000041924 000__ 02525cam\a22002535i\4500
000041924 001__ 41924
000041924 003__ SzGeWIPO
000041924 005__ 20240708145852.0
000041924 008__ 200619s2016\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000041924 022__ $$a0736-7694
000041924 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000041924 041__ $$aeng
000041924 1001_ $$aShur-Ofry, Michal
000041924 24503 $$aAccess-to-Error
000041924 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2016.
000041924 300__ $$a44 pages
000041924 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000041924 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000041924 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000041924 520__ $$aAccess to knowledge is a crucial part of the innovation paradigm, and its significance for development and progress is well recognized. Conversely, the role of errors, failures, and additional types of negative information in the dynamics of innovation is insufficiently explored in law and policy scholarship. This Article focuses on errors as drivers of innovation, and explores new ways for facilitating access to error. Drawing on multidisciplinary research—ranging from philosophical accounts of progress through studies of complex systems to accumulating reflections from diverse scientific communities—this Article demonstrates that, counterintuitively, errors and innovation are inextricably linked. Yet, the principal legal, institutional, and social structures that regularly incentivize the diffusion of knowledge discourage rather than encourage the diffusion of errors. Intellectual property law, the primary mechanism for stimulating the dissemination of knowledge goods, is inherently limited in its ability to promote the dissemination of negative knowledge. The scientific establishment—whose reputational rewards and institutional funding schemes complement and sometimes substitute intellectual property incentives—offers no equal rewards when it comes to negative findings or falsifications. The result is insufficient access to negative knowledge with acute and proven harms for innovation and progress. Against this analysis, this Article frames “access-to-error” as a pressing goal for innovation law and policy. It proposes a preliminary typology of negative information, and explores concrete policy measures to support an access-to-error paradigm concentrating on three possible mechanisms: adjustments to the intellectual property regime, top-down regulation, and a state-supported commons-based approach.
000041924 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 34, no. 2
000041924 650_0 $$aErrors
000041924 650_0 $$aInnovation
000041924 650_0 $$aIntellectual property
000041924 650_0 $$aInnovation policy
000041924 650_0 $$aCommons
000041924 85641 $$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Shur-Ofry-Access-to-Error.pdf$$yView this resource
000041924 904__ $$aJournal article
000041924 980__ $$aBIB