Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background Environment
The Background Environment: An Initial Conundrum
Goals and Objectives
Conclusion
References

GOVERNING KNOWLEDGE COMMONS – Introduction & Chapter 1

Profile image of Michael J MadisonMichael J Madison

2014

Abstract

Cole offers encouragement and caution to scholars seeking to use Ostrom's work as a starting point for studying knowledge commons. He encourages those seeking "conceptual, analytical, and methodological guidance, " arguing that Ostrom's work can provide a foundation for "improv[ing] understanding of information and information flows under alternative institutional arrangements, " "diagnos[ing] problems in existing institutional arrangements, " and even "predict[ing] outcomes under alternative institutional arrangements." He cautions, however, that those looking to Ostrom's work for normative guidance as to the proper structure of intellectual property law are "bound to be disappointed (or dishonest)" for two reasons: First, Ostrom's work teaches that there are "no panaceas." Second, researchers necessarily choose metrics for assessing commons outcomes. Whereas long-run sustainability is a widely accepted goal for natural resource commons, Cole suggests that outcome metrics for knowledge commons are likely to be much more contested. In Chapter 3, Yochai Benkler provides a conceptual map for understanding the range of different types of commons that are important to society and deserve systematic study. He argues that there are important differences between the institutional arrangements studied by Ostrom and colleagues, in which a "defined set of claimants" share resources in a self-governing arrangement, and public domain or open access commons, which provide "freedom-to-operate under symmetric constraints, available to an open, or undefined, class of users." Benkler reminds us that knowledge commons arrangements are layered on top of and dependent upon substantial resource sets governed either as public domain commons or through private property arrangements. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 apply the knowledge commons research framework to commons arrangements for scientific research, where tradition and custom teach that formal intellectual property rights are particularly unlikely to play key roles in institutional governance, but where the knowledge commons research framework nonetheless reveals meaningful structure and governance of knowledge sharing. In Chapter 4, Jorge Contreras targets the genomics research collaborative that constituted the Human Genome Project. Geertrui Van Overwalle follows that chapter with a comment that notes the global context of research on genomic commons, illustrating that commons in general have important international and comparative dimensions. In Chapter 5, Katherine Strandburg, Brett Frischmann, and Can Cui delve into a network of medical researchers and patient advocacy groups titled the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, and the related Urea Cycle Disorders Consortium. In Chapter 6, Michael Madison describes a citizen science project, called Galaxy Zoo, that pairs professional astronomers with amateurs. Chapters 7 and 8 involve commons cases situated in the context of information and communications technologies (sometimes abbreviated ICTs). In Chapter 7, Charles Schweik presents the results of a comparative analysis of open source software development communities. In Chapter 8, Mayo Fuster Morell reports a study of online creation communities (OCCs) such as the photosharing site, Flickr, used for sharing creative content supplied by individuals.

Related papers

PhD Proposal - Intellectual Commons and the Law : An Institutional Ecology for Commons – Based Peer Production
Antonios Broumas

The emergent intellectual commons have the potential to decommodify intellectual production / distribution, unleash human creativity through collaboration and democratise innovation with wider positive effects for our network societies. In order to address this potential, we are in pressing need of a law of sharing, collaborative innovation and democratisation of human creativity, a commons policy capable of constructing an institutional ecology for commons based peer production.

View PDFchevron_right
Managing the commons in the knowledge economy
Alfonso Giuliani, Carlo Vercellone

The work leading to this publication has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 610349. author's view and that the Commission is not information it contains. FP7-CAPS Project no. 610349 D-CENT Decentralised Citizens ENgagement Technologies FP7-CAPS-2013 D-CENT D3.2 Managing the commons in the knowledge economy v1 D-CENT D3.2 Managing the commons in the knowledge economy v1

View PDFchevron_right
Commons Transition: Policy Proposals for an Open Knowledge Commons Society
George Dafermos, John Restakis

2015

View PDFchevron_right
Contractually-constructed Research Commons: A Critical Economic Appraisal
Enrico Bertacchini
View PDFchevron_right
SURFACE SURFACE Libraries' and Librarians' Publications Libraries The Unfolding of the Knowledge Commons The Unfolding of the Knowledge Commons
modupew Osa
View PDFchevron_right
Governing Medical Knowledge Commons - Introduction and Chapter 1
Michael J Madison

2019

View PDFchevron_right
paper Intellectual Commons as a defensive response to the enclosure of knowledge.docx
Mikel Diez Sarasola

The so-called Intellectual Commons are the result of the dramatic expansion of Intellectual Property rights due to a new era of capitalism or supercapitalism.

