DOCSLIB.ORG

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS of NETWORK EFFECTS and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Peter S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS of NETWORK EFFECTS and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Peter S ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF NETWORK EFFECTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Peter S. Menell† ABSTRACT The information revolution has brought demand-side effects to the fore of economic activity, business strategy, and intellectual property jurisprudence and policy. Intellectual property doctrines play a central role in harnessing network effects, promoting innovation to overcome excess inertia, and balancing consumer welfare, competition, and innovation. This Article surveys and integrates the economic, business strategy, and legal literatures relating to network effects and intellectual property. Part I introduces the topic of network effects and provides an overview of the Article. Part II describes the functioning of network markets. Part III examines the interplay of business strategy, contract, standard setting organizations, intellectual property, and competition policy. Part IV presents three principles for tailoring intellectual property regimes and competition policy to network technologies. Part V traces the evolution of intellectual property protection for network features of systems and platforms. Part VI discusses the interplay of intellectual property protection and competition policy. Part VII assesses the extent to which intellectual property protection and competition policy align with the normative design principles. Part VIII identifies promising areas for future research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z381V5BD7T © 2019 Peter S. Menell. † Koret Professor of Law and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, University of California at Berkeley School of Law. Thanks to participants at the 2015 Economics of Intellectual Property Research Handbook Conference, the 2017 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference, and especially Michael Carrier for their comments on this project. I am grateful to Alex Barata, Concord Cheung, Louise Decoppet, Amit Elazari, Andrea Hall, Megan McKnelly, Reid Whitaker, and Samantha Vega for research assistance. 220 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 34:219 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 222 II. FUNCTIONING OF NETWORK MARKETS ................................... 225 III. INTERPLAY OF BUSINESS STRATEGY, CONTRACT, STANDARD SETTING, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND COMPETITION POLICY ......................................................... 230 IV. RAMIFICATIONS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION POLICY ................................................................... 236 A. PARSIMONY PRINCIPLE: NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION FOR FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES ABSENT SIGNIFICANT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE ................................................. 238 B. PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLE: OVERCOMING EXCESS INERTIA WITHOUT UNDUE PROTECTION ................................................................... 239 C. DETERRENCE PRINCIPLE: DISCOURAGING OVERREACH WITH BALANCED REMEDIES ..................................................................................... 241 V. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION FOR NETWORK FEATURES ..................................................................... 243 A. TRADE SECRET PROTECTION ......................................................................... 244 B. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ............................................................................... 245 1. Software Copyright Legislation: The Copyright Act of 1976, the CONTU Report, and the 1980 Amendments ............................................. 246 2. Software Copyright Jurisprudence: The First Wave ........................................ 248 a) Unprotectability of Functional and Network Features ............. 249 b) Permissibility of Reverse Engineering ......................................... 259 3. Software Licensing ........................................................................................ 260 a) The Free Software Movement (General Public License) ......... 261 b) The Open Software Movement (Permissive Licenses) ............. 263 c) Dedication to the Public Domain ................................................ 264 d) Federal Preemption of Contractual Restrictions ....................... 264 4. Interoperability Exception to the DMCA’s Anti-Circumvention Prohibition .................................................................................................... 265 a) GPL 3.0 - DRM Provision ............................................................ 268 5. Software Copyright Jurisprudence: The Oracle v. Google Litigation ................ 268 6. Standards and Codes .................................................................................... 273 C. TRADEMARK PROTECTION, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FALSE ADVERTISING PROTECTION .............................................................. 275 D. PATENT PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 279 1. Patentability Requirements ............................................................................281 a) Subject Matter Eligibility ............................................................... 