Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Intellectual property law and the psychology of creativity


By Jessica Bregant, JD, and Jennifer K. Robbennolt, JD, PhD, University of Illinois
The Monitor on Psychology - The Judicial Notebook
January 2013, Vol 44, No. 1
Print version: page 21

Creativity and the process of innovation are fertile grounds for psychological research, with applications spanning education, the arts, business and science. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the topic of creativity in the context of patent law. The case, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., revisited a long-observed legal prohibition on patenting the "laws of nature" and illustrates one of the many ways in which law, particularly intellectual property law, can be informed and shaped by psychological principles.

(cut)

The court, in Mayo, identified the competing incentives created by the availability of patents: The rights granted by patents are intended to provide an economic incentive for innovation but may also restrict the flow of information and cross-fertilization of ideas among inventors. To balance these interests, patents are generally issued only for inventions that are novel, not obvious and useful. The court also recognized the breadth of the fields to which patent law (and, more broadly, intellectual property law) applies. Different types of creative activities may involve different aspects of creativity.

Psychologists have much to contribute to an understanding of the cognitive processes by which people engage in creative activity, how those processes are similar and different across substantively different fields, what motivates creative activity, whether and how the rules of intellectual property can encourage or stifle innovation, and what else might be done to cultivate innovation.


The entire article is here.