Intellectual Property and the Information Economy

  • Julie E. Cohen
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 43)


The pundits who prophesied that the Internet would mean the end of intellectual property were wrong.1 Intellectual property is alive and well on the Internet. Copyrights, trademarks, and lately even patents are the subjects of vigorous, and increasingly successful, enforcement efforts. From high-tech start-up profiles to law-firm hiring patterns, the evidence suggests that protection of online intellectual property is a growth industry. But this is not, to borrow a turn of phrase, your father’s intellectual property. This intellectual property is different. Traditional intellectual property rights, which were limited monopolies operating in distinct and different subject areas, have been retrofitted to become sophisticated, mutually reinforcing methods of controlling information use.


Intellectual Property Copyright Owner Online Service Provider Trademark Protection Database Protection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ayres, in, and Eric Talley. 1995. Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade. Yale Law Journal 104, no. 5 (March): 1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow, John Perry. 1994. The Economy of Ideas: A Framework for Rethinking Patents and Copyrights in the Digital Age. Wired, March, 84.Google Scholar
  3. Benkler, Yochai. 2000a. Net Regulation: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Uni-versify of Colorado Law Review 71, no. 4 (Fall): 1203.Google Scholar
  4. Benkler, Yochai, 2000b. Constitutional Bounds of Database Protection: The Role of Judicial Review in the Creation and Definition of Private Rights in Information. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14, no. 2 (Spring): 535.Google Scholar
  5. Burk, Dan L. 2000. The Trouble With Trespass. Journal of Small & Emerging Business Law4, no. 1 (spring): 27. http:// Scholar
  6. Clark, David D., and Marjory S. Blumenthal. 2000. Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End to End Arguments vs. the Brave New World (working paper on file with author). Version for submission 10 August 2000 at Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Alexandria, Virginia, http:// Scholar
  7. Cohen, Julie E. 1998. Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 13, no. 3 (fall): 108. v>.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, Julie E. Copyright and the Perfect Curve. 2000. Vanderbilt Law Review 53, no. 6Google Scholar
  9. (November): 1799. pdf>.Google Scholar
  10. Dyson, Esther. 1995. Intellectual Value. Wired, July, 136.Google Scholar
  11. Froomkin, A. Michael. 1999. Semi-Private International Rulemaking: Lessons Learned from the WIPO Domain Name Process. Version 2.0 (working paper on file with author), http:// pdf.Google Scholar
  12. Ginsburg, Jane C. 2002. From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: The Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law. In U.S. Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, edited by Hugh Hansen. Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  13. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. 2001. The New Database Right: Early Case Law from Europe. http:// .html>.Google Scholar
  14. Information Infrastructure Task Force, United States, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995), ipnii/ index.html>.Google Scholar
  15. Kozinski, Alex. 1993. Trademarks Unplugged. New York University Law Review 68, no. 4 (October): 960.Google Scholar
  16. Lemley, Mark A., and Lawrence Lessig. 2001. The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era. UCLA Law Review 48, no. 4 (April): 925.Google Scholar
  17. Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach. Harvard Law Review 113, no. 2: 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Litman, Jessica. 1999. Breakfast With Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age. Yale Law Journal 108, no. 7 (May): 1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mueller, Milton. 2000. Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (working paper on file with author), http://>.Google Scholar
  20. O’Rourke, Maureen A. 2000. Shaping Competition on the Internet: Who Owns Product and Pricing Information? Vanderbilt Law Review 53, no. 6 (November): 1965. http://>.Google Scholar
  21. An Imminent Constitutional Collision. George Washington Law Review 67, no. 2 (January): 359.Google Scholar
  22. Radin, Margaret Jane. 2002. Online Standardization and the Integration of Text and Machine. Fordham Law Review 70, no. 4 (March): 1125.Google Scholar
  23. Reichman, J.H., and Pamela Samuelson. 1997. Intellectual Property Rights in Data? Vanderbilt Law Review 50, no. 1 (January): 51.Google Scholar
  24. Samuelson, Pamela, and John Browning. 1997. Confab Clips Copyright Cartel. Wired, March, 61.Google Scholar
  25. Samuelson, Pamela. 1990. Benson Revisited: The Case Against Patent Protection for Algorithms and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions. Emory Law Journal 39, no. 4 (fall): 1025.Google Scholar
  26. Stefik, Mark. 1997. Shifting the Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenge Us to Rethink Digital Publishing. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 12, no. 1 (spring): 137.Google Scholar
  27. Thomas, John R. 1999. The Patenting of the Liberal Professions. Boston College Law Review 40, no. 5 (September): 1139.Google Scholar
  28. Thomas, John R. 2001. Post-Industrial Patents and Personal Liberties (working paper on file with author).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie E. Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgetown University Law CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations