An analysis of the role of witnessing (and of its legal articulations) in early telescopic astronomy. Mostly focused on the conversations between Kepler and Galileo.

The study of academic brands intersects trademark law with critical university studies around questions both empirical and conceptual, from rather mundane things like universities’ trademark policies and lawsuits over T-shirts and hoodies carrying university insignia all the way to the complex cultural, political, and economic tensions that frame the conflicted identity of the modern university. Straddling the line between knowledge and business, public and private, or between its local ties to the state and its reach toward the global economy of higher education, the modern university seems to have found in brands a tool to construct a coherent and attractive image, if perhaps only skin deep, of itself, its role, and its “excellence.”

This essay is about the unique role of proper nouns at the intersection of knowledge and property, both tangible and intangible. Nouns are central to any form of property and credit, from a person's name listed on a property deed or copyright registration, to the name of an artist to whom a work is attributed, or that of a scientist after whom a discovery or theory is named. And names can also be found on the other end of the property spectrum, not as the names of authors and owners but as objects of property, as in the case of brand names. Here I trace some of the functions of these names as they move across different scenarios of knowledge-making and property-making, focusing on some of the effects those trajectories are having in the contemporary technosciences as they bring together the function of the author and that of the brand.

Rooted in the traditional peer review model, the conceptualization of dialogue informing this collection may in fact constrain the ambitious rethinking of the process of editorial review we have been encouraged to pursue here. After suggesting ways to enhance the dialogical dimensions of the traditional peer review model, I will propose a substantially different conceptualization of dialogue, one framed by the more recent practice of post-publication review

Scientific plagiarism is as sui generis as the author function in science. A study of the specificity of scientific plagiarism and the ways in which it diverges from appropriation in other disciplines allows us to question traditional definitions that focus on the copying of published copyrighted materials. The form of plagiarism that is most damaging to scientists does not involve publications, is largely outside the scope of copyright law, and is unlikely to be detected by textual-similarity algorithms. The same features that make this kind of plagiarism difficult to identify and control also provide a powerful window on the unique construction of authorial credit in science, the problems of peer review, and the limitations of plagiarism surveillance technologies. © 2012, International Cultural Property Society. All rights reserved.

The scale is the most famous emblem of the law, including intellectual property (IP). Because IP rights impose social costs on the public by limiting access to protected work, the law can be justified only to the extent that, on balance, it encourages enough creation and dissemination of new works to offset those costs. The scale is thus a potent rhetorical trope of fairness and objectivity, but also an instrument the law thinks with - one that is constantly invoked to justify or to question the extent of available IP protection. The balancing act that underlies the legitimacy of IP is, however, literally impossible to perform. Because we are unable to measure the benefits that IP has for inventors or the costs it has for the public, the scale has nothing to weigh. It conveys a clear sense that IP law can be balanced, but in fact propagates only a visible simulacrum of balance - one that is as empty as it is powerful.

Tougher examination of patent applications reduces anti-commons effects while reducing the frequency and costs of litigation. Modelled after open source/free software collaborations, the "Peer to Patent" initiative seeks to improve the quality of patents by developing a Web-based infrastructure whereby volunteer experts external to the PTO's review applications, assemble prior art information, and submit the results of their collective work back to the Patent Office examiner. This paper endorses the spirit and goals of the "Peer to Patent" initiative, but questions its reliance on the open source model. A discussion of the functions of peer review, the meaning of peer, and the motivations of the reviewers in different contexts indicates that editorial peer review - not open source - can provide a more effective model for integrating peer review of patent applications into PTO practices.