281 b) Nonobviousness ............................................................................. 284 2. Scope ............................................................................................................ 285 2019] ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF NETWORK EFFECTS 221 3. Licensing ...................................................................................................... 286 a) Standard-Setting and FRAND Commitments ........................... 286 b) Insurance Pools and License on Transfer (LOT) Commitments .................................................................................. 287 c) GPL 3.0 ............................................................................................ 287 4. Remedies ....................................................................................................... 289 a) Injunctive Relief .............................................................................. 289 b) Monetary Relief ............................................................................... 291 5. Design Patents .............................................................................................. 293 VI. INTERPLAY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND COMPETITION POLICY IN NETWORK INDUSTRIES .................................................................. 295 A. PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT ................................................................................ 297 1. Misuse Doctrines .......................................................................................... 297 2. The Principle of Exhaustion ......................................................................... 299 3. Ambush of Standard-Setting Processes .......................................................... 300 4. Breach of Contract for Failure to License SEPs on FRAND Terms ............ 302 5. Private Antitrust Liability ............................................................................ 304 a) Refusals to License Patented Technologies and Copyright-Protected Works .......................................................... 304 b) Patent Thickets ................................................................................ 306 c) Improper Leveraging of Market Power ...................................... 307 B. PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT ................................................................................... 308 1. Intellectual Property Licensing Guidelines ...................................................... 309 2. Significant Network Market Enforcement Actions ....................................... 312 VII. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND COMPETITION POLICY FOR NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................... 314 A. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 314 B. MEASURING PROGRESS BASED ON THE NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES ........ 315 1. Parsimony Principle ...................................................................................... 316 2. Proportionality Principle ................................................................................ 319 3. Deterrence Principle ...................................................................................... 321 VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ............................................. 322 222 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 34:219 I. INTRODUCTION The economics of intellectual property begins with the classic appropriability problem: In a competitive economy, imitators can enter markets for information goods after inventors and authors have incurred research and development (R&D) costs and sell the innovative or creative product at the cost of reproduction. Without means for appropriating an adequate return on investment in R&D, the market will under-produce technological advances and creative expression.1 The provision of intellectual property protection for technological advances and creative expression affords inventors and authors a mechanism to recoup their investments, although not without imposing the deadweight loss of monopoly exploitation and potentially interfering with cumulative creativity.2 Conventional analysis of intellectual property seeks to optimize the duration and scope of intellectual property rights in order to balance these tradeoffs.3 This framework applies to goods and services for which consumer demand is independent—i.e., where one consumer’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Augmenting Your IP Portfolio Is Virtually the Only Way to Compete in AR/VR
    The GLOBAL REACH, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE www.patentlawyermagazine.com May / June 2021 Augmenting your IP portfolio is virtually the only way to compete in AR/VR TH AM U ER O I S C A Law firm RANKINGS Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP experts Christopher Howes, Zachery Olah, Forrest Jones, and Karthik Kumar, discuss the developments in the augmented and virtual reality sphere with advice for protecting innovation. Ismat Levin, Automated Inde niteness Synamedia patent analysis Page 60 Page 12 Page 24 Front cover_TPL54_v3.indd 1 22/06/2021 16:22 EDITOR’S WELCOME The May / June 2021 GLOBAL REACH, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE www.patentlawyermagazine.com Augmenting your IP portfolio is virtually the only way to compete in AR/VR Editor’s H AM UT ER O IC S A Law firm RANKINGS welcome Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP experts Christopher Howes, Zachery Olah, Forrest Jones, and Karthik Kumar, discuss the developments in the augmented and virtual reality sphere with advice for protecting innovation. IndeĀ niteness Automated Page 60 Ismat Levin, patent analysis Synamedia Page 24 ith the global circumstances of the past year limiting our Page 12 activities, it is no surprise that virtual realty has become a 22/06/2021 16:22 greater focus than ever. As consumers, we have technology d 1 W at our fingertips that was mere science fiction only a few decades ago. THE PATENT LAWYER So, what can we expect of the future of augmented and virtual reality, Issue 54 and how can that innovation be protected? Finnegan, Jederson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP discuss in our cover story this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • PATENT PLEDGES Jorge L. Contreras*
    PATENT PLEDGES Jorge L. Contreras* ABSTRACT An increasing number of firms are making public pledges to limit the enforcement of their patents. In doing so, they are entering a little- understood middle ground between the public domain and exclusive property rights. The best-known of these patent pledges are FRAND commitments, in which patent holders commit to license their patents to manufacturers of standardized products on terms that are “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.” But patent pledges have been appearing in settings well beyond standard-setting, including open source software, green technology and the life sciences. As a result, this increasingly prevalent private ordering mechanism is beginning to reshape the role and function of patents in the economy. Despite their proliferation, little scholarship has explored the phenomenon of patent pledges beyond FRAND commitments and standard- setting. This article fills this gap by providing the first comprehensive descriptive account of patent pledges across the board. It offers a four-part taxonomy of patent pledges based on the factors that motivate patent holders to make them and the effect they are intended to have on other market actors. Using this classification system, it argues that pledges likely to induce reliance in other market actors should be treated as “actionable” * Associate Professor, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah and Senior Policy Fellow, American University Washington College of Law. The author thanks Jonas Anderson, Clark Asay, Marc Sandy Block, Mark Bohannon, Matthew Bye, Michael Carrier, Michael Carroll, Colleen Chien, Thomas Cotter, Carter Eltzroth, Carissa Hessick, Meredith Jacob, Jay Kesan, Anne Layne-Farrar, Irina Manta, Sean Pager, Gideon Parchomovsky, Arti Rai, Amelia Rinehart, Cliff Rosky, Daniel Sokol and Duane Valz for their helpful comments, suggestions and discussion of this article and contributions of data to the Patent Pledge Database at American University.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M
    THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M. Rice† Billionaire entrepreneur Naveen Jain wrote that “[s]uccess doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling.”1 Companies with innovative ideas must execute patent strategies effectively to navigate the current patent landscape. But in order to develop a defensive strategy, practitioners must appreciate the development of the defensive patent playbook. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”2 Congress attempts to promote technological progress by granting patent rights to inventors. Under the utilitarian theory of patent law, patent rights create economic incentives for inventors by providing exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure of technology.3 The exclusive right to make, use, import, and sell a technology incentivizes innovation by enabling inventors to recoup the costs of development and secure profits in the market.4 Despite the conventional theory, in the 1980s and early 1990s, numerous technology companies viewed patents as unnecessary and chose not to file for patents.5 In 1990, Microsoft had seven utility patents.6 Cisco © 2015 James M. Rice. † J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 1. Naveen Jain, 10 Secrets of Becoming a Successful Entrepreneur, INC. (Aug. 13, 2012), http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/10-secrets-of-becoming-a-successful- entrepreneur.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 27 Volume XXVII Number 1 Article 1 2016 Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Eli Greenbaum Yigal Arnon & Co., [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Eli Greenbaum, Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty, 27 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol27/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Cover Page Footnote Partner, Yigal Arnon & Co. J.D., Yale Law School; M.S., Columbia University. This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol27/iss1/1 Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Eli Greenbaum* Patentees increasingly exploit their intellectual property rights through royalty-free licensing arrangements. Even though patentees us- ing such frameworks forfeit their right to trade patents for monetary gain, royalty-free arrangements can be used to pursue other significant commercial and collaborative interests. This Article argues that modern royalty-free structures generate tension between various otherwise well- accepted doctrines of patent remedies law that were designed for more traditional licensing models.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro† 30 March 2013 ABSTRACT
