Historically, the use of legal frameworks to claim proprietary rights in the products of agricultural science was limited to the private sector. Public institutions, including CGIAR, treated their creations as the common heritage of humankind. Scientific, economic, and legal changes unsettled this public–private balance in the 1980s, provoking a reimagination of the role of intellectual property in research and development. Three distinct theories about how CGIAR should respond to the global expansion of intellectual property in agriculture emerged. Maximalists embraced proprietary legal claims, adaptationists advocated for cautious accommodation, and rejectionists viewed intellectual property as ancillary to the CGIAR mission. This chapter traces the history of intellectual property debates within CGIAR from 1990 to 2020, arguing that over time, the adaptationist approach prevailed as institutional governance structures developed. Although current policies permit each CGIAR center to embrace rejectionism or maximalism to a certain extent, the rejectionist theory has been marginalized at the system level, while a global capitalist approach to agricultural science has taken root.

Australian courts may grant ‘reasonable fee’ awards where defendants have used certain property or infringed certain rights in a tortious manner. ‘Reasonable fee’ refers to a method of calculating a monetary award for a wrong; namely, where the court awards the objectively ascertained fee that the parties would have agreed upon for permitting the defendant’s conduct. Reasonable fee awards may be made in various forms, including through an award of compensation, in an action for money had and received through ‘waiver of tort’, as ‘restitutionary damages’, or under Lord Cairns’ Act in lieu of an injunction. They are generally awarded for common law causes of action. As discussed in this chapter, the rationale for reasonable fee damages is highly contested. In previous editions of this book, we conceptualised reasonable fee awards as being gain-based and discussed them in the chapter on gain-based relief. The latest cases from the apex courts of the United Kingdom and Singapore suggest that reasonable fee awards are an instance of ‘substitutive compensation’. It remains to be seen whether Australian courts will adopt this approach.

This chapter deals with the availability of the other specific remedy: the injunction. As with specific performance, injunctions are a coercive remedy originating in equity. The court orders the defendant to do something (or to refrain from doing something) and the defendant must obey this order or be in contempt of court. Again, if the defendant does not comply, the court may use measures such as imprisonment, sequestration, and fines to encourage compliance with its order.

However, in contrast to specific performance, injunctions apply to many situations, not just contract or contract-like obligations, and they protect many private law rights, including rights in land, goods and other property, economic rights, the right to bodily integrity, the right to reputation, the right to privacy, and contractual rights. They may also be used in support of public law rights.

Fueled in part by the wealth created from digital currencies, major art dealers such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s have embraced the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) attached to unique digital works of art. NFTs, how they are related to the blockchain, and the evolution of the market for digital art is the subject of this chapter. Despite recent decreases in value, it appears that digital art can be added to the growing list of uses for blockchain technology, which is now becoming a part of modern life. This chapter proceeds in five sections. First, the overview of the evolutionary progression of blockchain technology in the form of NFTs. Second, a description of the emergence of the market for digital art. Third, an explanation and historical account of digital art and related recent issues. Fourth, a coverage of the abrupt decline in the market price for many NFTs. And last, a conclusion, which focuses on how the dramatic extension of blockchain and other digital technology to the world of art represents a new and exciting platform for creative expression. This chapter offers a valuable addition to the literature by providing a readable introduction and overview of what is now known about the likely impact of blockchain technology and NFTs to art. Additionally, this important development should have a significant impact on the future of innovation and property law.

In February 2021, the Australian federal government enacted the “News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code,” which requires Facebook and Google to pay domestic news outlets for linking to their websites. It was a first-of-its-kind mechanism for redistributing revenue from Big Tech platforms to legacy journalism, and it has attracted global attention from policymakers looking to halt the internet-fueled decline of the traditional news industry. Thus, the success or failure of what critics call Australia’s “link tax” has significant implications for the future of both the World Wide Web and the news industry writ large.

Media have traditionally relied on a mix of advertising and subscription revenue to keep the lights on – and to produce a mix of high-quality, thoughtful, well researched, compelling news, information, educational, and other content that is necessary in a modern democracy. The internet has disrupted those revenue streams. And while some media outlets have shored themselves up on other sources of support – grants, government transfers and licensing fees, wealthy patrons, or the like – such funding is both the exception and de minimis in the overall operation of our media ecosystem.

