What level of creativity would we have with formal IP? The studies can’t tell us. The problem with the approach is that it
doesn’t give us the necessary counterfactual.
Specifying the mechanisms by which creativity and innovation
continue to occur in these low-IP fields is very helpful. What else?
More comparative and historical studies.
IP protects perfume in Europe: do we see innovation? Historically—Stan Liebowitz has done work on
the effects of downloading on production; Paul Heald has looked at how public
domain status affects entry/investment.
Experimental evidence: issues associated with attribution.
What about “real art”?
Music, movies, literature. How
much do these studies of marginalized production affect “real” culturally
valued production? Difficult to
answer. Internal v. external
incentives. That may be why we never see
“failures” of entire fields—people like creating stuff, and often continue to
do so. The question is: how much more could
we be seeing if we did have IP.
Role of performance.
Sometimes it’s possible to preserve the role of individual performance
and incentives related to a particular performance: music, food, adult
entertainment; less so with pharma, movies, etc. If chefs are not able to protect the food,
they shift to performance elements.
Competition evolves around performance, not content, which might be
problematic for social welfare; if we really value chefs for the delicious food
they make, then the ones who make good food will lose ground to good
performers. Book on creating country
music/manufacturing authenticity: in the 20s/30s, desire to create music that
sounded authentically folk/country because it could get IP protection rather
than performing public domain standards.
(Isn’t this the music version of churn?
If you can separate composers from performers, I’m not sure why this is
a problem, since people who are good at composing can do well without losing out
to people who are good at performing; though maybe you can’t.) In all these industries, there are
differences between the incentives of different kinds of players—chefs don’t
care about copying, but cookbook authors do; Food Network sends takedown notices
to people posting Rachael Ray recipes.
Content is highly copyable and can’t be substituted with performance.
Have to make normative decisions about who we care about.
We don’t want innovation no matter what; we want
cost-justified innovation. Every single
year, Balenciaga has to invest in creating a new dress, and the ones that are
failures represent lost social welfare.
The innovation we get may be more costly than justified.
Bob Ellickson (Yale Law School)
For further work: What does it mean to “thrive”? We are getting the exact right amount of
innovation in fashion, football, etc.? Weaker version: in a world of
transaction costs, we can’t do much better. Third, weakest version is a slam
dunk: however we’re doing now, patent and copyright would make us do a lot
worse.
Overall systems of social control: formal associations that
make rules. Notre Dame Law School makes
rules about food in the library: neither law nor norms. In all the contexts studied, there are formal
associations—maybe even tattoo artists.
Question: are these ass’ns involved in policing copying or not? There is a national ass’n of comedians. The ass’ns in the fields in The KE are generally weak. Why do the comedians set up an ass’n but not
get it involved in disputes like this one?
What about strong associations, like condominium ass’ns, which establish
and enforce rules?
His view of social control: how do we prevent wrongful
copying? First-party controls achieved
through socialization of children: the main form of order in our society. People don’t copy jokes because they think it’s
wrong. Second-party social control: if
you copy, the person who’s been copied will retaliate violently or by calling
clubs to keep you from being hired.
Third-party: law; norms (ostracization of offender even if the offender
didn’t steal your own joke); associational rules. The last is the dog that’s not barking here. Comedians themselves think they don’t
need/want that because informal second- and third-party sanctions work well
enough; ass’n has no comparative advantage.
Homeowners’ associations are stronger because of weaker social ties—it’s
possible to survive being hated by your neighbors but not by your comic
colleagues, so the HOA needs stronger/more formal associations to govern
behavior.
Nicole Garnett (Notre Dame Law School)
How much can we learn about the appropriate level of social
control from the case studies? Elinor Ostrum on effective management of common
pool resources; too much gov’t can interfere with that. Turns out there’s a lot of gov’t in the
collective management, too. Example:
mountain-climbing shoes: Sanuk Vagabond, apparently very innovative—TM and
patent does protect some of that. Apparently
not used for mountain climbing/functionally, but do signal membership. Crocs immediately copied the Sanuk Vagabond
with the Crocs Santa Cruz, upsetting the mountain-climbing community. Will
speed of copying spur improvement in Sanuk’s quality? Now making new/different Sanuks. Separate
problem: fake Sanuks. With more limits
on copying, would there be more counterfeiting as the only way to copy? Will restrictions on copying lead to more creative
production—designing further away from the Sanuk/Croc.
[discussion of use of design patents to protect shoes]
Michael Heller (Columbia Law School)
Fashion in academic book conferences: which books get
chosen? Writing entertainingly/clearly
for a mass audience is something academics should strive for.
Pointed us to ND’s law library food & drink policy:
historically none allowed. Change in
that in recent years. Noticed
disjunction between formal “law” and actual practice of students. ND librarian researched the range of policies
around the country and incorporated elements from others while making its own.
Three distinct zones: no eating & drinking, no exceptions, in special
collections. Drinking ok but not eating in computer room (why not the
opposite?). Rest of the library: lengthy
policy allowing light prepackaged snacks not damaging to the materials and not
disturbing to others, with examples (disturbing = aromatic; prepackaged =
pretzels, not burgers). Initial concern
was messy food. But the only all-caps
part: no outside delivery permitted!
What if you tried to have a light prepackaged snack delivered? (How likely is that?) The all-caps rule trumps. So moved beyond the initial concern. Set of informal norms, law trying to catch up
over 25 years. What’s changed as the law
became increasingly elaborate and covered more of the norms?
Well, nothing has changed in what students do. Students brought in snacks before and they
still do; they’d get in trouble for pizza and they still do. What’s changed is
the effort in defining what’s ok and publicizing the rule.
One possible response is, so what? If the actual practice before and after is
the same, then there’s a possible invariance theorem: law/IP doesn’t
matter. People simply do what they’re
going to do, or work around it. Omri Ben-Shahar showed mathematically that a
long adverse possession period led to relatively little individual effort to
police, and a short period led to the opposite; the total amount of adverse
possession would be invariant as to the law.
(This
may be the paper.) Heller thinks
Ben-Shahar is wrong because he doesn’t account for the effects of very specific
guidelines in front of people/shaping norms; harder to adapt to new types of
food/new types of behavior. In a world
of fast change, formal rules are more troubling.
Me: On how much more we’d have if we had IP in these spaces:
Glynn Lunney has done work
on this—tradeoffs with other kinds of investment. Relatedly, scarcity of attention. How much more can you actually experience? “failed”
genres and the reasons they fail other than copying: w/o fully endorsing, let
me quote Nicholas Carr: “The
oral epic poem, the symphony, the silent film with live musician accompaniment,
the dramatic play, the short-form cartoon, the map, the LP. Most of these still
exist, particularly on the consumption side, but they’ve all been diminished.”
Garnett: what are the connections between norms and strong
associations? If the norm is strong, the association doesn’t need to be, which
is good because ass’ns can become highly overbearing—especially homeowners’
associations!
McKenna: As Avishalom was saying: innovation doesn’t just
descend down on consumers with no consumer-side aspects, as if it’s delivered
with no question of what they want. We
don’t actually know whether consumers want shoes that are very different from
Crocs v. shoes that are close to Crocs at very different price points. Another complication of the counterfactual.
Sprigman: Came up in Apple v. Samsung. If we had less
copying and had more “pioneering,” then Samsung has to make its phones very
different—but if consumer demands are supposed to drive innovation (and where
those preferences come from is a complicated question). If Apple came up with a user interface that
people want, with variations, but they don’t want something that’s very different. As if one car company could have a driving
interface that was a wheel and everyone else has to use handles. Consumers may not want that kind of
differentiation!
Comedians’ ass’n used to be a lot stronger; wanted to
organize over health care. One thing
that weakened it was that the ass’n hired a lawyer to see about the possibility
of suing for copyright infringement of jokes, and it weakened the ass’n because
people split on whether this was a good idea.
Raustiala: Council of Fashion Designers of America; trying
to change norms about copying/knockoffs.
MPAA is trying to do the same thing (Beebe points out that they’re
trying to get it into schools, with some success).
Shaver: Slippage: the difference between the way the law is
supposed to work and the way the law actually works—higher in some countries
than in others through gaming, error, fallibility. Challenge of defining what’s new/infringing
is one of the slippage points. Law can
take on a life of its own and lead to overprotection.
Buccafusco: does it have to be political economy? Couldn’t
it be a real economy issue driving the increase in scope, term, etc. We see unidirectionality but we don’t have
the counterfactual.
Perzanowski: Steve Jobs said consumers don’t know what they
want until he shows it to them. Made a
lot of money that way—preferences aren’t always known in advance. Counterfactual about the right level of
protection: First we need to figure out qualitatively what kind of output we
want, and what the optimal level of production
is before we can figure out the optimal level of protection. There may be
overproduction in tattoos; clients could be satisfied by choosing from existing
designs—but they want to make the monkey dance/see the artist go through the
steps of creating something new. Adult entertainment: we already have plenty;
why make someone create a new performance?
If we don’t know the optimal level of production, we won’t be able to
talk about optimal level of protection.
