BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.

3, 2006

IntellectualPropertyRightsandAccesstoKnowledgeModels: ManagingInnovation,PublicGoodsandPrivateInterest
MajaAndjelkovic* Thispaperaddresses the tensionsin thedualityof knowledge inthat it isbothapublic good in the sense that it is nonrival and nonexhaustible, and that it is a private commodity in the sense that it is protected, hoarded, valued, and sold. While further exploringthesetensionsandtheevolutionofknowledgedisseminationinanincreasingly informationhungryglobaleconomycouldproveveryinteresting,thepaperstopsshortin thepursuitofsuchtopicsandstickstoanevaluationofthecurrentstructurallimitations onthespreadofknowledge.

As the world transitions from a multitude of industrial economies into an interconnected, knowledgedriven, information society, it faces a looming crisis in global knowledge management. Relying on a concept from organizational behaviour (OB) theory, this paper argues that a knowledge paradox recognized to exist in the contextoforganizationalknowledge,alsoappearsonaglobalscaleintheneweconomy. The paradox exists in so far as the building and sharing of knowledge is one of the highestpotentialsourcesofgrowthintheneweconomy,andyetknowledgeisoftenalso acarefullyguardedandwarilytradedresource.Thepaperaskswhythisisthecase,and findsthatcurrentlegalregulatoryframeworks,specificallythoseconcerningIntellectual PropertyRights(IPRs),aswellasrestrictiveknowledgesharingmodels,poseimportant barriers to resolving theparadox. IPR protections are found to be associated with two major interconnected roadblocks to effective knowledge management identified by OB theory:thelackofincentivestoshareknowledge,andthelackofamechanismtomakeit 1 easytoorganizeandaccessknowledgeresources. Intheneweconomy,currentIPRsare provinginefficientinthebalancingthetreatmentofknowledgeasatradablecommodity and a public good, and, contrary to their original purpose, creating obstacles for innovation. Instead, IPRs should help resolve the contradiction posed by the dual treatmentof knowledgeby economictheory: ontheonehand,knowledge is oneof the purestformsofapublicgoodduetoitsnonexcludableandnonrivalrousnatureonthe other hand, the development of the knowledge economy presupposes that information and knowledge are the most highly valued tradable commodities, a status economists usuallyreserveforprivate,appropriable,goods.ThepurposeofIPRsshouldbetofoster innovationandcreativity,byallowingforabalancebetweenknowledgeasapublicand knowledge as a private good. Any solution to the knowledge paradox in the new economy must recognize the differences and the overlap between these two types of knowledge, private and public, so that each can be treated accordingly. Creative CommonslicensesarediscussedasanexampleofapossiblesolutiontosomeoftheIPR
*

MajaAndjelkovicattainedaLLMinInternationalLawwithInternationalRelationsin2006fromthe UniversityofKentinBrussels.Shecanbereachedatmaja.andjelkovic@gmail.com 1 Qureshi,p.4.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 deficiencies.Withrespecttoknowledgedistributionmodels,thepaperarguesthatcurrent frameworksdonotmeettheneedsofknowledge users andcreators,especiallythosein the worlds less developed regions, as these models are too restrictive, costly and inadaptable.Therearestrongindicationsthat,giventherightframework,individualsand groups arewillingtosharetheir knowledge for thebenefit of a commons,orthepublic interest,butalsofortheirownprivatebenefit.Thepaperfindsthattherearepossibilities for encouraging the sharing of knowledge as both a public and private good, and examinesopenaccessmodelsasacaseexample. KNOWLEDGEINTHENEWECONOMY Whileourabilitytoproduceandshareknowledgehasexperiencedunprecedented growththankstothetechnologicaladvancementsofthelatetwentiethcentury,theability of wider society to obtain ideas of learneds has always been crucial for societal and economicprogress.Accesstoinformationandknowledgefuelseconomyitisalsoone ofthepillarsofdemocracy.Intheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,growinglevelsof education among the general population, combined with the works of thinkers like Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau and other philosophers of the Enlightenment, enabled the 2 spread of revolutionary ideas and inspired the end of feudalism in Europe. Thus, for example, it is believed that Voltaire sent some 20,000 letters to leading thinkersof his 3 time , and that it was these, and writings of other authors, that impassioned the French 4 tierstat,orthethirdestate,leadingtotheFrenchRevolution. Todayitisreasonableto assumethateasieraccesstoknowledgearoundtheglobecouldleadtoamoreequitable world,oneinwhichglobaleconomicdisparitiesarereduced.Aswewitnessthesocalled information revolution, the number of people who can access information and knowledge of all kinds is increasing exponentially, thanks in no small part to the proliferation of the internet, availability of individual blogs and online journals, creation of independent broadcast services like podcasts, and other nontraditional information sources. Coupled with new technologies that enable easier reproduction of digitized information in a variety of formats, these new channels of knowledge 5 dissemination are supportive of the free use of knowledge as a public good, and are seriously challenging models of knowledge distribution characteristic of late twentieth century, which were dominated by large media conglomerates, forprofit scientific publications, and businesslike institutions of higher learning. In our postindustrial, information world, there appears to be a need to reevaluate the system of knowledge regulation and management inherited from the industrial age and adapt it to current needs. The idea of a knowledge paradox is useful in considering what these needs encompassandhowtheymightbemet.

2
3

McIver,p.3. TallentyrecitedinMcIver,p.4. 4 McIver,p.4. 5 Pinto,p.36.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 THEKNOWLEDGEPARADOXINTHENEWECONOMY Sajda Qureshi and Peter Keen recognize a knowledge paradox in the field of 6 organizational behaviour. Namely, Quershi and Keen find a contradiction in that the building and sharing of knowledge is one of the highest sources of advantage for an 7 organization,butalsothemostguardedresource andpositthatresolvingthisparadoxis 8 thecorechallenge for effectivemanagementin anorganization. An applicationof the knowledgeparadoxtothenewglobaleconomyinvolvesanassumptionthatthereexists a global market sufficiently dependent on its parts so that it can be treated as a single organizational entity whose functioning is comparable to that of an organization. The assumption is based on the interconnectedness of national economies and interdependenceofdifferentmarkets across the globewhich, forexample, led toand is 9 reinforcedby,theformationoftheWTO,towhichmostoftheworldscountriesbelong. Intheneweconomytheknowledgeparadoxexistsbecauseofacertaintensionbetween our ability and need to improve our collective wellbeing through providing affordable access to various kinds of knowledge, and our ability and the need for economic 10 competition and innovation. The collision between the opposing drives for sharing knowledge and withholding it from others has been the reason for rather slow 11 improvementsinknowledgeandinformationsharingintheknowledgeeconomy. The World Bank Institute defines the knowledge economy as one that makes effectiveuseofknowledgeforitsdevelopment,includingtappingforeignknowledgeas 12 wellasadaptingandcreatingknowledgeforitsspecificneeds. Amongothers,Walter Powell and Kaisa Snellman hold that a knowledge economy is more reliant on its intellectual potential than on its capacity to produce physical goods or extract natural 13 resources. Thefactorsnecessary forthesubsistenceofaknowledgeeconomyinclude an educated and creative workforce, an effective system of innovation, a strong and 14 adaptive information infrastructure and incentives for the efficient use of knowledge. The application of knowledge as manifested in areas such as entrepreneurship and innovation, research and development, software and design, and in peoples education andskillslevelsisnowrecognizedtobeoneofthekeysourcesofgrowthintheglobal 15 economy. Countries like Chile, China, Finland and Malaysia show that significant advancements can be achieved in the short and long run, through implementation of comprehensivestrategiesforincreasingacountrysabilitytogenerate,obtain,andapply 16 knowledge. Evidence that knowledge is not being effectively shared can be seen at national and international levels, in developed and developing countries alike. In developedcountries,access to knowledge isoftenrestrictedon the groundsof threatto
6 7

Qureshi,p.2. Ibid.,p.3. 8 Ibid. 9 Currently,149governmentsareWTOmembers,andanother39areWTOobserversseewww.wto.org 10 HumanDevelopmentReport2005,p.17. 11 Ibid. 12 Dahlman,p.4. 13 Powell1,p.21. 14 Dahlman,p.6. 15 WorldBankInstitute 16 Chen,p.14.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 profitability for the knowledgecreator and the risk of insufficient quality control. For example, scientific journals, the traditionally dominant service for delivering new scientific knowledge to scholars, fear that authors may opt to publish their works themselves online, at a very low cost and with the opportunity to reach a much wider audience compared with the subscriber base of a journal. They tend to argue that publishinginscientificjournalsprovidesprotectiontoauthorsfrommisuse,aswellasthe peerreviewingservice,whichareessentialforqualitycontrolandformaintainingahigh 17 reputation of the journals and authors whose works they publish. Neither of these arguments holds in light of the innovative tools available today, such as open access journalsandCreativeCommonslicenses,discussedinthesecondpartofthispaper. In developing countries, reduction of poverty, child mortality and disease pandemics, as well as improvement of education, gender equality, maternal health and environmental protection are the priorities articulated by the Millennium Development 18 Goals.Thereiswiderecognition, thattheworldpossessestheknowledgenecessaryto meetthesegoalsthegapbetweentheproductionandtheuseofknowledgeinpolicyand practice, however, is also widely acknowledged. The Netherlands Development AssistanceResearchCouncilfinds,forexample,thatthegapexistsduetoweaklinkages betweenknowledgeproducersandknowledgeusers,andbetweenknowledgeproduction 19 andinnovation. Forinstance,duetothehighpricesofmedication,thereisanapparent gap between HIV/AIDS sufferers in need of lifesustaining treatments and the manufacturersofpharmaceuticalproductswhodemandlargeprofitmarginsfortheuseof 20 their patented drugs. The recognition of the need for a revaluation of knowledge managementinternationallyisevidentininternationalnegotiationsprocessessuchasthe recentlycompletedseriesofmeetingswithintheUNWorldSummitontheInformation 21 22 Society (WSIS) the drafting of documents like the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, which has have the potential to affect IPRs globally and the debate around a pending crisisoftheintellectualpropertyprotectionsystemintheUS,especiallywithrespectto software,informationandcommunicationstechnologies,andformulaeofpharmaceutical drugs. Innovation inIPRs and knowledgedistributionchannels,however, mayprovide sometoolsforresolvingtheknowledgeparadox. It is worth noting here that, in the context of a global economy, cross cultural differencesplayanothersignificantroleincreatingalackofincentivetoshareandstrong reasons to protect and hoard knowledge. Since a single expression carries multiple potential meanings, the creator of a piece of knowledge may understand it differently 23 than its user. Language differences and lack of tacit knowledge to use necessary communications technologies also contribute to this barrier. While it is important to recognize cultural and linguistic differences hinder the production, sharing and use of
17 18

Halsted,p.23. See,forexample,HumanDevelopmentReport2005,p.17,theofficialUNDPwebsite,andtheofficial WorldBankGroupwebsitewww.worldbank.org. 19 Rawoo,p.8. 20 May2005,p.123. 21 Brown,p.524.SeeParagraphs2428oftheGenevaDeclarationofPrinciples,adoptedattheGeneva WorldSummitontheInformationSociety(PhaseI),December2003,availableathttp://www.itu.int/wsis. RelevantparagraphsoftheWSISDeclarationofPrinciplesareincludedinAppendixAtothispaper. 22 Megumi,p.11. 23 Bechky,p.4etpassim.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 knowledgearoundtheworld,adetaileddiscussionofthesefactorsisoutsideofthescope ofthispaper. KNOWLEDGECOMMODITIESANDINTELLECTUALPROPERTYRIGHTS Unlikeprivate goods, public goodsareconsiderednonrivalrousinnature, since 24 theirconcurrentusagedoesnotresultinexhaustionoftheresource. Ineconomicterms, knowledge and information can be considered public goods, in that consumption of knowledge and information by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others. Public goods can be contrasted with traditional productsandserviceswhichareoftenclassifiedasprivategoods(sincetheyarerivaland 25 exclusive ). Knowledgeandinformationcanbeusedbymanypeopleatonce,without reducing their value,quantity or utility in any way. This nonrivalrousnature, and the fact that concurrent usage does not result in exhaustion of the resource, is what distinguishes knowledge and information from private goods. Except in certain circumstances, such as when knowledge is somehow intentionally protected or made scarce, knowledge does notbehave in the way material property would, whichposes a difficulty for producers of knowledge looking to profit from their activity. Intellectual property rights are the most important legal tool for converting knowledge into a commodity, so that it can be treated more like palpable goods. This transformation allowsforthelawsappliedtothingslikerealestateandlabourintheindustrialsocietyto remain relevant in the information society. In effect, in the information society, IPRs allow for knowledge to turninto the means of production and, some authorsclaim, for 26 theownersofIPRstobecometheneweconomysrulingclass. AsPeterDrahoswrites, ThemostimportantrolethatIPRsplaygenerally,andspecificallyofimportance in an information society, is the formal construction of scarcity (related to knowledgeandinformationuse)wherenonenecessarilyexists.Wherethereare information asymmetries, advantage may be gained by keeping information 27 scarce(i.e.reducingitscirculation). OncealegalformofscarcityisestablishedthroughIPRs,apricecanbedeterminedand knowledgecanbetradedandsold.Justasitwouldbenearlyimpossibleforaneconomy 28 withoutintellectualpropertyrightprotectionstomaximizeinnovationandcreativity, an economywithexcessivelevelsofIPRprotectionwouldundoubtedlycreateinefficiencies 29 and societal costs that surpass the advantages. Figure 1 illustrates the idea that at a certainpointthestrengthofIPRstakeonanegativecorrelationwithbenefittosociety.
24 25

Ibid. KeohaneinMaskus,p.65 26 Hogge,p.4. 27 Drahos2005d,p.144. 28 LandesandPosner2003inDrahos2005d,p.139. 29 Drahos,2002,p.2.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006

30 Figure1:BenefitsandstrengthsofIPRprotection

To understand how knowledge can be overregulated, Drahos considers the case of the laws of arithmetics. Mathematicians, students and even computers can use the same arithmetic formula at the same time for eternity, without the utility of that formula changingforanyoneofthem.Thecostofsharingtheformulaisvirtuallyzero,andthe benefit tosocietyof thesemultipleusersaccessing the formula maybesignificant. On theotherhand,itwouldbeexpensivetotryandstopusersfromsharingtheformulawith eachother, especially giventheinformation andcommunications technologiesavailable today,notto mention thatdoingsowouldinfringeonhuman rightssuch as freedomof 31 expression andrighttoeducation. IPRsandRentSeeking The history of intellectual property rights includes an extensive account of politicalnegotiationstoreachagreementonhowtobestfindabalancebetweenthesocial value of information and knowledge distribution and the private rewards sufficient to 32 encourage profitseeking individuals and organizations to engage in creative activity . However, innovation and creativity do not automatically result for IPR application. At times, they work in an opposite fashion, preventing innovative ideas or products from everreachinganaudienceorconsumers. In Information Feudalism, Drahos and Braithwaithe show how IPRs can provide powerful incentives for unproductive ends, particularly if they create 33 monopolies in a market. Intellectual property rights holders frequently find that they can lower costs and increase profits if they invest in extending their existing property
30

FromPeterDrahospresentationatthePoliticsandIdeologyofIntellectualPropertyconference,held inBrussels,March2021,2006. 31 Drahos,p.140. 32 May,p.124. 33 Drahos2003,p.199200.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 rights, like copyrights and patents, instead of engaging in creative, but riskier and costlier, behaviour with the goal of obtaining new IPRs. Since the boom of the knowledge economy, many firms, especially in the United States, choose to invest in resources that enable them to obtain and retain IPRprovided monopolies, instead of competingforcustomersonthemarkets.ThisbehaviourisreferredtoasIPRrentseeking behaviour and it is increasingly seen in the information society. There is significant evidence that theuse of IPRs for limiting access to knowledge has a limiting effect on innovation. Forexample,corporationsusesoftware patentingtosecurea monopoly and discourage the entrepreneurial activity of startups. The result is to freeze, not foster, 34 innovation the very oppositeofpatent lawsoriginalintention .Anindicationof this 35 trendisthestatisticthatIPRlawsuitshavemorethandoubledsince1992intheUS, and anecdotal evidence indicates that many of these lawsuits pursue the unproductive functionof IPRs. For instance, the rockband the Planets was recently threatened with legalactionbytheestateofJohnCage,forallegedlyrippingoffa60secondsequenceof hisworkconsistingof433ofsilence. Agrowingnumberofcompanieshavegoneasfarasbasingtheirbusinessmodel ontheopportunityto charge IPRrents.A US companynamedPatriot, having spent15 years trying vainly to commercialize various technologies, has been reported to have generatedrevenuebyclaimingthatachipwidelyusedinthesemiconductorindustryisa component in its proprietary technology. Specifically, Patriot claimed that a group of patents it ownedcovered a computerchip nicknamedShBoom.Patriotmaintained that the chip represented a fundamental innovation that had been absorbed throughout the industry, without the industry realizing it. The company filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits in 2004 against a number of Japanese electronics manufacturers andthreatenedtosueover150othercompaniesoverpotentialinfringementsonPatriot's patents. Juston thebasisof these actions,the valueofthe company increasedbyover 36 100%,itsstockpricemovingfrom14centstoUS$1.60ashare. Anotherexampleisthesuccessofcopyrightownersinthe1990stosuccessfully lobby for a 20year extension of the term for copyrights close to their expiration date. Theeffectwasthatclassicalworks,includingGershwinsRhapsodyinBlue,forexample, werepreventedfromenteringthepublicdomain,whileprovidingcontinuousearningsto rightsholders. It isreasonabletobelievethat many morecompaniesarelooking to profit from the current IPR laws through unproductive behaviour like rentseeking, especially considering thesize of the IP industry: US intellectual property alone is valued at$5.5 trillion,whichamountsto47%ofthecountrysGDPandisgreaterthantheGDPofall 37 other countries except China. While the above examples are American, TRIPS, an agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, effectively globalizes the issues they illustrate, since most countries are members of the World Trade Organizations and thus signatories to theTRIPS agreement. In other words, it appears that current IPRs, applied in an environment of increasing access to knowledge and to technologiesthatenableeasyandaffordableknowledgedistribution,arecreatingbarriers
34
35

Hogge,p.3. Merrill,p.32. 36 Bigelow,p.12 37 Hasset,p.3.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 instead of enablingeasier managementof knowledge. With the adoptionof TRIPS by WTO members, the inefficiencies seen in national contexts are positioned to affect the globaleconomy.38 IPRALTERNATIVES Although overly restrictive IPRs hurt innovation, by restricting the use of protected materials as building blocks in research, development and design of new knowledge products, the protection of knowledge IPRs provide is important to knowledge creators, even in thecaseof knowledge in the public domain. For example, theinterestsofscientistswithrespecttoaccesstoinformationnecessaryfortheirresearch 39 may conflict with their interests as creators of knowledge whose livelihoods are sustained based on the sale of their intellectual work. Similarly, countries whose competitiveadvantageintheglobaleconomyliesintheproductionof particularscientific knowledgewouldnotbecomebetteroffbydispensingthatknowledgefreelytocountries where it is in short supply. Unsurprisingly, as Christopher May points out, the key to effective knowledge management in the new economy is finding a balance between 40 commoditizationandopenness. ManypossiblesolutionstotheproblemsofthecurrentsystemofIPRsarebeing 41 suggested, including a moreprecise applicationof the fair use option for copyrighted knowledge used for the public interest (such as in documentaries and educational materials), as well as innovative rights management systems, like copyleft and Free/Libre Open Source Software models. One of the most popular alternatives for licencing knowledge products, the creative commons licenses, is discussed next as an illustrationofthepotentialforreformingexistingIPRsmanagement. TheCreativeCommonsAlternative WhentheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightActwaspassedbyUSCongressin1998, many IPRexperts felt thatthe lawcementedtheimbalancein favourof IPR owners, at the expense of social value and, in this case, potential users of copyrighted works. In response,JamesBoyle,LawrenceLessigandanumberofotherleadingauthoritiesinIP lawstartedtoworkwithinformationtechnologyprofessionals,filmproducers,software programmersandactivistswiththeaimofprovidinganalternativetoexistingoptionsof 42 IPprotection. TheyeventuallyinventedCreativeCommons,anumberofadaptableand lawful copyright licenses with the aim of increasing the amount of knowledge and
38

WhileadetaileddiscussionofTRIPSisoutsideofthispaper'sscope,itisimportanttomentionthat TRIPSmakesanotablecontributiontothelackofbalancebetweensafeguardinginformationasapublic goodandaprivategood 39 Ibid. 40 May,p.125. 41 ThetermfairuseisusedprimarilyintheUScommonlawsystem,butmanyotherjurisdictionscontain similarnotions,sometimescalledfairdealings.Fairuseiseffectivelyacopyrightinfringementdefense anditspurposeistoenabletheuseofprotectedworksforpurposesthatareinthepublicinterestwithout firstclearingrightswiththecopyrightholders.Duetoitsimpreciseapplication,itisconsideredtobeone ofthemostdifficultareasofcopyrightlaw.Foranexampleofthedifficultyoffairuseapplicationinthe contextofcomputersoftware,seethereviseddecisiontheKellyv.ArribaSoftCorporationcase. 42 Flew,p.11.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 creativeworksavailabletothepublic,anddecreasingtheliabilitiesandexpensesthatthe process of clearing rights usually involves. An important source of inspiration for the Creative Commons licenses is undoubtedly the Free Software Movementdevelopedby RichardStallman,founderofGNUProjectandFreeSoftwareFoundationandthepioneer oftherelatedconceptofcopyleft.Anotherphilosophicalinfluenceontheworkofthe CreativeCommonsgroupistheopensoftwaremovement,includingprojectslikeLinux, meant to provide an operating system which could be a free alternative to Microsofts 43 proprietaryproduct. TheCreativeCommonssystemreliesonconceptsfirstdeveloped bytheGNUprojectsGeneralPublicLicense(GPL),which,whenapplied,requiresany adaptations and improvements of free software to also be available as free software. Effectively,thisremovestheriskforfreesoftwaredevelopersofhavingtocompetewith modified and subsequently copyrighted (by others) versions of their own work. According to Terry Flew, the licencing system provided by Creative Commons straddles a line between the strong protection models of DRM [digital rights management] [including] defence in depth through punitive legal sanctions, and the culture of the gift economy which is particularly prevalent in the digital content 44 environment. Inotherwords,CreativeCommonslicensesofferflexiblecopyrighting solutionsforcreativeworks,whichallowauthorstobothprotecttheircreationsandoffer 45 someoftheirrightstoanymemberofthepubliconspecificterms. There are four different formats of Creative Commons licences: use with attribution use for noncommercial uses only the no derivative licence (meaning that onlytheuseofdirectcopiesoftheoriginalisallowed,whiletheuseofthoseworksasa basis for new ones is restricted) and the share alike licence (meaning that derivative worksareallowed,butmustbereleasedunderthe same licence). Theoption toenable authors to predetermine exactly how their works may be used by others is a major innovation in comparison to the mainstream copyright model, which requires a legal, often expensive, process of rights clearing each time a work is being used creatively. Another innovation is the tripleformat style of licenses, which addresses the need for licensingsoftware,andformakingcopyrightmorecomprehensibletononlawyers:each licensecomesinaversioninsimplelanguage,intendedprimarilyforacademics,students andartists,alegalversioncontainingrequiredwordingandcontentwhichcanbeadapted forthelegalsystemofaparticularcountry, andamachinereadablecodeversionwhich enableseasier searchingfortheworks throughthe WorldWide Webbyembedding the licenceinthemetadataofdigitalcontent,whichhelpspreventinappropriateusesofthe 46 work. Thevery idea behind a knowledgecommons orCreativeCommons,addresses thebarriertoresolvingtheknowledgeparadoxdiscussedintheintroductoryparagraphs of this paper: its mission is to provide a large set of publicly available knowledge resources fromwhichnewcreativeideascanspurt. Its inventionis anattempt toregain balancebetweenthepublicinterestandtheprivaterewardforcreativityandcomesasa direct response to the threat that current IPR trends pose: that of creating a culture so restrictivethatitcreatesaknowledgeregression.
43 44

Ibid. Flew,p.13. 45 CreativeCommonswebsite. 46 Flew,p. 14.

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006

EconomicDivideandOpenAccessModels IPRs, while central to this discussion, are not the only significant barrier to effectiveknowledgemanagementintheneweconomy.Theproblemsassociatedwiththe worldseconomic divide,between Northand South, Eastand West,anddeveloped and developingcountriesareanotherimportantroadblock.Inthecountriesonthepoorerside ofthedivide,thehighcostsoftechnologyandconnectivity,andthelackofeducationand training in the use of information and communications technologies are often insurmountablebarrierstoaccessingknowledge WearenowatapointwheretheInternetinparticular,andotherICTsingeneral, have spread sufficiently around the globe to create real opportunity for a significant 47 portion of the worlds citizens to access information and knowledge that, at least theoretically, can increase the potential of many to affect their circumstances. With increases in connectivity, the models of open access to knowledge, inspired by the Free/Libre and Open Source Software movement, can provide affordable training and education,aswellasaccesstoknowledge. One example of the open access model is Michigan Institute of Technologys 48 (MIT) Open Courseware, accessible to anyone with an internet connection, free of 49 charge. Through the service, which supports MIT's mission to advance knowledge 50 andeducation,andservetheworldinthe21stcentury, userscanaccessmaterialsfor over1,250coursestaughtatMITinfieldsfromaeronauticstowomen'sstudies.Agreat numberofotherprojectshavebeendevelopedtoshowthatacademicknowledgeneednot 51 come at a high price that restricts, or, in some cases, prevents access to it. These projects are part of a movement for more open access to scholarly knowledge that has risen out of a combination of our new capability to access and distribute information cheaply and efficiently, through ICTs, and the old custom of publishing scientific knowledge without direct profit to the author and with the broader public interest in 52 mind. Thehope is thatregulationsupportingopenaccess,i.e. accesswhichisasnon restrictiveintermsofcostandtechnicalbarriersaspossible,willreinforcethelegitimacy andreliabilityofnew,openaccessmodels,whichwillinturn,thelogicgoes,encourage the sharing ofknowledge, and by extension,of economic wealth, between the rich and thepoor,theadvantagedanddisadvantaged. Proponents of open access models assert that making knowledge available to anyone,anywhere,willlaythefoundationforunitinghumanityinacommonintellectual 53 conversationandquestforknowledge. Thebenefitsofopenaccessforreadersseem obvious: readily available scientific knowledge saves time and money and increases opportunitiesforlearning.Thepotentialbenefitforknowledgecreators,authors,funders,
47 48

AccordingtotheCIAHandbook,theinternetpopulationreached1.06billionin2005. AccordingtoUNCTAD,onethirdofallInternetusersarefromdevelopingcountriesandfivecountries Brazil,China,India,MexicoandRepublicofKoreaaccountforover60%ofallInternetusersinthe developingworld.(UNCTADPressRelease:UNCTAD/PRESS/PR/2005/039) 49 Fordetails,seehttp://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/AboutOCW/aboutocw.htm 50 MITOpenCoursewareWebsite

51

ExamplesincludetheGooglePrintLibraryProject,OpenContentAlliance,theMicrosoftBritishLibrary ProjectandProjectGutenberg 52 Veltorp,p.168. 53 Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration.

10

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 scientific associationandhumanityas a wholeis saidto lie indecreasedduplicationof research,andincreasedaccountabilityofthescientificcommunitytothepublic.Inother words, the promise of open access advocates is an accelerated pursuit of scientific answers, through providing the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants the compounded knowledge of humanity. Perhaps most dramatically, open access to knowledge issaid tohavethepotentialto take those with knowledgeoutof their ivory 54 towerisolation,byengenderingandstimulatingwiderunderstandingofthatknowledge. Certain issues related to open access remain unresolved, however, including pricingmodels,peerreviewing,indexingandimpactfactors,archiving,andthefinancial 55 sustainabilityofthisnewpublishingmodelforscientificliterature. THEKNOWLEDGESHARINGECONOMY? SkepticsmaypointoutthatevenwitheffectiveIPRmanagementandwidespread 56 open access models,humans stillhave a tendency to hoard knowledge, believing that such behaviour will give them power. There are strong indications, however, that individualsandgroupsarewillingtosharetheirknowledgeforthebenefitofacommons, or the public interest, given the right framework. In certain contexts, sharing is encouraged,rewardedandeffectivelyfacilitated.Forexample,inTheCathedralandthe Bazaar, Eric Raymond mentions that knowledge sharing between software programmers, especially in the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) community is a cultural norm, and that sharing is associated with admiration and satisfaction that ones creation is being put touse and further improved by known and unknowncolleagues.Whileskepticsmayrespondthatthisexamplemaybeanexception in the natural tendency of human beings to hoard knowledge andother assets for their 57 ownuse, there is anecdotal evidenceof the notion thathumans like to share. " While such studies should by no means be taken as conclusive, they indicate that further research into the role of structural elements, like regulatory frameworks and infrastructure, to allow for more effective knowledge distribution could help activate knowledgesharingintheglobaleconomy. The knowledge economy rests on a dual nature of knowledge, and the frameworks that allow it to be treated as a public good in certain circumstances and a
54

Velterop, p. 169. For a discussion of economic viability, see for example, John Willinskys Article entitled Scholarly Associations and the Economic Viability of Open Access Publishing where he discusses the need for managementofjournalprintversions,curbingthelossofmembership,andsettlingcontractualobligations tocorporateanduniversity pressesamongotherissues. 56 Lichtenstein,p.27. 57 Forinstance, see Yoshai Benkler's discussion on commonsbased approaches to managing resources in networked environments inhis book The Wealth of Networks.. Benklers term, commonsbased peer production refers to collaborative initiatives like the free and open source software movement and the Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, which depend on information sharing without direct profit or obvious incentive. Foradifferentangle,considerthe2002studyattheEmoryUniversityinAtlanta,inwhichMRI images were used to detect brain activity of subjects who were posed with making choices in a typical Prisoners Dilemma game. The findings were surprising in that the longer the subjects behaved in cooperativeactivities,themoreactivewere thepleasurepathwaysintheirbrain.Theleadresearcherof thestudy,Dr.GregoryS.Berns,statesthattheresultssuggestaconclusionthatwe'rewiredtocooperate witheachother.SeeAngier,p.20.
55

11

BSISJournalofInternationalStudiesVol.3, 2006 private good in others. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the new knowledge economy is the old notion of finding balance between the two. A combination of knowledge as a public good, and a tradable knowledge commodity seems inevitable: while it is unlikely that all information will ever be free, as the most enthusiastic proponents of open access would wish, it is equally unlikely that all knowledge and information can ever be perfectly commodified and shared through marketbased 58 mechanisms. This paper has suggested several, among many possibilities for encouraging the sharingof knowledge as both a public and private good, including the use of open access distribution models, reevaluating the current intellectual property regimes and theuseof creative commons licenses for knowledgeusers and creators. Theconclusion that there is a need for innovation in global knowledge management is unsurprising:astechnologychanges,causingdeepsocialchanges,thereappearsaneedto reevaluatelegalsystems,regulatoryframeworksandeconomicinstruments.Information and communications technologies (ICTs) have enabled typical knowledge users, traditionally on the receiving end of knowledge, to simultaneously act as its authors, creators and distributors. In other words, the previous tradition of a small number of knowledgeandinformationsourcesbroadcastingtothemassesisbeingreplacedbymany more sources accessedby many more groups and individuals. As a result, more people fromallwalksoflifeandfromaroundtheworldareawareofthesocalledinformation revolution, and able to understand the importance of access to knowledge in the new economy. Hence, there are many international and local nongovernmental organizations, business associations and groups of individual citizens (or usersat 59 large) who try to, and do influence, negotiations processes around the regulation of accesstoknowledge.Eachofthesegroupsispursuingdifferent,ifoverlapping,interests. On one end of a long range are the views of big business, which favours stringent regulationof knowledgedistribution under the premise that strong intellectual property rights and prevention of knowledge leaks are crucial for a healthy economy. Their claims may be valid, but it appears that such stringent rules can create a dangerous tendencytohaltinginnovation.Ontheotherendaretheradicalopenaccessadvocates, 60 some of whom believe that information wants to be free and that all knowledge belongsinthepublicdomain.Theiractionsmaybewellintentioned,buttheysometimes failtoaccountfortherealneedofknowledgecreatorstomakealiving.Neitherofthese extreme approaches can be pursued independently of the other: a knowledge economy doesrequireaneffectivemethodofknowledgecommodification,withclearlydefined,if flexible,boundaries.Whiletheknowledgeeconomybydefinitiondependsontheability to sell and trade knowledge, some of it must remain in thepublicdomain, if we are to foster innovation and economic growth as well as advance our understanding of the world.
58 59

Hogge.p.3. Forexample,theAtLargeAdvisoryCommitteeoftheInternetCorporationforAssignedNamesand Numbers. 60 Thisexpressionwasfirstrecordedin1984byStewardBrand.Itisnowconsideredlargelynaveand utopian,althoughmanystillarguealongthesameline.Seeforexamplethearticlebythesametitleby JamesBoyle,publishedFebruary24,2005intheFinancialTimes.

12

Bibliography Angier,Natalie.WhyWe'reSoNice: We'reWiredtoCooperateNewYorkTimes,July 23,2002. Bechky,Beth.SharingMeaningAcrossOccupationalCommunities:The Transformationof Understandingon a ProductionFloor. OrganizationScience. (2003)Vol.14no.3.312330. Brown,AbbeE.L.Sociallyresponsibleintellectualproperty:asolution?: Scripted JournalofLawandTechnology. (2005) Vol,2,Issue4.519550. URL.http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/scripted/ Dahlman,Carl.WorldBankKnowledgeEconomy:ProductsandStrategy:emerging lessonsinKnowledgeforDevelopment.Washington,DC:WorldBankInstitute, 2003. Drahos,PeterandJohnBraithwaite.InformationFeudalism:WhoOwnstheKnowledge Economy inDavid Held andAnthonyMcGrew, eds.Governing Globalization: Power,AuthorityandGlobalGovernance. Cambridge:PolityPress,2002. Drahos,Peter.CitiesofPlanningandCitiesofNonPlanning:AGeographyof IntellectualPropertyinWorldInformation:IPCityEditon(WorldSummitonthe Information Society, Tunis 2005). Vienna: Institute for New Culture Technologies/t0,2005a. Drahos,Peter.AnAlternativeFrameworkfortheGlobalRegulationofIntellectual Property Rights Austrian Journal of Development Studies. Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development Working Paper No. 1. Canberra: ANU,2005b. Drahos,Peter. DeathofPatents(PerspectivesonIntellectualPropertyLawandPolicy) London:LawtextPublishingLtdandQueenMaryIntellectualPropertyResearch Institute,2005c. Flew,Terry.NewMedia:AnIntroduction. Oxford,OUP:2005. Flew,Terry.CreativeCommonsandtheCreativeIndustriesMediaandArtsLaw Review.(2005)Vol.10,No.4. Halsted,CharlesH."CopyrightProtectionandOpenAccess." AmericanJournalof ClinicalNutrition(2003.)Vol.78.No.5.899901. Hasset,KevinandRobertShapiro. TheEconomicValueofIntellectualProperty. Washington,DC:USAforInnovation,2005.

13

Hawkins,John. Thecreativeeconomy:howpeoplemakemoneyfromideas.London: AllenLane,2001. Jarboe,KenanandRichardCohen. TheChallengeoftheGlobalInformationAge Where the Information Economy Meets Economic Development. Ideas in Development: Growing Assets, Expanding Opportunities. Washington, DC: CorporationforEnterpriseDevelopment,1999. Keohane, Robert O. Norms, Institutions, and Cooperation in International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property RegimeKeithMaskusandJeromeH.Reichman.Eds.NewYork,NY:Cambridge UniversityPress,2005. Lichtenstein,S.andA.Hunter.TowardaReceiverBasedTheoryofKnowledge Sharing. InternationalJournalofKnowledgeManagement.(2005)Vol.2,Issue 1. May,Christopher.BetweenCommodificationandOpenness:TheInformationSociety and the Ownershipof Knowledge Journal of Information Law and Technology (2005)Specialissue2/3.p.123146. May,Christopher.Digitalrightsmanagementandthebreakdownofsocialnorms,First Monday.(2003)Vol.8,No11,3. URL:http://firstmonday.org/issues/issues8_11/may/index.html LastAccessed:March11,2006. McDermott,R.andO'Dell,C.Overcomingculturalbarrierstosharingknowledge JournalofKnowledgeManagement.(2001)Vol.5,No.1.7685. Merril,StephenA.RichardC.Levinetal. Apatentsystemforthe21stcentury Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the KnowledgeBased Economy, Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademiesPress,2004. Ogawa,Megumi,"TheWIPOBackgroundDiscussionoftheProposed'Broadcasters' Treaty' and Its Implications for the Domestic Law of Australia and Japan". TransactionsofInformationProcessingSocietyJapan.(2000)Vol.43. Pinto,Frederick.PublicEnemyorPublicGood?HarvardInternationalReview: InternationalHealth.(2005.)Spring.Vol.27(1). Powell,W.W.andK.Snellman.2004."Theknowledgeeconomy." AnnualReviewof Sociology. (2002).No.30.199220. Raymond,Eric. TheCathedralandtheBazaar:MusingsonLinuxandOpenSourceby anAccidentalRevolutionary. Sebastopol:O'ReillyandAssociates,2001.

14

Shadlen,Ken. PolicyspacefordevelopmentintheWTOandbeyond:thecaseof intellectualpropertyrights.GlobalDevelopmentandEnvironment InstituteworkingpaperNo.0506.Medford,MA:TuftsUniversity,2005. UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP). UnitedNations Human Development Report 2005: International cooperation at a crossroads: Aid,tradeandsecurityinanunequalworld. NewYork: UNDP,2005. Venturelli,Shalini.FromtheInformationEconomytotheCreativeEconomy:Moving CulturetotheCenterofInternationalPublicPolicy.Washington,DC:Centerfor ArtsandCulture,2001. Velterop,Jan.Shouldscholarlysocietiesembraceopenaccess(orisitthekissof death)?LearnedPublishing. (2004)Vol.16,Number3.2004.167169. Willinsky,John.ScholarlyAssociationsandtheEconomicViabilityofOpenAccess Publishing.JournalofDigitalInformation(2003)Vol.4.Issue2.No.177.

15