View PDFchevron_right
Countering Enclosure: Reclaiming the Knowledge Commons
Nancy Kranich

Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, 2006

Numerous forces are enclosing the knowledge commons and threatening the sustainability of scholarly communication. This chapter describes strategies deployed to counter enclosure, many of which are undertaken through the collective action of librarians and scholars working together worldwide. It then considers alternative models for delivering research resources that expand access and participation, as well as the role of research libraries in these efforts. It also discusses the challenges to achieving these new operational modes. The author then proposes some designs for governance structures, financial models, and advocacy efforts that will help transform the academy into a 21 st century institution that organizes, safeguards, preserves and promotes the 2 knowledge assets of the scholarly community. Finally, the author suggests research that is needed to advance theory and practice related to the development of sustainable knowledge commons in the digital age.

View PDFchevron_right
On the value of the intellectual commons
Annabelle Lever

New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 2012

It is worth pointing out-as Ostrom and others have argued-that even where rival goods are held in common, the tendency towards a tragedy of the commons is by no means inevitable; rather there are various ways of regulating the commons which can successfully protect and sustain it. See further E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The

View PDFchevron_right
Information Commons
Jorge Schement

2008

This essay reviews the history and theory of information commons along with the various conceptual approaches used to describe and understand them. It also discusses governance, financing, and participation in these commons. Today's digital technologies offer unprecedented possibilities for human creativity, global communication, innovation, and access to information. Yet these same technologies also provide new opportunities to control—or enclose—intellectual products, thereby threatening to erode political discourse, scientific inquiry, free speech, and the creativity needed for a healthy democracy. Advocates for an open information society face an uphill battle to influence outcomes in the policy arena; yet they are developing information commons that advance innovation, stimulate creativity, and promote the sharing of information resources. Designers of these new information resources can learn from those who have studied other commons like forests and fisheries. What are ne...

View PDFchevron_right

References (93)

