This project will analyze popular understanding of intellectual property rights, test how intellectual property rights should work in various situations, investigate what people understand to be the purpose of intellectual property law, and study the role of culture in this understanding. In doing so in cross-national comparative experiments, this project will move analysis of cultural understandings of law forward, for experiments have not yet been widely used to illuminate cultural understandings of law. Furthermore, the broader impacts of the research are significant. Intellectual property disputes are everywhere these days. Intellectual property law, including patent and copyright law, is built on the premise that offering people intellectual property rights will encourage potential inventors and authors to engage in more creative activity and innovation than they otherwise would. Intellectual property law can only work if potential inventors and authors know of the legal advantages in patents, if there are not side benefits to holding patents that can discourage innovation, and if intellectual property rights are generally self-enforcing. People cannot be incentivized to innovate if they are not aware of the incentives, and in many cases the law can only work for creators if there is widespread voluntary compliance. These studies will provide insight into the ability of intellectual property law to function as intended, how people think about the ownership of intangible (versus tangible) property, and the ability of intellectual property law to affect human understanding and behavior. This new knowledge should shed light on how to modify the intellectual property system to better incentivize innovation and generate widespread user observance, as well as how to more effectively negotiate and implement intellectual property treaties with countries that have different intellectual property understandings.
