Collaborative Research: Cross-Cultural Comparison of Conceptions of Property

这个项目将分析大众对知识产权的理解，测试知识产权在各种情况下应该如何运作，调查人们理解的知识产权法的目的是什么，并研究文化在这种理解中的作用。通过在跨国比较实验中这样做，本项目将推动对法律的文化理解的分析，因为实验尚未被广泛用于阐明对法律的文化理解。此外，这项研究的更广泛影响是显著的。如今，知识产权纠纷随处可见。知识产权法，包括专利法和版权法，是建立在这样一个前提之上的，即向人们提供知识产权将鼓励潜在的发明家和作者比没有知识产权的人从事更多的创造性活动和创新。只有当潜在的发明者和作者知道专利的法律优势，如果持有专利没有可能阻碍创新的副作用，如果知识产权通常是自我强制的，知识产权法才能发挥作用。如果人们不知道激励措施，他们就无法激励创新，而且在许多情况下，只有在广泛自愿遵守的情况下，法律才能对创造者起作用。这些研究将为知识产权法发挥预期作用的能力提供洞察，人们如何看待无形(相对于有形)财产的所有权，以及知识产权法影响人类理解和行为的能力。这一新知识应有助于阐明如何修改知识产权制度，以更好地激励创新并促使用户广泛遵守，以及如何更有效地与对知识产权有不同理解的国家谈判和执行知识产权条约。

This project will analyze popular understanding of intellectual property rights, test how intellectual property rights should work in various situations, investigate what people understand to be the purpose of intellectual property law, and study the role of culture in this understanding. In doing so in cross-national comparative experiments, this project will move analysis of cultural understandings of law forward, for experiments have not yet been widely used to illuminate cultural understandings of law. Furthermore, the broader impacts of the research are significant. Intellectual property disputes are everywhere these days. Intellectual property law, including patent and copyright law, is built on the premise that offering people intellectual property rights will encourage potential inventors and authors to engage in more creative activity and innovation than they otherwise would. Intellectual property law can only work if potential inventors and authors know of the legal advantages in patents, if there are not side benefits to holding patents that can discourage innovation, and if intellectual property rights are generally self-enforcing. People cannot be incentivized to innovate if they are not aware of the incentives, and in many cases the law can only work for creators if there is widespread voluntary compliance. These studies will provide insight into the ability of intellectual property law to function as intended, how people think about the ownership of intangible (versus tangible) property, and the ability of intellectual property law to affect human understanding and behavior. This new knowledge should shed light on how to modify the intellectual property system to better incentivize innovation and generate widespread user observance, as well as how to more effectively negotiate and implement intellectual property treaties with countries that have different intellectual property understandings.