  1. James Boyle, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (Yale University Press 2008)
  2. Commons Sense, The Economist ( July 31, 2008), at 76, http://www.economist.com/node/ 11848182.
  3. Thráinn Eggertsson, Response: Mapping Social Technologies in the Cultural Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 711 (2010).
  4. Brett M. Frischmann, Cultural Environmentalism and the Wealth of Networks, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1083 (2007).
  5. Wendy J. Gordon, Response: Discipline and Nourish: On Constructing Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 733 (2010).
  6. Charlotte Hess, Constructing a New Research Agenda for Cultural Commons, in Cultural Commons: A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures 19 (Enrico Bertacchini et al. eds., Edward Elgar Publishing 2012).
  7. Lewis Hyde, Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2010).
  8. Gregg P. Macey, Response: Cooperative Institutions in Cultural Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 757 (2010).
  9. Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann, & Katherine J. Strandburg, Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 657 (2010).
  10. Robert P. Merges, Response: Individual Creators in the Cultural Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 793 (2010).
  11. Elinor Ostrom, Response: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework and the Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 807 (2010).
  12. Elinor Ostrom & Charlotte Hess, A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom eds., MIT Press 2007).
  13. Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation (Oxford University Press 2012).
  14. Lawrence B. Solum, Response: Questioning Cultural Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 817 (2010). References
  15. James M. Acheson, Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster Industry (University Press of New England 2003).
  16. Teresa M. Amabile, Creativity in Context (Westview Press 1996).
  17. Philip E. Auerswald & Lewis M. Branscomb, Start-ups and Spin-offs: Collective Entrepreneurship Between Invention and Innovation, in The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy: Governance, Start-ups, and Growth in the U.S. Knowledge Economy 61 (David M. Hart ed., Cambridge University Press 2003).
  18. Douglas G. Baird, The Story of INS v. AP: Property, Natural Monopoly, and the Uneasy Legacy of Concocted Controversy, in Intellectual Property Stories 9 ( Jane C. Ginsburg & Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss eds., Foundation Press 2005).
  19. Robert A. Baron & Scott A. Shane, Entrepreneurship: A Process Perspective (Cengage Learning 2007).
  20. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale University Press 2006).
  21. Enrico Bertacchini et al. eds., Cultural Commons: A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures (Edward Elgar Publishing 2012).
  22. James Boyle, A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?, 47 Duke L.J. 87 (1997).
  23. Julie E. Cohen, Pervasively Distributed Copyright Enforcement, 95 Georgetown L.J. 1 (2006). Richard Cornes & Todd Sandler, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods (2d ed., Cambridge University Press 1996).
  24. Harold Demsetz, Toward a Theory of Property Rights, 57 Am. Economic Rev. 347 (1967).
  25. Harry T. Dykman, Patent Licensing Within the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association (MAA), 46 J. Patent Office Society 646 (1964).
  26. Nikolaus Franke & Sonali Shah, How Communities Support Innovative Activities: A Exploration of Assistance and Sharing among End-Users, 32 Research Policy 157 (2003).
  27. Free Software Foundation, What Is Free Software and Why Is It So Important for Society?, http:// www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software (accessed June 16, 2013).
  28. Bruno S. Frey, What Values Should Count in the Arts? The Tension between Economic Effects and Cultural Value, in Beyond Price. Value in Culture, Economics and the Arts (Michael Hutter & David Throsby eds., Cambridge University Press 2008).
  29. Brett M. Frischmann, Innovation and Institutions: Rethinking the Economics of U.S. Science and Technology Policy, 24 Vermont. L. Rev. 347 (2000).
  30. Brett M. Frischmann, Environmental Infrastructure, 35 Ecology L.Q. 151 (2008).
  31. Brett M. Frischmann, The Pull of Patents, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2143 (2009a).
  32. Brett Frischmann, Spillovers Theory and Its Conceptual Boundaries, 51 William & Mary L. Rev. 801 (2009b).
  33. Brett M. Frischmann & Mark A. Lemley, Spillovers, 107 Columbia L. Rev. 257 (2007).
  34. Brett M. Frischmann, Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources (Oxford University Press 2012).
  35. Brett M. Frischmann, Two Enduring Lessons from Elinor Ostrom, 9 J. of Institutional Economics 387 (2013).
  36. Fred Gault & Eric A. von Hippel, The Prevalence of User Innovation and Free Innovation Transfers: Implications for Statistical Indicators and Innovation Policy (MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 2009), http://evhippel.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ fred-and-eric-ssrn-2009.pdf.
  37. Wendy J. Gordon, Harmless Use: Gleaning from Fields of Copyrighted Works, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2411 (2009).
  38. Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Science 1243 (1968).
  39. Dietmar Harhoff, Joachim Henkel & Eric von Hippel, Profiting from Voluntary Information Spillovers: How Users Benefits by Freely Revealing Their Innovations, 32 Research Policy 1753 (2003).
  40. Michael A. Heller, The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, 111 Harvard L. Rev. 621 (1998).
  41. Charlotte Hess, Constructing a New Research Agenda for Cultural Commons, in Cultural Commons: A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures (Enrico Bertacchini et al. eds., Edward Elgar Publishing 2012).
  42. David A. Hoffman & Salil K. Mehra, Wikitruth Through Wikiorder, 59 Emory L.J. 151 (2009). Herbert Hovenkamp et al., IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (Aspen Publishers 2012).
  43. Patrick L. Jones & Katherine J. Strandburg, Technology Transfer and an Information View of Universities: A Conceptual Framework for Academic Freedom, Intellectual Property, Technology Transfer and the University Mission (Feb. 22, 2010) (unpublished manuscript, on file with authors).
  44. Dennis S. Karjala, Congestion Externalities and Extended Copyright Protection, 94 Georgetown L.J. 1065 (2006).
  45. Christopher M. Kelty, Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software (Duke University Press 2008).
  46. Sapna Kumar & Arti Rai, Synthetic Biology: The Intellectual Property Puzzle, 85 Texas L. Rev. 1745 (2007).
  47. Karim R. Lakhani & Robert G. Wolf, Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects, in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software ( J. Feller et al. eds., MIT Press 2005).
  48. Mark A. Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 Texas L. Rev. 1031 (2005).