Data is one of the most valuable resources in the twenty-first century. Property rights are a tried-and-tested legal response to regulating valuable assets. With non-personal, machine-generated data within an EU context, mainstream IP options are not available, although certain types of machine generated data may be protected as trade secrets or within sui generis database protection. However, a new IP right is not needed. The formerly proposed EU data producer’s right is a cautionary tale for jurisdictions considering a similar model. A new property right would both strengthen the position of de facto data holders and drive up costs. However, with data, there are valuable lessons to be learned from constructed commons models.

Medearis and his two cofounders of Silicon Valley Bank wished to tackle the antiquated banking practices that led to a massive reduction in the number of banks, the disappearance of community banks, and the mergers of Big Banks. Bank regulations and culture prevent banks from embracing tech startups and entrepreneurs as lending clients. The SVB founders knew about Bank of America’s abandonment of its early tech lending, missed opportunities, and bank failures to capture tech startups and entrepreneurs. The old, conservative banking environment during the early days of the tech sector presented the founders with an opportunity.

The unique success enjoyed by Silicon Valley Bank was the result of a long process that began at the vision of the bank by the original three founders, Medearis, Biggerstaff, and Smith. The key to success involved convincing the regulators to establish a bank for the tech sector. Educating the regulators required ongoing efforts in the first decade and thereafter. SVB lenders, including Harry Kellogg, convinced the regulators about the efficacy of tech lending.1

Times are changing as our global ecosystem for commercializing innovation helps bring new technologies to market, networks grow, and interconnections and transactions become more complex around standards, all to enable vast opportunities to improve the human condition, to further competition, and to improve broad access. The policies that governments use to structure their legal systems for intellectual property, especially patents, as well as for competition—or antitrust—continue to have myriad powerful impacts and raise intense debates over challenging questions. This chapter explores a representative set of debates about policy approaches to patents, to elucidate particular ideas to bear in mind about how adopting a private law, property rights-based approach to patents enables them to better operate as tools for facilitating the commercialization of new technologies in ways that best promote the goals of increasing access while fostering competition and security for a diverse and inclusive society.

This chapter discusses the pharmaceutical industry, with specific attention given to the role of intellectual property and R&D. The chapter also explains (broadly) the process by which a new drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The key concept in the chapter is the tradeoff inherent in intellectual property protections: stronger protections spur more innovation but at the cost of higher prices for a longer period of time. On the other hand, weaker protections allow for more affordable products more quickly, but at the cost of reduced innovation. The end of chapter supplement explores the role of international trade agreements in solving research and development coordination problems.

In light of growing geopolitical tensions between China and the West, the chapter focuses on areas of persistently shared interests and common concerns of humankind. Climate change, the protection of biodiversity and pandemics cannot be addressed in isolation but require common efforts and international cooperation in the dissemination of technologies and knowledge, despite ideological differences. The paper stresses the importance of existing WTO law and sets a trade-related agenda for these areas. Finally, it submits that a future principle of Common Concern of Humankind offers guidance in finding common ground for multilateral negotiations on trade, competition and investment in the WTO. It is capable of protecting the interests of a global community increasingly caught in big-power rivalry.

This chapter reviews China’s engagement with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the past twenty years. It begins by highlighting TRIPS-related developments in the first decade of China’s WTO membership. The chapter then discusses the country’s ‘innovative turn’ in the mid-2000s and the ramifications of its changing policy positions. This chapter continues to examine the US-China trade war, in particular the second TRIPS complaint that the United States filed against China in March 2018. It concludes with observations about the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on China, China’s impact on that agreement and how the changing Chinese intellectual property landscape has altered developing countries’ coalitional dynamics within the WTO.

The world of digital commerce is relatively new. It is a by-product of an information technology revolution that started with the invention of the integrated circuit, carried forward with advances in computing and unleashed with the creation of the internet. Digital commerce is familiar in some respects and dramatically different in others from the world of trade that preceded it. It poses special problems of privacy, unwanted communication, and new kinds of competition, stemming from the flow of data across borders. It gave rise to the need to devise rules for its nurture and management. It makes the most sense for the rules to be global, as without interference from governments, e-commerce is global. It creates opportunities as never experienced before for innovation and for individual and small business involvement in international commerce. This is the story of the evolution of the process of rule-making in the age of digital commerce.