E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
I am thrilled to be
taking part of the Innovation Law
Beyond IP conference next week at Yale Law School. Thank you to
Lisa, Amy and Kiel for organizing such an exciting event. To me, the conference’s title reflects with precision how we
should be thinking about innovation policy. In my recent book, Talent
Wants to Be Free: Why Should Learn to Love Leaks, Raids and Free-Riding I
argue that human capital law - at the intersection of intellectual property,
employment law and antitrust – is one of the most important frontiers for
innovation policy. The book challenges conventional wisdom about competition,
secrecy, motivation, and creativity and suggests that we rethink the boundaries
we’ve drawn between human capital controls and openness. Balkinization featured
an exchange
Kiel and I did about the book.
In my new
article, The New Cognitive Property, I argue that contemporary
policy is grounded in the conviction that not only the outputs of
innovation – artistic expressions, scientific methods, and technological
advances – but also the inputs of innovation – people, their skills,
experience, knowledge, professional relationships, creative and entrepreneurial
energies, and the potential for innovating – are subject to control and
propertization. In 1964, Charles Reich wrote “the
institution called property guards the trouble boundary between individual man
and the state.” Today, as we guard the boundaries between individual, market,
and state, we face a reality of not only the expansion of intellectual
property but also cognitive property.
At the same time, the field of human capital law is largely
neglected in innovation policy debates. Regulatory and contractual controls on
human capital – post-employment restrictions including non-competition contracts,
non-solicitation, non-poaching, and anti-dealing agreements; pre-innovation
assignment agreements of patents, copyright, as well as non-patentable and
non-copyrightable ideas; and confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements and
trade secrets enforcement against former insiders - are fast growing frontiers
of market battles. The expansion is textured:
·subject-wise, the expansion of controls into the
intangibility spectrum that propertizes knowledge that would fall outside the
scope of patent and copyright, as captured by the rise in contractual clauses
assigning all innovation “whether patentable or non-patentable.”
·time-wise, the
expansion of ownership over future innovation, as well as attempts to go back
in time and capture prior knowledge that an employee had when joining the
company.
·scope-wise,
demonstrates “the non-compete thicket” - the colossal rise in the use of
non-competes along with a shift from individualized controls to meta-controls,
or cognitive cartels, as evidenced in the current class action against
high-tech giants, including Apple, Google, Intuit, and Pixar, which agreed to
not hire each other’s employees.
These regimes heavily shape industrial
competition, regionally and globally, and through this web of extensively employed
mechanisms, skill and knowledge that have traditionally been deemed public in
intellectual property law have become proprietary. The expansion of controls
over human capital has thus become the blindspot of intellectual property
debates.
Human capital is a dynamic
self-replenishing shared resource. Unlike other natural resources that become
endangered by overuse, pollution, and free riding, human capital is endangered
when it is under-used, isolated, and controlled. Unlike other resources, it is
human, with built-in motivation and psyche. The traditional and under-developed
analysis asserts that human capital controls are necessary to generate
investment and growth. At the same time, a growing body of empirical evidence
points to the detrimental effects of excessive human capital controls, both
motivationally and in the aggregate. I look forward to the Innovation Beyond IP
conference this coming week where we will continue to engage with the human
capital/innovation nexus.
Orly Lobel is the Don Weckstein Professor of Labor and Employment Law at San Diego Law School. She can be reached at lobel at sandiego.edu