  49. Jessica Litman, War Stories, 20 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 337 (2002).
  50. Lydia Pallas Loren, The Pope's Copyright? Aligning Incentives with Reality by Using Creative Motivation to Shape Copyright Protection, 69 Louisiana. L. Rev. 1, 11 (2008).
  51. Jacob Loshin, Secrets Revealed: How Magicians Protect Intellectual Property Without Law, in Law and Magic: A Collection of Essays (Christine A. Corcos ed., Carolina Academic Press 2008).
  52. Michael J. Madison, Rights of Access and the Shape of the Internet, 44 Boston College L. Rev. 433 (2003).
  53. Michael J. Madison, Rewriting Fair Use and the Future of Copyright Reform, 23 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 391 (2005a).
  54. Michael J. Madison, Law as Design: Objects, Concepts, and Digital Things, 56 Case Western. Reserve L. Rev. 381 (2005b).
  55. Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann, & Katherine J. Strandburg, The University as Constructed Cultural Commons, 30 Washington University J. Law & Policy 365 (2009).
  56. Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann, & Katherine J. Strandburg, Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 657 (2010a).
  57. Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann, & Katherine J. Strandburg, Reply: The Complexity of Commons, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 839 (2010b).
  58. Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 California L. Rev. 1293 (1996).
  59. Robert P. Merges, A Transactional View of Property Rights, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1477 (2005).
  60. Michael Morgan, New Paradigms in Industry: The Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Consortium, in The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium 194 ( Julie M. Esanu & Paul F. Uhlir eds., National Academies Press 2003).
  61. Craig Allen Nard, Michael J. Madison, & Mark McKenna, The Law of Intellectual Property (4th ed., Aspen Publishers 2013).
  62. Richard Newell, Arti Rai, Jerome Reichman, & Jonathan B. Wiener, Intellectual Property and Alternatives: Strategies for Green Innovation (Chatham House Energy, Environment and Development Programme Paper No. 08/03, December 2008).
  63. Siobhán O'Mahony & Beth A. Bechky, Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration Among Unexpected Allies, 53 Administrative Science Q. 422 (2008).
  64. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press 1990).
  65. Elinor Ostrom, Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton University Press 2005).
  66. Elinor Ostrom & Charlotte Hess, A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice 41 (Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom eds., MIT Press 2006).
  67. Elinor Ostrom, Tragedy of the Commons, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (Steven N. Durlauf & Lawrence E. Blume eds., 2d ed. 2008), http://www.dictionaryofeco- nomics.com/article?id=pde2008_T000193.
  68. Elinor Ostrom et al., Going Beyond Panaceas, 104 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S. 15176 (2007).
  69. Donald M. Pattillo, Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry (University of Michigan Press 1998).
  70. John Quiggin & Dan Hunter, Money Ruins Everything, 30 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 203 (2008).
  71. Arti K. Rai, Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology: Addressing New Technology, 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 827 (1999).
  72. Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation (Oxford University Press 2012).
  73. H. Reichman & Paul F. Uhlir, A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 315 (2003). Reporters of the Associated Press, Breaking News: How the Associated Press Has Covered War, Peace, and Everything Else (Princeton Architectural Press 2007).
  74. Carol M. Rose, Property and Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory, and Rhetoric of Ownership (Westview Press 1994).
  75. Carol M. Rose, Big Roads, Big Rights: Varieties of Public Infrastructure and Their Impact on Environmental Resources, 50 Arizona L. Rev. 409 (2008).
  76. Joshua D. Sarnoff, Government Choices in Innovation Funding (with Reference to Climate Change), 62
  77. Emory L.J. 1087 (2013).
  78. Mark F. Schultz, Fear and Norms and Rock & Roll: What Jambands Can Teach Us About Persuading People to Obey Copyright Law, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 651 (2006).
  79. Charles M. Schweik &Robert C. English, Internet Success: A Study of Open-Source Software Commons (MIT Press 2012).
  80. Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting, in 1 Innovation Policy and the Economy 119 (Adam B. Jaffe et al. eds., NBER 2000).
  81. Stephen Shmanske, News as a Public Good: Cooperative Ownership, Price Commitments, and the Success of the Associated Press, 60 Business History Rev. 55 (1986).
  82. Henry E. Smith, Semicommon Property Rights and Scattering in the Open Fields, 29 J. Legal Studies 131 (2000).
  83. Ruth Maria Stock, Pedro Oliveira, & Eric A. Von Hippel, Impacts of Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions (MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2260436.
  84. Katherine J. Strandburg, Curiosity-Driven Research and University Technology Transfer, in 16 University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and Intellectual Property 93 ( JAI Press 2005).
  85. Katherine J. Strandburg et al., Law and the Science of Networks: An Overview and an Application to the "Patent Explosion, " 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1293 (2006).
  86. Katherine J. Strandburg, User Innovator Community Norms: At the Boundary Between Academic and Industry Research, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2237 (2009).
  87. Katherine J. Strandburg, Norms and the Sharing of Research Materials and Tacit Knowledge, in Working Within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (Rochelle C. Dreyfuss et al. eds., Oxford University Press 2010).
  88. Jean Tirole & Josh Lerner, Some Simple Economics of Open Source, 50 J. Industrial Economics 197 (2002)
  89. Rebecca Tushnet, Economies of Desire: Fair Use and Marketplace Assumptions, 51 William & Mary L. Rev. 513 (2009).
  90. W. Kip Viscusi et al., Economics of Regulation and Antitrust (4th ed. MIT Press 2005). Eric von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation (MIT Press 2005). Eric von Hippel & Harold Demonaco, Market Failure in Diffusion of User Innovations: The Case of "Off-Label" Innovations by Medical Clinicians, (MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2275562.
  91. John P. Walsh et al., Where Excludability Matters: Material Versus Intellectual Property in Academic Biomedical Research, 36 Research Policy 1184 (2007).
  92. Joel West, Seeking Open Infrastructure: Contrasting Open Standards, Open Source and Open Innovation, 12 First Monday no. 6 ( June 4, 2007), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/ bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1913/1795.
  93. Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?, 12 Theoretical Inquiries L. 29 (2011).

Related papers

Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1
Michael J Madison

2017

Cole offers encouragement and caution to scholars seeking to use Ostrom's work as a starting point for studying knowledge commons. He encourages those seeking "conceptual, analytical, and methodological guidance, " arguing that Ostrom's work can provide a foundation for "improv[ing] understanding of information and information flows under alternative institutional arrangements, " "diagnos[ing] problems in existing institutional arrangements, " and even "predict[ing] outcomes under alternative institutional arrangements." He cautions, however, that those looking to Ostrom's work for normative guidance as to the proper structure of intellectual property law are "bound to be disappointed (or dishonest)" for two reasons: First, Ostrom's work teaches that there are "no panaceas." Second, researchers necessarily choose metrics for assessing commons outcomes. Whereas long-run sustainability is a widely accepted goal for natural resource commons, Cole suggests that outcome metrics for knowledge commons are likely to be much more contested. In Chapter 3, Yochai Benkler provides a conceptual map for understanding the range of different types of commons that are important to society and deserve systematic study. He argues that there are important differences between the institutional arrangements studied by Ostrom and colleagues, in which a "defined set of claimants" share resources in a self-governing arrangement, and public domain or open access commons, which provide "freedom-to-operate under symmetric constraints, available to an open, or undefined, class of users." Benkler reminds us that knowledge commons arrangements are layered on top of and dependent upon substantial resource sets governed either as public domain commons or through private property arrangements. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 apply the knowledge commons research framework to commons arrangements for scientific research, where tradition and custom teach that formal intellectual property rights are particularly unlikely to play key roles in institutional governance, but where the knowledge commons research framework nonetheless reveals meaningful structure and governance of knowledge sharing. In Chapter 4, Jorge Contreras targets the genomics research collaborative that constituted the Human Genome Project. Geertrui Van Overwalle follows that chapter with a comment that notes the global context of research on genomic commons, illustrating that commons in general have important international and comparative dimensions. In Chapter 5, Katherine Strandburg, Brett Frischmann, and Can Cui delve into a network of medical researchers and patient advocacy groups titled the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, and the related Urea Cycle Disorders Consortium. In Chapter 6, Michael Madison describes a citizen science project, called Galaxy Zoo, that pairs professional astronomers with amateurs. Chapters 7 and 8 involve commons cases situated in the context of information and communications technologies (sometimes abbreviated ICTs). In Chapter 7, Charles Schweik presents the results of a comparative analysis of open source software development communities. In Chapter 8, Mayo Fuster Morell reports a study of online creation communities (OCCs) such as the photosharing site, Flickr, used for sharing creative content supplied by individuals.

