How should we understand competition in markets where data is an implicit commodity in the transaction? This chapter argues that we should understand markets in data as an example of a market for joint products, namely the commodity that the purchaser is receiving and the data revealed to the seller. This model of joint products has implications for competition policy even in environments that might seem to be competitive as to price. Therefore, competition authorities should pay special attention to competition law enforcement in settings involving transfer of data. This chapter provides numerous examples and options for competition authorities to shape their policy responses.
The Bayh-Dole Act amended the Patent Act to facilitate patent ownership and commercialization by recipients of federal grants. Some jurisdictions have debated enacting legislation modeled on the Bayh-Dole Act but expanded to include intellectual property in addition to patents. South Africa has enacted such legislation. This Chapter examines how some universities in the United States have implemented commercialization policies beyond patents, implicitly expanding upon the mandate of the Bayh-Dole Act. The focus is on university intellectual property policies and litigation involving university owned copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Edited by Shubha Ghosh
What is intellectual property lore? It is accepted wisdom and understandings about doctrines and policies. The chapters in this volume revisits many accepted wisdoms and understandings about copyright piracy, trademarks during wartime, plagiarism, human rights, and more.
While Justice Holmes’ intellectual property opinions are established canon, long forgotten are his intellectual property related opinions authored while on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Such neglect is perhaps justified as intellectual property law is a matter of federal, not state law. Except in some narrow areas, what relevance does Holmes’ state court opinions have? However, his state court opinions should not be forgotten. His experiences with intellectual property in state courts foreshadow the fundamental approach guiding the better known Supreme Court canon.