    LEMLEY & SHAPIRO A SIMPLE APPROACH TO SETTING REASONABLE ROYALTIES FOR STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS∗ Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro† 30 March 2013 ABSTRACT Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) typically require their members to license any standard- essential patent on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Unfortunately, numerous high-stakes disputes have recently broken out over just what these “FRAND commitments” mean and how and where to enforce them. We propose a simple, practical set of rules regarding patents that SSOs can adopt to achieve the goals of FRAND commitments far more efficiently with far less litigation. Under our proposed approach, if an standard-essential patent owner and an implementer of the standard cannot agree on licensing terms, the standard-essential patent owner is obligated to enter into binding baseball-style (or “final offer”) arbitration with any willing licensee to determine the royalty rate. This obligation may be conditioned on the implementer making a reciprocal FRAND Commitment for any standard-essential patents it owns that read on the same standard. If the implementer is unwilling to enter into binding arbitration, the standard-essential patent owner’s FRAND commitment not to go to court to enforce its standard- essential patents against that party is discharged. We explain how our proposed FRAND regime would work in practice. Many of the disputes currently arising around FRAND commitments become moot under our approach. ∗ © 2013 Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro. We speak only for ourselves. We thank Robert Barr, Jorge Contreras, Thomas Cotter, Joseph Farrell, Richard Gilbert, Rose Hagan, Robert Harris, Brian Love, Gil Ohana, Fiona Scott- Morton, Jeffrey Wilder, and participants at a workshop at the Federal Trade Commission for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software
    EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY LINUS NYMAN – UNDERSTANDING CODE FORKING IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE SOURCE OPEN IN FORKING CODE UNDERSTANDING – NYMAN LINUS UNDERSTANDING CODE FORKING IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AN EXAMINATION OF CODE FORKING, ITS EFFECT ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, AND HOW IT IS VIEWED AND PRACTICED BY DEVELOPERS LINUS NYMAN Ekonomi och samhälle Economics and Society Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr 287 Linus Nyman Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software An examination of code forking, its effect on open source software, and how it is viewed and practiced by developers Helsinki 2015 < Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software: An examination of code forking, its effect on open source software, and how it is viewed and practiced by developers Key words: Code forking, fork, open source software, free software © Hanken School of Economics & Linus Nyman, 2015 Linus Nyman Hanken School of Economics Information Systems Science, Department of Management and Organisation P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland Hanken School of Economics ISBN 978-952-232-274-6 (printed) ISBN 978-952-232-275-3 (PDF) ISSN-L 0424-7256 ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) ISSN 2242-699X (PDF) Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2015 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who either helped make this book possible, or at the very least much more enjoyable to write. Firstly I would like to thank my pre-examiners Imed Hammouda and Björn Lundell for their insightful suggestions and remarks. Furthermore, I am grateful to Imed for also serving as my opponent. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Liikesivistysrahasto, the Hanken Foundation, the Wallenberg Foundation, and the Finnish Unix User Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Cip Forum 2016 Göteborg 25 - 27 Sept Convergence Cip Forum 2016 | Program
    CIP FORUM 2016 GÖTEBORG 25 - 27 SEPT CONVERGENCE CIP FORUM 2016 | PROGRAM All text material in the CIP FORUM 2016 Program brochure, is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Quotes and images may be subjected to copyright held by third parties and are not included under this license. LAYOUT & PRODUCTION PRINTING Anna Holmberg University of Gothenburg Linn Holmström Natalie Lorin CIP FORUM 2016 | PROGRAM CONTENTS WELCOME TO CIP FORUM 2016 7 CIP FORUM – WE’RE BACK 8 COLLABORATION PARTNERS 10 CIP.... AND THEN THERE WERE THREE 11 STUDENT PARTICIPATION 12 SPEAKERS 13 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 23 SESSION OVERVIEW 24 CONFERENCE VENUES 33 PRACTICAL INFORMATION 34 NOTE PAGES 35 CALL CENTER INFORMATION AND TRANSPORTATION +46 76 - 618 26 14 CIP FORUM 2016 | PROGRAM CONVERGENCE We are in the midst of a convergent world where the storms of disruptive change are brewing. Industries, universities, and nations alike will need to take heed. Some actors will define the future and others will have the future define them. Which one will you be? CIP FORUM 2016 | PROGRAM CIP FORUM 2016 WELCOME TO GÖTEBORG for the seventh addition of CIP FORUM. For those first- time participants, we are happy to welcome you not only to our city and event, but to our CIP community of academics, executives, policy-makers, professionals, students, and alumni gathered around the common goal of transforming knowledge into wealth and welfare. For those past-participants, we hope to reward your patience since the last event with another impressive program whose theme of convergence promises to deliver a new set of opportunities and challenges on the winding road to economic growth and prosperity in the knowledge economy.
    [Show full text]
  • BIG DATA Handbook a Guide for Lawyers
    W BIG DATA Handbook A Guide for Lawyers Robert Maier, Partner, Baker Botts Joshua Sibble, Senior Associate, Baker Botts BIG DATA Handbook—A Guide for Lawyers Executive Summary BIG DATA AND THE FUTURE OF COMMERCE Big Data is the future. Each year Big Data—large sets of data processed to reveal previously unseen trends, behaviors, and other patterns—takes on an increasingly important role in the global economy. In 2010, the Big Data market was valued at $100 billion worldwide, and it is expected to grow to over $200 billion by 2020. The power of Big Data and artificial intelligence to crunch vast amounts of information to gain insights into the world around us, coupled with the emerging ubiquity of the Internet of Things (IoT) to sense and gather that data about nearly everything on earth and beyond, has triggered a revolution the likes of which have not been seen since the advent of the personal computer. These technologies have the potential to shatter the norms in nearly every aspect of society—from the research into what makes a workforce happier and more productive, to healthcare, to the ways we think about climate change, and to the ways we bank and do business. Not surprisingly, it seems everyone is getting into the Big Data game, from the expected—multinational computer hardware, software, and digital storage manufacturers—to the unexpected—real estate agents, small businesses, and even wildlife conservationists. Within a few years, every sector of the global economy will be touched in some way by Big Data, its benefits, and its pitfalls.
    [Show full text]
  • A1.1 Strategy & Leadership
    INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS OF RWANDA CPA A1.1 STRATEGY & LEADERSHIP Study Manual 2nd edition February 2020, INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS OF RWANDA Advanced Level A1.1 STRATEGY & LEADERSHIP 2nd Edition February 2020 This Manual has been fully revised and updated in accordance with the current syllabus/ curriculum. It has been developed in consultation with experienced tutors and lecturers. © ICPAR All copy right reserved All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ICPAR. Acknowledgement We wish to officially recognize all parties who contributed to revising and updating this Manual, Our thanks are extended to all tutors and lecturers from various training institutions who actively provided their input toward completion of this exercise and especially the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN) through its PFM Basket Fund which supported financially the execution of this assignment Table Of Contents Units Title Page Introduction to the Course 6 1. Strategy process 9 Strategic Management and Operational Management 20 Perspectives on Strategy 22 The Marketing Dimension 22 The leadership and strategy leadership 48 2. The environment scanning and strategy position 53 Environmental Analysis 53 Assessing Strategic Capability 58 Measuring Stakeholder Expectations 63 3. Strategic choices 71 Corporate Level 71 Business Level 76 Strategy Development 83 4. Strategy implimentation and evaluation 87 Structure and Processes 87 Managing Key Enablers 95 Managing the Change Process 122 Understanding Groups and Teamwork 128 Organisational Communications 137 Project Management 143 Post stratgy evalution 150 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Patent Licensing Paper May 19 2014
    Hacking the Patent System A Guide to Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators By Marta Belcher and John Casey Juelsgaard Intellectual Property & Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School May 2014 Table of Contents Introduction to Alternative Patent Licensing…………………………………….1 The Patent System Is Broken…………………………………………………………1 Innovators Are Hacking the System to Use Patents for Good………………...1 Opting Out of the Patent System May Not Solve the Problem…………..……2 Defensive Patent Aggregators………………………………………………..………3 Unified Patents………………………………………………......……………………..4 Allied Security Trust (AST)………………………………………………………….…5 RPX……………………………………………………………………………………..…7 Patent Pledges………………………………………………………………………………9 Defensive Patent License (DPL)…………………………………..…………………9 Open Invention Network (OIN) ……………………………………...……………11 Twitter’s Innovator’s Patent Agreement (IPA).……………………………….…12 Google’s License on Transfer (LOT) Agreement…………………………….