First, many thanks to Kal and Chris for offering their paper for the mobblog, and thanks to Randy for inviting me to join.
Second, in this post I'd like to focus on Part III of the paper, which, as Kal and Chris write, asks "whether the fashion industry has anything to say about the orthodox justification for more IP rights more generally." While I like the question, I'm a little bit disappointed by their answer, which seems to be: maybe. Part III compiles an intriguing and seemingly idiosyncratic compilation of other fields that, with fashion, occupy what Kal and Chris call copyright's "negative space": recipes, furniture design, tattoos, computer databases, open source software, microprocessor designs, hairstyles, perfume, magic tricks, and fireworks displays. Is there a thread that links these (and other) fields in an integrated theory of innovation law? Or is each field subject to the kind of socio-economic investigation that The Piracy Paradox initiates? The paper equivocates.
The equivocation may be understandable in this paper, even if I'd welcome a hypothesis or two. Perhaps a followup project will attempt an answer. I'll offer a preliminary answer of my own: