Difference between revisions of "Sag, Jacobi and Sytch (2007)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
|Method of Collection=Archival Research
 
|Method of Collection=Archival Research
 
|Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association, Regression Analysis
 
|Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association, Regression Analysis
|Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Cultural education;
 
 
|Country=United States;
 
|Country=United States;
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Cross-country=No
Line 34: Line 33:
 
|Government or policy=No
 
|Government or policy=No
 
|Literature review=No
 
|Literature review=No
|Funded By=None;
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
|Dataset={{Dataset
 
|Dataset={{Dataset
 
|Sample Size=72
 
|Sample Size=72
 
|Level of Aggregation=Court Decisions,
 
|Level of Aggregation=Court Decisions,
|Data Material Year=1954 - 2006
+
|Data Material Year=1954-2006
 
}}
 
}}
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 16:31, 14 December 2016

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Sag, Jacobi and Sytch (2007)
Title: The Effect of Judicial Ideology in Intellectual Property Cases
Author(s): Sag, M., Jacobi, T., Sytch, M.
Year: 2007
Citation: Sag, Matthew and Jacobi, Tonja and Sytch, Maxim, The Effect of Judicial Ideology in Intellectual Property Cases (July 2, 2007). 2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper.
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Database contains a comprehensive set of 72 Supreme Court opinions dealing with IP from 1954 through 2006 which is adapted from a widely used database of Supreme Court opinions developed by Harold Spaeth: the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database.
Data Type: Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2007
Funder(s):

Abstract

This article investigates the relationship between ideology and judicial decision-making in the context of intellectual property. This article empirically establishes that judicial decision making in relation to IP is significantly and predictably shaped by judicial ideology. Using data drawn from Supreme Court intellectual property cases decided in between 1954 and 2006, we show that ideology is a significant determinant of cases involving intellectual property rights. However, our analysis also shows that there are significant differences between intellectual property and other areas of the law with respect to the effect of ideology. This analysis has important implications for the study of intellectual property. It also contributes to the broader judicial ideology literature by demonstrating the effect of ideology in economic cases.

Main Results of the Study

This article explores whether the outcomes of intellectual property cases are determined by judicial ideology – as measured on the traditional liberal-conservative scale. Political science’s ‘attitudinal school’ – developing the legal realist claim that judges vote their political preferences, or attitudes – have shown that ideology is a significant,TPFPT and arguably the dominant, determinant of judicial decisions generally. More specifically, it shows that:

  • Correcting the erroneous impression that intellectual property is not shaped by judicial ideology is important for IP (Intellectual Property) scholarship, but it also provides a vital answer to a largely unanswered question in the broader judicial ideology literature, of whether ideology shapes economic cases as well as salient social-political issues.
  • The types of IP involved in a case are also a significant determinant of the probability that the justices will vote for (or against) the IP owner.
  • Although we can resoundingly reject the notion that IP is immune to the effects of ideological division, there is evidence that IP is different to other areas of the law. There is a significant difference between the extent to which ideology shapes IP cases and the extent to which it affects other areas of the law.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

- The stronger relationship between IP and ideology for conservatives suggests that the status of IP rights as private property may well be a trump against other competing values.

- Although there is considerable evidence supporting the attitudinal model of judicial decision making in non-economic areas, such as criminal procedure and administrative law, there is much less evidence to support the attitudinal model in economic areas such as taxation, securities and antitrust.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Green-tick.png
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Green-tick.png
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 72
Level of aggregation: Court Decisions
Period of material under study: 1954-2006