Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Edited Legal Collections Data

Bannerman, Sara --- "Remodelling global intellectual property" [2018] ELECD 592; in Ullrich, Hanns; Drahos, Peter; Ghidini, Gustavo (eds), "Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018) 132

Book Title: Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property

Editor(s): Ullrich, Hanns; Drahos, Peter; Ghidini, Gustavo

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN: 9781788971157

Section: Chapter 6

Section Title: Remodelling global intellectual property

Author(s): Bannerman, Sara

Number of pages: 27

Abstract/Description:

The international intellectual property regime may be understood as a governance network that has been reconfigured a number of times over the last 150 years. Such reconfigurations have altered the power dynamics of the system and the ways in which models of knowledge governance are globalized. This chapter asks whether, in light of these changes, the international intellectual property regime has become more, or less, responsive to those it governs. In section II I discuss the importance of networks and models in the international intellectual property regime, noting that model dissemination via networked governance is perhaps the most important mechanism of intellectual property globalization. In section III, I ask a pivotal question: what are the normative ideals of model globalization? In section IV I develop a framework for understanding the international intellectual property system as a material, conceptual, and temporal network. In so doing, I offer several initial observations relevant to the question just stated: how has the international intellectual property regime been reconfigured in material, conceptual, and temporal terms, and what has this meant in terms of the network’s responsiveness to those it governs? In particular, I discuss the recent rise of the Development Agenda for WIPO. Finally, I conclude that the international intellectual property regime, while it has undergone several important forms of material and conceptual remodelling, has thus far failed to significantly democratize the networked governance of intellectual property. Access to the powers of inscription, to centres of calculation of intellectual property governance, and to agenda-setting power for global intellectual property governance reform have, in the long term, been narrowed rather than broadened.