Regime Change in Intellectual Property: Superseding the Law of the State with the 'Law' of the Firm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our current legal discourse on intellectual property needs to expand beyond propertization policy to include competition and free speech policy. Recent legal strategies in the U.S. have tried to avoid the limits copyright law by appropriating arcane real property torts and by mass promulgated contracts. If effective, such laws would supersede the official regime of intellectual property. In order to remain relevant in light of such developments, legal discourse must consider which aspects of the present intellectual property and contract regimes are default, waivable rules and which are inalienable entitlements. As one method for motivating a consideration of the limits of the waivability of default rules, I present a framework for considering whether such superseding regimes could be efficient. I argue that questions of efficiency implicate hard issues of pre-emption by federal law, as well as issues of competition and free speech. I also outline some categories of the most plausible candidates for inalienable rights. Finally, I argue that legislative approval of the regulation of intellectual property by machine poses a separate threat to the official copyright regime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".