Local news is in crisis. Too few subscribers are willing to pay the costs required to create sustained and high-quality local news products, and the advertisers that previously subsidized local news have fled to new sites, especially social media platforms. Press organizations and policymakers have begun experimenting with possible fixes. Media institutions have looked to new private funding models, especially nonprofit institutions supported by philanthropic foundations. And state legislators have begun testing different public financing vehicles for local media. Yet these efforts represent only a small set of possible solutions to the crisis in local news. And they have proven insufficient to save news organizations from financial devastation. This chapter argues that the local news crisis should be understood as an innovation failure, one that calls for solutions from areas of the law that have long grappled with similar problems. In markets like pharmaceuticals and technology, policymakers often employ “innovation policy pluralism,” or combinations of intellectual property protections with non-IP tools such as prizes, grants, and tax credits. Such combinations harness both free-market forces and government regulation to foster socially valuable services in productive ways. This chapter surveys these different innovation policy levers and maps them onto both existing and proposed local press interventions.

This chapter addresses how the pathways of legal strategy can be applied in practice. The first part of this chapter presents three case studies that show how firms can respond to common legal challenges. The mandate to stop sexual harassment, the protection of intellectual property rights, and the prohibitions related to anti-corruption are all used as examples of how each pathway can be applied with varying levels of effectiveness. The second part of the chapter explores how a firm can elevate its implementation of legal knowledge from one pathway to another. This part shows how companies can evolve their legal practices from avoidance to conformance, conformance to prevention, prevention to value, and value to transformation. Although not every legal issue is transformative, understanding how the pathways work in practice can help firms deploy their legal knowledge as effectively as possible.

This chapter discusses the interface of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. It focuses on the protection of AI technology, the contentious qualification of AI systems as authors and/or inventors, and the question of ownership of AI-assisted and AI-generated output. The chapter also treats a number of miscellaneous topics, including the question of liability for IP infringement that takes place by or through the intervention of an AI system. More generally, it notes the ambivalent relationship between AI and the IP community, which appears to drift between apparent enthusiasm for the use of AI in IP practice and a clear hesitancy toward catering for additional incentive creation in the AI sphere by amending existing IP laws.

The main purpose of this chapter is to study gender inequality within the inventive activities in three emerging countries – Brazil, India, and Mexico – using the framework of knowledge economics. It aims to determine which factors that influence a growing propensity of women to be inventors help reduce gender inequality in knowledge economies. In addition, the chapter contributes policy proposals that aim at increasing female participation in inventive activities. The key questions for this research are as follows: What are the characteristics and dynamics of female inventive activities in emerging countries with different economic development paths? What factors influence women’s propensity to invent? Based on the results of the econometric model proposed in this chapter, the inventive variables, such as the stock of prior knowledge, the size of inventor teams, the type of patent holder, technological field, and the presence of foreign researchers – positively influence women’s propensity to become inventors in a differentiated manner in each country. These findings validate how some variables could influence the inclusion of a greater number of women in research teams and the deployment of their potential inventive activities. The chapter proposes policies aimed at reducing gender inequality in the knowledge economy.

This chapter provides an introduction to Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Inequality. It begins by discussing the problem of economic inequality, including the scale of that problem, types of economic inequality, and extant research on such inequality. The chapter then outlines the structure of this volume, which is divided into three parts: (1) theoretical, empirical, and policy issues; (2) intellectual property and national inequality; and (3) intellectual property and global inequality.

This chapter criticizes the oversimplification of the binary North–South debate on intellectual property, innovation, and global inequality and highlights the wide geographic, sectoral, and income inequalities within middle-income countries. It begins by explaining why the arrival of these countries has called into question the North–South debate. The chapter then moves from the widely studied subject of global inequality to the underexplored topic of national inequality. Focusing on the intellectual property context, the discussion highlights the considerable subnational variations in the economic and technological conditions of middle-income countries. To combat national inequality, this chapter concludes by recommending interventions in three areas: (1) international norm-setting, (2) national policymaking, and (3) academic and policy research.

Innovation is at the core of economic development, growth, and structural change. Yet, it does not spur in nor flow to all corners of the world. This chapter reviews and describes empirically the uneven geographical distribution of innovation and its dynamics, at both the national and subnational levels. It also compares such distribution in relation to other indicators of economic activity. The chapter then examines the potential consequences of such unequal distribution, particularly for its possible influence on inter-regional income inequality, and discusses how inevitable they might be. In light of available evidence, it explores what the role of policy could be.

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are confronted with a new world order in which the major economic powers that promoted multilateralism have moved toward nationalism, localization of production, and de-legalization of dispute settlement in favor of balance of power diplomacy. A counterpart to this trend is declining interest in developmental assistance. It remains to be determined how countries that are not part of the new great power dynamic will acclimate to this new world. LMICs have the opportunity to leapfrog in the current technological environment. A key challenge is securing adequate capital investment, including through the private sector. There is a trend among the capital-exporting countries to negotiate bilateral and plurilateral agreements with LMICs that preclude regulatory measures requiring technology transfer as a condition of foreign direct investment. Because individual private investors within LMICs may lack substantial bargaining power, these agreements diminish LMICs’ capacity to secure favorable terms for technology transfer. LMICs confront terms of trade that favor high-income countries and, more broadly, the ascendance of managed trade policy among economically powerful states. These factors portend the perpetuation of the marked disparity in the distribution of global income and wealth. There are no “magic bullet” solutions on the horizon.

This chapter examines distributive justice (DJ) within the realm of international intellectual property (IP) laws, focusing on the digital era. It highlights DJ as a critical lens for understanding global IP laws, particularly where technology significantly influences the processes of creation. It also emphasizes the importance of global equity in achieving access to IP rights, within a comprehensive understanding of their scope. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals focus on the context of peace, prosperity, and equality, though not explicitly centered on IP rights. Consequently, there is a need to redefine IP rights not only to address legal uncertainties but also to foster global equality. Moreover, the chapter delves into the roles of international entities like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in managing challenges where global DJ and IP intersect. It highlights the importance of digital tools (e.g., blockchain) for authenticating original authors. The chapter asserts that proficient and reliable international organizations like WIPO are best suited to address these challenges. Furthermore, the chapter underscores the significance of an unbiased global investment system for promoting universal progress and equity. Ultimately, it explores how WIPO’s tools, such as WIPO Re:Search and WIPO Proof, exemplify DJ in the international IP framework.

This chapter reviews available economic theories and empirical evidence about the potential roles intellectual property (IP) rights play in generating or reducing economic inequality, emphasizing international data. Basic evidence demonstrates the simultaneous growth in internal income inequality across countries and increasing IP protection in the prior 25 years. It is tempting to assign causality from IP to inequality but doing so confidently is challenging and has not yet been accomplished systematically. Through encouraging technology diffusion, global IP reforms likely contribute to convergence in average incomes between advanced economies and select emerging and developing countries.

Women do not receive their fair share when it comes to patenting and are far less likely to own patents. This disparity is due in part to the inherent biases in science, technology, and the patent system and in part to the high costs of the patent application process. This chapter therefore proposes an unconventional new regime of unregistered patent rights to relieve women and other disadvantaged inventors of such costs and biases and thereby increase their access to patent protections. To explain the proposal, this chapter details the challenges facing women and other disadvantaged inventors in applying for patents as well as the fact that other intellectual property regimes, such as copyright and trademark, allow such unregistered rights. The chapter also addresses a number of objections that the proposal would inevitably raise. In particular, it shows that, because the proposed unregistered patent system would grant rights for only three years and protect only against direct and knowing copying, these rights would be unlikely to deter incremental or complementary innovation. Such rights would also be fully subject to invalidation under a preponderance of the evidence standard.