Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:42:26.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Incentives to Promote Innovation at Work: A Critical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Chris Dent ,
Colin Fenwick  and
Kirsten Newitt
Chris Dent
Affiliation:
Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Melbourne Law School
Colin Fenwick
Affiliation:
Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, Melbourne Law School
Kirsten Newitt
Affiliation:
Ergon Associates, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The allocation of any benefit that arises from worker-generated innovation is complicated by the importance of three separate areas of law — employment law, intellectual property law and equity — and the distinction between those types of innovation that attract intellectual property rights and those types that do not (the latter being a category that is often referred to as ‘know-how’). The purpose of this article is to engage with the legal scholarship on the principles that are relevant to innovation. To date, the discussion has focused on two distinct approaches — what may be termed the economic and the fairness perspectives. The former may be seen as a justification for the current regime, while the latter has focused on the perceived needs of workers (in large part in opposition to the employers). Our argument is that these two approaches are both incomplete. In an attempt to get closer to a workable framework for the effective allocation of benefits, we offer a third approach; one that is based on the practices that are central to the employer-worker relationship.

Keywords

Employment lawnintellectual propertyinnovationknow-howallocation of benefits
Type
Symposium: Innovation, Skills and Training
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , December 2010 , pp. 27 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010

References

Abbing, H. (2003) ‘Support for artists’ in Towse, R. (ed.) A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
Allison, J. and Lemley, M. (2000) ‘Who’s patenting what? An empirical exploration of patent prosecution’, Vanderbilt Law Review 53(6), pp. 2099–2174.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. and Schalk, R. (1998) ‘The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect’, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 19, pp. 637–647.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arup, C. (1993), Innovation, Policy and Law: Australia and the International High Technology Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Business Foundation (2005) Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation Inquiry into Pathways to Technological Innovation.Google Scholar
Bartow, A. (1997) ‘Inventors of the world, unite! A call for collective action by employee-inventors’, Santa Clara Law Review, 37, pp. 673–729.Google Scholar
Bently, L. and Sherman, B. (2004) Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Second edition.Google Scholar
Boldrin, M. and Levine, D. (2002) Perfectly competitive innovation, Research Department Staff Report 303, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burk, D. and Lemley, M. (2003) ‘Policy levers in patent law’, Virginia Law Review, 89(7), pp. 1575–1696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, P. (2000) ‘A market-driven approach to retaining talent’, Harvard Business Review, 78(1), pp. 103–111.Google Scholar
Casselman, M., Quintane, E. and Reiche, B. (2006) Reconceptualising innovation as a social and knowledge-based phenomenon, Intellectual Property Institute of Australia Working Paper 15.06.Google Scholar
Cherensky, S. (1993) ‘A penny for their thoughts: Employee-inventors, pre-invention assignment agreements, property and personhood’, California Law Review, 81(2), pp. 595–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. (2003), Employment Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cutler, T. (2008), Venturous Australia: Building Strength in Innovation, Review of the National Innovation System, Cutler and Co., Pty Ltd, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Dent, C. (2007) ‘To see patents as devices of uncertain (but contingent) quality: A Foucaultian perspective’ Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2(1), pp. 148–163.Google Scholar
Fisk, C. (2002) ‘Reflections on the new psychological contract and the ownership of human capital’ Connecticut Law Review, 34(3), pp. 765–785.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1983) ‘The subject and power’, in Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (eds), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Second edition, pp. 208–226.Google Scholar
Gilson, R. (1999) ‘The legal infrastructure of high technology industrial districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and covenants not to compete’, New York University Law Review, 74(3), pp. 575–629.Google Scholar
Gordon, C., (ed.) (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York.Google Scholar
Granstrand, O. (1999) The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
