisting interests and motivations. 6Distribution: How IP Circulates chapter abstractDissemination is the ultimate goal of IP and a dominant reason interviewees pursue their work. Interviewees describe managing formal and informal agreements outlining the nature and scope of distribution. These agreements vary, from free and promiscuous sharing to circumscribed and discriminating price schemes. The propertization of the work (protecting it through exclusivity) is sometimes a precondition to fulfilling distribution goals, which include: earning a living, building relationships, sustaining professional autonomy and challenging core competencies. But interviewees describe how relaxed distribution networks satisfy most personal and professional goals. Indeed, strictly controlling dissemination – what IP law provides – is only one distributional method and not the most common. This chapter analyzes the interviews for accounts of the many forms dissemination takes and the reasons for engaging in it, unpacking the relationships between exclusive rights to distribution on the one hand and dissemination as a form of professional and personal success on the other. Conclusion: Conclusion chapter abstractThe book closes with a summary of how U.S. intellectual property regimes are misaligned with the needs of and hopes for those engaging in creative and inventive work. It further suggests reasons for and ways that the IP system should remain misaligned: to promote choice and flexibility for creators and innovators (whether or not they own or claim IP rights). But the conclusion also suggests places in our IP system where some relaxation of our IP system might usefully occur in order to facilitate core concerns of IP-rich fields and their audience as accounted for in the interview data.

Read more less

Book SynopsisIn this riveting, behind-the-scenes courtroom drama, a brilliant legal team battles corporate greed and government overreach for our fundamental right to control our genes. When attorney Chris Hansen learned that the U.S. government was issuing patents for human genes to biotech companies, his first thought was, How can a corporation own what makes us who we are? Then he discovered that women were being charged exorbitant fees to test for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, tests they desperately needed—all because Myriad Genetics had patented the famous BRCA genes. So he sued them. Jorge L. Contreras, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on human genetics law, has devoted years to investigating the groundbreaking civil rights case known as AMP v. Myriad. In The Genome Defense Contreras gives us the view from inside as Hansen and his team of ACLU lawyers, along with a committed group of activists, scientists, and physicians, take their one-in-a-million case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contreras interviewed more than a hundred key players involved in all aspects of the case—from judges and policy makers to ethicists and genetic counselors, as well as cancer survivors and those whose lives would be impacted by the decision—expertly weaving together their stories into a fascinating narrative of this pivotal moment in history. The Genome Defense is a powerful and compelling story about how society must balance scientific discovery with corporate profits and the rights of all people.Trade Review“A compelling and thoroughly researched narrative history of a seminal lawsuit.” —The Wall Street Journal “Ably and affectingly detailed . . . This story stands as a guide to the forces that shape an increasingly important industry—and to the vexed influence of patents.” —Nature “The Genome Defense provides an incomparable perspective on a landmark Supreme Court case, and it is a testament to the importance of intellectual property law to humanity’s prosperity.” —Jessica Silbey, author of The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators, and Everyday Intellectual Property "Jorge L. Contreras, a law professor at the University of Utah, interviewed nearly 100 lawyers, patients, scientists and policymakers in this behind-the-scenes history of Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Genetics, a long-shot lawsuit that culminated in a landmark 2013 Supreme Court decision that opened the human genome to the benefit of researchers, cancer patients and everyday Americans." —The New York Times Book Review ("11 New Works of Nonfiction to Read This Season") “Remarkable. Contreras manages to make a book about the lawsuit that ended gene patenting in America read like a thriller. This book will not only inform you and stir your moral outrage, it will keep you on the edge of your seat.”—Ayelet Waldman, author of A Really Good Day “Fascinating . . . Contreras goes behind the scenes with many of the key participants, offering an inside look at the legal strategy and the potential consequences on either side of the final decision.”—Salt Lake City Weekly “Masterfully written.”—Neo.Life “An unflinching critique of the biotech industry's business practices . . . Contreras never presumes that his readers can't keep up, until suddenly a lay reader can likely understand the fundamentals of patent eligibility. That mix makes the book an incredibly accessible and engaging read, which . . . keeps readers from putting it down.” —Law360 “Eye-opening . . . Contreras brings the large cast of case participants to life with vivid prose, and the exciting final spectacle before the Supreme Court is heart-pumping . . . a thorough page-turner.” —Publishers Weekly, starred review “A superb lesson on patents in general and the grotesque American patent system in particular . . . Contreras assembles a large cast of lawyers, judges, activists, scientists, and patients and engagingly describes four years of tortuous legal action that saw victory in federal court, reversal on appeal, and a final triumph in the Supreme Court . . . Fascinating.” —Kirkus Reviews, starred review “A gripping and important tale of how corporations were patenting our own genes and selling them back to us. Contreras give us front-row-seat access, deft character sketches and crystal-clear explanations of law and science.” —Jordan Fisher Smith, author of Engineering Eden “A remarkable, fast-paced read. Contreras tells the behind-the-scenes story of how the Supreme Court stopped the patenting of the human genome. He does it in such an engaging style that it’s almost like reading a legal thriller.” —Professor Mark A. Lemley, Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology “Both a page-turner full of colorful characters and a profound commentary about how corporate giants use the law to monopolize knowledge—and what we can do about it.”—Orly Lobel, author of You Don't Own Me: The Court Battles that Exposed Barbie's Dark Side “A compelling and thoroughly researched narrative history of a seminal lawsuit.” —The Wall Street Journal “Ably and affectingly detailed . . . This story stands as a guide to the forces that shape an increasingly important industry—and to the vexed influence of patents.” —Nature “The Genome Defense provides an incomparable perspective on a landmark Supreme Court case, and it is a testament to the importance of intellectual property law to humanity’s prosperity.” —Jessica Silbey, author of The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators, and Everyday Intellectual Property "Jorge L. Contreras, a law professor at the University of Utah, interviewed nearly 100 lawyers, patients, scientists and policymakers in this behind-the-scenes history of Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Genetics, a long-shot lawsuit that culminated in a landmark 2013 Supreme Court decision that opened the human genome to the benefit of researchers, cancer patients and everyday Americans." —The New York Times Book Review ("11 New Works of Nonfiction to Read This Season") "In this engaging legal history, Contreras chronicles how an unlikely lawsuit against private companies that have patented human genes led to a Supreme Court decision to open the human genome to researchers and everyday Americans." —The New York Times Book Review (Paperback Row) “Remarkable. Contreras manages to make a book about the lawsuit that ended gene patenting in America read like a thriller. This book will not only inform you and stir your moral outrage, it will keep you on the edge of your seat.”—Ayelet Waldman, author of A Really Good Day “Fascinating . . . Contreras goes behind the scenes with many of the key participants, offering an inside look at the legal strategy and the potential consequences on either side of the final decision.”—Salt Lake City Weekly “Masterfully written.”—Neo.Life “An unflinching critique of the biotech industry's business practices . . . Contreras never presumes that his readers can't keep up, until suddenly a lay reader can likely understand the fundamentals of patent eligibility. That mix makes the book an incredibly accessible and engaging read, which . . . keeps readers from putting it down.” —Law360 “Eye-opening . . . Contreras brings the large cast of case participants to life with vivid prose, and the exciting final spectacle before the Supreme Court is heart-pumping . . . a thorough page-turner.” —Publishers Weekly, starred review “A superb lesson on patents in general and the grotesque American patent system in particular . . . Contreras assembles a large cast of lawyers, judges, activists, scientists, and patients and engagingly describes four years of tortuous legal action that saw victory in federal court, reversal on appeal, and a final triumph in the Supreme Court . . . Fascinating.” —Kirkus Reviews, starred review “A gripping and important tale of how corporations were patenting our own genes and selling them back to us. Contreras give us front-row-seat access, deft character sketches and crystal-clear explanations of law and science.” —Jordan Fisher Smith, author of Engineering Eden “A remarkable, fast-paced read. Contreras tells the behind-the-scenes story of how the Supreme Court stopped the patenting of the human genome. He does it in such an engaging style that it’s almost like reading a legal thriller.” —Professor Mark A. Lemley, Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology “Both a page-turner full of colorful characters and a profound commentary about how corporate giants use the law to monopolize knowledge—and what we can do about it.”—Orly Lobel, author of You Don't Own Me: The Court Battles that Exposed Barbie's Dark Side

Read more less