….14 Comparison Tables………………………………………………………………………16 i Introduction to Alternative Patent Licensing The patent system is intended to incentivize innovation, but the current system often does the opposite. The traditional model of patent licensing—whereby a company pays a patent owner to license an invention that the company legitimately uses—has been hijacked by non-practicing entities (“patent trolls”) and other aggressive patent holders who assert overbroad patents that never should have been granted in the first place. Within this broken patent regime, companies are increasingly hacking the system—that is, finding alternatives to the traditional patent licensing model in order to both promote open innovation and protect the companies themselves. These patent system hacks can be organized into two broad categories: (1) defensive patent aggregators, which pool member companies’ resources to defensively purchase patents for the group and to fight patent trolls, and (2) patent pledges, whereby companies opt to openly and defensively license their patents to others.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Pieces
    Information-intensive innovation: the changing role of the private firm in the research ecosystem through the study of biosensed data By Elaine M Sedenberg A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information Management and Systems in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Deirdre Mulligan, Co-Chair Professor John Chuang, Co-Chair Professor AnnaLee (Anno) Saxenian Professor Coye Cheshire Summer 2019 Information-intensive innovation: the changing role of the private firm in the research ecosystem through the study of biosensed data Copyright 2019 by Elaine M Sedenberg 1 Abstract Information-intensive innovation: the changing role of the private firm in the research ecosystem through the study of biosensed data by Elaine M Sedenberg Doctor of Philosophy in Information Management and Systems University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Deirdre Mulligan, Co-Chair Professor John Chuang, Co-Chair In a world instrumented with smart sensors and digital platforms, some of our most intimate and information-rich data are being collected and curated by private companies. The opportunities and risks derived from potential knowledge carried within these data streams are undeniable, and the clustering of data within the private sector is challenging traditional data infrastructures and sites of research. The role of private industry in research and development (R&D) has traditionally been limited— especially for earlier stage research—given the high risk, long time horizons, and uncertain returns on investment. However, the information economy has changed the way Silicon Valley and other technology firms operate their business models, which has vast implications for how they respectively innovate.
    [Show full text]
  • Collegiate Edu-Nation P-20 System Model Handbook for 21St Century School Transformation by Kim D
    Collegiate Edu-Nation P-20 System Model Handbook for 21st Century School Transformation by Kim D. Alexander - Gary E. Briers - Glen C. Shinn Corresponding authors: [email protected] // [email protected] // [email protected] Table of Contents Abstract . 2 Acknowledgements . 6 Prologue . 7 Purpose of This Handbook. 8 Target Audience . 8 Part I. Transformation in a Sea Change . 9 Chapter 1. Trends shaping the future of education . 9 Chapter 2. Comparing present and future education . 14 Part II. Planning and Preparing for Change . 30 Chapter 3. Clarifying community values and social influences . 30 Chapter 4. Aligning financial and strategic planning . 33 Chapter 5. Planning and preparing for change: Roles, responsibilities, rewards . 39 Part III. Beyond the Idea: Executing the Plan . 50 Chapter 6. Cultivating aspirations, expectations, hope, and grit . 50 Chapter 7. Creating an environment for innovation. 54 Chapter 8. Scaffolding the change process . 61 Chapter 9. Transforming curriculum and instruction . 69 Chapter 10. Transforming innovation to practice . 73 Part IV. Assessing Achievement . 78 Chapter 11. Evaluating progress and measuring outcomes . 78 Postscript . 88 1 Abstract Collegiate Edu-Nation P-20 System Model Handbook for 21st Century School Transformation Our Mission The mission of the Collegiate Edu-Nation P-20 System Model is to transform public education for all students, especially for those in small rural schools, to provide affordable access to college- ready, career-ready preparation leading to higher education and industry-recognized certifications and to serve as a state and national resource for such efforts. Our Vision Our P-20 vision for achieving this mission is to: • Break the cycle of generational poverty by creating a sense of high aspirations and expectations for college and career success among students, families, and communities, especially in STEM- based workforce shortage areas critical to solving global challenges.
    [Show full text]