Date post: | 17-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lynette-andrews |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Patents as Public Disengagement
Stephen Hilgartner
Cornell University
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 1
• Public Engagement Mechanisms– as devices for giving voice or opening channels for
(pre-existing) citizens, publics to speak and act– As devices that constitute citizens with enhanced
capacities of speech and action
– Lots of work:• Public engagement exercises• Journal articles on how to do them• Journal articles questioning what they accomplish• Alan Irwin’s (xxxx) critique won a best article prize from
the Society for Social Studies of Science• 25K Google hits on “public engagement mechanisms”
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 2
• Little work on Public Disengagement Mechanisms– Not a category: 2 Google hits
• Research on public disengagement mechanisms would:– Not naturalize citizen, public
disengagement– Examine how citizens, publics with limited
voice and capacity for action are constituted
– Integrate study of PEM and PDM
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 3
Patent System as a Public Disengagement Mechanism
• Contrast two policy discourses– Innovation discourse– Politics-of-technology discourse
• A policy discourse: – an organized assemblage of concepts,
categories, frames, metaphors, and narratives that gives definition and structure to a domain of policy making
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 4
Innovation Discourse
• Discursive starting point:
– A narrative that frames innovation as a social good, inventor as hero, free rider as villain, limited property rights as solution, society as beneficiary
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 6
Innovation Discourse
• Central questions:
– What constitutes a patentable invention? What counts as infringement? How should novelty be codified? What way of structuring IP rights will maximize innovation?
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 7
Politics of Technology Discourse
• Discursive starting point:
– Given the awesome power of modern technologies, decisions about emerging technologies are decisions about the future shape of societies. This situation poses deep problems for democratic states.
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 10
Politics of Technology Discourse
• Central questions:– Do patents at times limit the ability of
publics to exercise voice and choice in these negotiations?
– More deeply, what forms of citizenship do various intellectual property regimes constitute? What kinds of democratic representation do they tend to support?
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 11
Comparing the Perspectives
• Visions of technological change
• Market power or configuration power
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 13
Comparing the Perspectives
• Visions of technological change
• Market power or configuration power
• Transparent or opaque
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 14
Comparing the Perspectives
• Visions of technological change
• Market power or configuration power
• Transparent or opaque
• The inventor or the citizen
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 15
Comparing the Perspectives
• Visions of technological change
• Market power or configuration power
• Transparent or opaque
• The inventor or the citizen
• Efficient innovation or adequate representation
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 16
Innovation Politics of Technology
Normative Focus Technological progress
Democratic choice
Central Figure The inventor The citizen
Emerging Technology
As a source of economic growth
As politically neutral
As a means of (re)ordering social and technical worlds
As a contested domain
Stakes Economic Shape of sociotechnical systems
Domain of Policymaking
R&D policy “Constitutional” questions
Form of Power Emphasized
Market power Configuration power
Effect on Transparency
Open publication of patent itself
Opaque decision making pre- and post- issue of patent
Vision of Successful Policy
Economic efficiency Adequate representation
17
Lessons
• For Intellectual Property debate– Independent argument for IP minimalism– Argument for open source innovation
• For Public Engagement– Importance of attending not just to new add-on
mechanisms of engaging but also to institutional structures that constitute publics as disengaged
Foro-Taller ASCTI, October 2010 18