Intellectual property in the context of e-science

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 600-617

  Burk, Dan L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES; DISTRIBUTED COLLABORATION; E-SCIENCES; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES; OPEN SOURCE LICENSE; ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES; PHYSICAL LOCATIONS; SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES;

E-SCIENCE;

EID: 33847305538     PISSN: 10836101     EISSN: 10836101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00340.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Boettiger, S., & Burk, D. (2004). Open source patenting. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 1(6), 221-231.
2. Boyle, J. (2003). Enclosing the genome: What squabbles over genetic patents could teach us. In F. S. Keiff (Ed.), Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project (pp. 97-122). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
3. Burk, D. (1993). Patents in cyberspace: Territoriality and infringement on global computer networks. Tulane Law Review, 68, 1-67.
4. Burk, D. (1994). Transborder intellectual property issues on the electronic frontier. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 5, 9-16.
5. Burk, D. (1998). Virtual exit in the global information economy. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 73, 943-995.
6. Burk, D. (2000). Intellectual property issues in electronic collaboration. In S. H. Koslow & M. F. Huerta (Eds.), Electronic. Collaboration in Science: Progress in Neuroinformatics, Vol. 2 (pp. 15-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Burk, D. (2005). Bioinformatics lessons from the open source movement. In H. Tavani (Ed.), Ethics, Computing, and Genomics: Moral Controversies in Computational Genomics (pp. 257-254). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
8. Cockburn, I. (2005). State Street meets the human genome project: Intellectual property and bioinformatics. In R. W. Hahn (Ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology (pp. 111-130). Washington D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center.
9. David, P. A. (2004). Can "open science" be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160(1), 9-34.
10. David, P., & Spence, M. (2003). Towards institutional infrastructures for e-science: The scope of the challenge. Oxford Internet Institute, Research Report, 2. Oxford: University of Oxford. Retrieved September 20, 2006 http://129.3.20.41/eps/get/papers/0502/0502028.pdf
11. de Laat, P. (2001). Open source software: A new Mertonian ethos? In A. Vedder (Ed.), Ethics and the Internet (pp.33-48). Oxford: Intersentia.
12. Eckersley, P., Egan, G. F., & Shun-ichi, A. (2003). Neuroscience data and tool sharing: A legal and policy framework for neuroinformatics. Neuroinformatics, 1(2), 149-66.
13. Eisenberg, R. (1987). Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale Law Journal, 97(2), 177-231.
14. Feldman, R. (2004). The open source biotechnology movement: Is it patent misuse? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 6(1), 117-167.
15. Finholt, T. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 73-107.
16. Glasner, P. (1996). From community to "collaboratory?" The human genome mapping project and the changing culture of science. Science and Public Policy, 23(2), 109-116.
17. Goldsmith, J. (1998). Against cyberanarchy. University of Chicago Law Review, 65(4), 1199-1250.
18. Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. (2003). e-Science and its implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, 361(1809), 1809-1825.
19. Hinds, C., Jirotka, M., Rahman, M., D'Agostino, G., Meyer, C., Piper, T, et al. (2005, June 22-24). Ownership of intellectual property rights in medical data in collaborative computing environments. National Centre for e-Social Science, First International Conference on e-Social Science. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference/2005/papers/papers/ ncess2005_paper_Hinds.pdf
20. McGowan, D. (2001). Legal implications of open-source software. University of Illinois Law Review, 2001(1), 241-304.
21. Merges, R. P. (1996). Property rights theory and the commons: The case of scientific research. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13(2), 145-167.
22. Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science; Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23. Nelson, R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455-471.
24. Newman, H. B., Ellisman, E. H., & Orcutt, J. A. (2003). Data-intensive e-science frontier research. Communications of the ACM, 46(11), 69-75.
25. Rai, A. K. (2000). Addressing the patent gold rush: The role of deference to PTO patent denials. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 2, 199-227.
26. Rai, A. K. (2005). Open and collaborative research: A new model for biomedicine. In R. W. Hahn (Ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology (131-158). Washington D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center.
27. Reichmann, J. H., & Uhlir, P. F. (2003). A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1 & 2), 315-462.
28. Toumi, I. (2000). Internet, innovation, and open source: Actors in the network. First Monday, 6(1). Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_1/tuomi/index.html