View PDFchevron_right
Governing Knowledge Commons - Introduction and Ch. 1
Michael J Madison

“Knowledge commons” describes the institutionalized community governance of the sharing and, in some cases, creation, of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of intellectual and cultural resources. It is the subject of enormous recent interest and enthusiasm with respect to policymaking about innovation, creative production, and intellectual property. Taking that enthusiasm as its starting point, Governing Knowledge Commons argues that policymaking should be based on evidence and a deeper understanding of what makes commons institutions work. It offers a systematic way to study knowledge commons, borrowing and building on Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize-winning research on natural resource commons. It proposes a framework for studying knowledge commons that is adapted to the unique attributes of knowledge and information, describing the framework in detail and explaining how to put it into context both with respect to commons research and with respect to innovation and information policy. Eleven detailed case studies apply and discuss the framework exploring knowledge commons across a wide variety of scientific and cultural domains.

View PDFchevron_right
Governing Knowledge Commons: An Appraisal
Michael J Madison

2017

How, where, and why do innovation and creativity occur? What influences the design and development of productive and sustainable knowledge production and preservation institutions? And what lessons, if any, should public policy and law derive from answers to these questions? These are the macro questions that inform empirical research on knowledge commons, including the 15 case studies gathered in Governing Medical Knowledge Commons and the 11 case studies published in 2014 in Governing Knowledge Commons (GKC). Knowledge commons governance is one strategy for overcoming social dilemmas regarding the production, stewardship, preservation, distribution of, access to, and consumption and other use and re-use of knowledge and information resources. That strategy may often be as important and powerful as strategies grounded in law and related public policy, including intellectual property law, competition law, communications law, and security and privacy law. For its potential to be realized, "knowledge commons" should be more than a rallying cry for the public domain or a piece of rhetoric deployed in political battles about access to knowledge and information. Empirical investigation, of the sort reported in this book, is a critical prerequisite for sound knowledge commons policy. The social dilemmas encountered in deploying knowledge commons governance are extremely diverse. Moreover, knowledge commons governance is intertwined, in varied and context-specific ways, with publicly enacted law and other government initiatives. As a result, empirical research must be modest. The world of knowledge commons governance is too diverse, both today and in historical context, to permit

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge commons: an alternative to proprietary knowledge
Marco Ambrosi De la Cadena

MASKANA

Intellectual property (IP) has become a crucial factor in scientific knowledge production which is based predominantly on profits and market relations facilitated by Intellectual property rights (IPRs). The result of this production is a 'proprietary knowledge', i.e. an over-patented knowledge which cannot be legally used or produced without the right holder's consent. This work aims to 'reopen' the debate about IP recalling the 'knowledge commons' argument in order to affirm a diversity of ownership definitions, e.g. individual, multiple, collaborative, communitarian and public. The article introduces a brief analyse about the philosophy underlying IPfrom authors such as Locke, Hegel and Marxfor a critical appraisal of theoretical and social aspects of knowledge property. The discussion presented about contemporary IP and its consequences for scientific production, includes the study of a biopiracy case involving the Waoranis, an Ecuadorean indigenous community, as an example of the 'over-patenting' of life and knowledge. Thus, in favour of the 'knowledge commons' argument, the paradigmatic case about the donation of the malaria vaccine patent is revised to show that it is possible to organise a scientific production guided by alternative criteria. The methodology used was the critical revision of primary bibliography and academic literature.

View PDFchevron_right
The Information Commons: a public policy report
Nancy Kranich

2004

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Intellectual Property
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved