外文翻译--知识产权和奖励的谬误(编辑修改稿)

外文翻译--知识产权和奖励的谬误(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

to hide its very best quality – its falsifiability. The incentive theory yields predictions about the world that can be tested. Specifically, the incentive theory predicts that economic actors will tend not engage in economically valuable creativity and innovation without external rewards. And, as it turns out, digital worked technologies have been testing this prediction. The evidence is in, and it refutes the theory. What’s more, work in 5 businessmanagement studies and the social sciences is putting together a new, more nuanced theoretical picture of innovation and creativity. That new theoretical understanding – while less elegant as a matter of theory – is manifestly in line with empirical observations. The necessary implication is that thinking about intellectual property must be pletely revised. There are exceptions. That is, there are circumstances where external incentives may sometimes be necessary to spur progress. My argument in this paper is not that external incentives are never necessary or useful. Instead, my argument is about the general case. In general, the kind of creativity and innovation that benefits society as a whole is not in need of externally supplied incentives. Thus, my contention in this Article regards what standing the incentive theory ought to have among judges, lawmakers, and legal scholars. My conclusion is that it’s due for a downgrade. Flipping our presumption about intellectual production is not a mere matter of academic curiosity. Innovation and creative labor are among the most important aspects of the world economy and arguably the most important drivers of economic growth. It follows that changing our default policy with regard to innovation and creative production has the potential to work a positive, widescale transformation in our economy as a whole. Looking at the incentive theory’s troubles with present circumstances begs a fresh look at its past. Indeed, the incentive theory has a long and venerable pedigree that contributes to a reluctance to set it aside. But the incentivetheory tradition is not actually quite so wellrooted in history as one might think. While it’s natural to think that the development of intellectual property law was guided by careful reasoning on the basis of classical economics, in reality, it wasn’t. The real history is not so much Adam Smith as Niccol242。 Machiavelli. The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors. Thus, now that happenstance in。