Buccafusco: zero-sum investment doesn’t mean zero-sum output—if
we shift from one type of media to another, we might get different amounts out
of them. There are good reasons we want to live in a world of 21st
century cuisine instead of 14th century cuisine: taste, variety.
Qian: why no innovation before the entry of counterfeits in
her study? If we think of different
brands as having monopoly power within their own niche, their own brand serves
as a natural entry barrier/horizontal differentiation allowing people to
self-sort, not because quality is higher but from personal preference.
Counterfeits break the natural monopoly.
Income inequality positively relates to demand for
counterfeits: empirical finding based on studies in China and lab experiments:
the link is through power/status signalling. If people are less threatened for
being poor, less surrounded by superrich, then they feel less powerless and
feel less need to buy counterfeits: that’s an anticounterfeiting strategy
without IP.
Samuelson: fast innovation has been problematic in software
(settled down now). Release 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, etc. and dealing with customers with different levels of the product—companies
ended up getting penalized by consumers if they innovated too fast.
User innovation stories of Eric von Hippel and
collaborators: companies basically adopt/appropriate pioneering innovations in
info tech/sports equipment. Another way
in which you get innovation-as-improvement but without using IP/with very
strong sharing norms.
There are a couple of places where we could see some
interesting experiments: SCt decided that diagnostic methods aren’t patentable;
they aren’t copyrightable; and they can’t be kept as trade secrets. How much investment was there prior to Prometheus, and how much will there be
post-Prometheus? Even bigger deal is Myriad and patentability of gene sequence; biggest argument against
rights is creation of patent thickets, preventing research instead of helping. If the SCt strikes down the Myriad patent,
what happens to innovation in that space?
Copyright side: until early 1990s, the US didn’t protect
architectural designs, and then it did. The
architects weren’t enthusiastic, but the treaty required it and the copyright
pros wanted to make it look like we were in compliance with Berne and
architecture was the easiest sacrifice.
Could look at effects on innovation.
McKenna: the ones who use the system to litigate aren’t high
end designers but subdivision builders, not high end builders.
Buccafusco: same with food.
McKenna: certain players who push for stronger TM/copyright
may be the ones who benefit most from the current state of affairs. Do they not get it?
Gosline: When you talk to luxury brands, they stick to the
party line, but they do understand that they benefit from infringement and
enjoy a particular status within their categories where they are less likely to
suffer harm than others in the middle categories. High end stuff that is less well known is
less likely to be counterfeited—the heavily logoed stuff gets copied, but not
bags that cost $15,000/bag. Have
resources to create the super-high-end stuff that allows them to
survive/benefit from imitation at the lower end. “Fakes are never in fashion” campaign etc.
are trying to control the behavior of people who might be their consumers.
But they’ll never say that on the record.
McKenna: they litigate against people who seem to helping
them.
Gosline: yes, against distributors, but they’re not chasing
the individual consumer who buys a bag.
Distribution channels are different.
Qian: Provides results to companies that give her data; some
have an a-ha moment where they see the benefits of counterfeits—but there are
lots of lost sales on the low end. Overall average effect across product lines
is still negative. Also looks at brands
at different stages—counterfeits helped brands that were less renowned at the time of infringement. Once the brand is established, they want
counterfeits shut down. That’s just what
Microsoft did. Only when it had a 90% market share did it start fighting
piracy.
Gosline: it’s mass exclusivity, which is an oxymoron. If you pull back the curtain and say everyone’s
got some luxury, that undermines it.
Sprigman: this is an industry of lawyers/brand protection
experts dedicated to doing precisely this. (As Upton Sinclair said, it is very
hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on believing
the opposite.)
Raustiala: cultural differences? In Europe, where so many of these firms are
headquartered, are the norms different?
Gosline: differences according to whether you have a new
upwardly mobile class with disposable income.
Doing some work in India now.
Dynamism: people wanting to signal they now have loads of money. Europe/US face more stability there. Notion of couture—pretty common in India to have
shirts made for themselves; doesn’t differentiate rich from poor in India,
which creates a challenge for luxury manufacturers to convince people that’s
why you should pay so much.
Recent entry of luxury manufacturers and media is serving to
create value—fashion industry is training people to look forward to these
products.
Qian: experiments in China and US have similar results
qualitatively; quantitative scale is larger in China, and field data so far is
only from China. Effects larger for
China: advertisement effect. If consumers are unfamiliar with multinational
brands they rely heavily on common opinion for knowledge/awareness. Converse is not famous in US but is in China
because of all the counterfeits.
No comments:
Post a Comment