Hannah, D. (2004) ‘Who owns ideas? An investigation of employees’ beliefs about the legal ownership of ideas’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), pp. 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S. (2004) ‘Proprietary ownership and the employment relationship — Part 1’ Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 17(4), pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Hettinger, E. (1989) ‘Justifying intellectual property’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(1), pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
Hunter, L. (2002) Intellectual capital: Accumulation and appropriation. Melbourne Institute Working Paper 22/02.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. and Lerner, J. (2004), Innovation and Its Discontents, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.Google Scholar
Kitch, E. (1996) ‘The expansion of trade secrecy protection and the mobility of management employees: A new problem for the law’ South Carolina Law Review, 47(4), pp. 659–672.Google Scholar
Landes, W. and Posner, R. (2003), The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Belknap Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Lemley, M. and Shapiro, C. (2005) ‘Probabilistic patents’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), pp. 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, G. (2001) ‘Restrictive covenants, employee training and the limits of transaction-cost analysis’ Indiana Law Journal, 76(1), pp. 49–76.Google Scholar
Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1987) ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeough, J., Stewart, A. and Griffith, P. (2004) Intellectual Property in Australia, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney, Third edition.Google Scholar
Merges, R. (1999) ‘The law and economics of employee inventions’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 13(1), pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
Miller, R. (1974), Legal Aspects of Technology Utilisation, Lexington Books, Lexington Mass.Google Scholar
Morgan, O. (1994) ‘Product innovation — Employees and intellectual property’, New Zealand Law Journal (April), pp. 152–156.Google Scholar
Njoya, W. (2004) ‘Employee ownership and efficiency: An evolutionary perspective’, Industrial Law Journal, 33(3), pp. 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (1996) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Knowledge-Based Economy, Report, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
Orkin, N. (1984) ‘Rewarding employee invention: Time for change’, Harvard Business Review, 62(1), pp. 56–57.Google Scholar
Orkin, N. and Burger, S. (2005) ‘Employee invention rights in the twenty-first century’, Labor Law Journal, 56(1), pp. 82–88.Google Scholar
Posner, E., Triantis, A. and Triantis, G. (2004) Investing in human capital: The efficiency of covenants not to compete, Working Paper No 11, University of Virginia Law School.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2007) Public Support for Science and Innovation. Research Report, Productivity Commission, Canberra.Google Scholar
Raper, E. (2004) ‘Employee ownership of inventions — A re-examination’, Australian Journal of Labour Law, 17(1), pp. 81–88.Google Scholar
Riley, J. (2005a), Employee Protection at Common Law, Federation Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Riley, J. (2005b) ‘Who owns human capital? A critical appraisal of legal techniques for capturing the value of work’, Australian Journal of Labour Law, 18(1), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. and Rousseau, D. (1994) ‘Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm’, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 15(3), pp. 245–259.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. (1989) ‘Psychological and implied contracts in organisations’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), pp. 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, P. and Shedd, P. (1981) ‘Human capital and covenants not to compete’, Journal of Legal Studies, 10, pp. 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sappideen, C., O’Grady, P. and Warburton, G. (2009), Macken’s Law of Employment, LawBook, Sydney.Google Scholar
Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional Advantage — Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route, 128, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. (1992) ‘Ownership of property in the context of employment’, Australian Journal of Labour Law, 5(1), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Stone, K. (2002) ‘Knowledge at work: Disputes over the ownership of human capital in the changing workplace’, Connecticut Law Review, 34(3), pp. 721–763.Google Scholar
Stone, K. (2004), From Widgets to Digits: Employment Regulation for the Changing Workplace, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, P. (2000), Value-Driven Intellectual Capital, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
van Caenegem, W. (2002) ‘Intellectual property and intellectual capital’, Intellectual Property Forum, 48, pp. 10–25.Google Scholar
van Caenegem, W. (2007a), Intellectual Property Law and Innovation, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Caenegem, W. (2007b) ‘The mobility of creative individuals, trade secrets and restraints of trade’, Murdoch E-Law Journal, 14(2), pp. 265–279.Google Scholar
Wotherspoon, K. (1993) ‘Employee inventions revisited’, Industrial Law Journal, 22(2), pp. 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar