Bibliography

Alexander Peukert

doi:10.1017/9781108653329.008

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 April 2021

Alexander Peukert

Translated by

Gill Mertens

Show author details

Alexander Peukert: Affiliation:
Goethe University (Frankfurt)

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: A Critique of the Ontology of Intellectual Property Law , pp. 171 - 200

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653329.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibliography

Anglo-French Copyright Treaty (1851) in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org.

Bach v. Longman (1777) in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Baseler Druckerordnung (1531), Basel Printers’ Statute, Basel (1531) in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Berne Convention, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Government Draft UrhG 1965, Draft of an Act on Copyright and Related Rights, BT-printed matter IV/270

Connecticut Copyright Statute (1783), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Copyright Act, London (1801), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Cour d’appel de Rouen (1845), Court of Appeal on translations, Paris (1845), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

CPI, Code de la propriété intellectuelle (French Intellectual property code)

Déclaration en faveur de l’académie royale de peinture et de sculpture Royal declaration on sculpture and painting (1777), Royal declaration on sculpture and painting, Paris (1777), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Der Bücherdieb. Gewarnet und ermahnet, Hamburg (1658), Schupp: The Book Thief, N.N. [Hamburg] (1658), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Donaldson v Becket (1774), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

EPC, Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/EPC_conv_20180401_en_20181012.pdf

EPO, European Patent Office

Erstes Grundgesetz der neuerrichteten Buchhandlungsgesellschaft in Deutschland (1765), Philipp Erasmus Reich and the Leipzig publishers’ cartel, N.N. [Leipzig] (1765), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

EU Biotechnology Dir., Directive 98/44/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ L 213/134

EU Customs Enforcement Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003

EU Database Dir., Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77/20

EU Design Protection Dir. 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs

EU Digital Content Dir., Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, OJ L 136/1

EU Enforcement Dir., Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157/45

EU Plant Variety Reg, Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, OJ L 227/1

EU Rome II Reg., Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Countil of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L 199/40

EU Topograophies Dir. Council Directive of 16 December 1986 on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products (87/54/EEC), OJ L 24/36

EU Trade Secrets Dir Directive 2016/943/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure

EU Trademark Dir., Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ L 336/1

EU Trademark Reg., Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, OJ L 154/1

European Commission, Statement by the Commission of 13 April 2005 concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellechtual property rights (2005/295/EC), OJ L 94/37

European Commission, Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, COM(2015) 626 final

Frankfurt Printers’ Ordinance (1598), in: Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

French Decree on Musical Publications (1786), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

French Decree on the duration of privileges (1777), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

French Literary and Artistic Property Act (1793), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

French Royal letters patent (1701), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

German Patent and Trademark Office, Wie reichen Sie die Wiedergabe einer Marke ein?, www.dpma.de/docs/marken/wiedergabe_marken.pdf

International Accounting Standard 38, Intangible assets, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 of 3 November 2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council Annex, IAS 38, OJ L 320/1

International Copyright Act (1891), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Le Chapelier’s report (1791), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Licensing Act (1662), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Louis d’Héricourt’s memorandum (1725–1726), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Luther, Warnung an die Drucker (1545), Luther’s ‚Warning to the Printers’ (1545), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Nachdruckverordnung Baden (1806), Reprinting Regulation for the Grand Duchy of Baden, Karlsruhe (1806), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Nürnberger Druckerordnung (1673), Nuremberg Printers’ Ordinance, Nürnberg (1673), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

öOGH, Oberster Gerichtshof, Österreich (Surpreme Court, Austria)

PCT, Patent Cooperation Treaty

prALR, Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preußischen Staaten, 1794 (General State Laws for the Prussian States 1794)

Preußische Cabinets-Ordre (1766), Prussian Cabinet Order, Potsdam or Berlin (1766), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Privileg des Erzbischoffs von Würzburg (1479), Privilege of the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg, Würzburg (1479), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Privileg für Arnolt Schlick (1512), Imperial Privilege for Arnolt Schlick, Speyer (1512), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

prUrhG 1837, Gesetz zum Schutz des Eigentums an Werken der Wissenschaft und Kunst gegen Nachdruck und Nachbildung, Preußen, 1837 (Prussian Copyright Act 1837)

Report of François Hell (1791), in: Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Privilege of the Elector of Saxony, Wittenberg (1534), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Sieyès’ report (1790), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Statute of Anne (1710), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

Statute of Monopolies, Westminster (1624), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

TRIPS, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, of 15 April 1994

Strafgesetzbuch für das Königreich Bayern (1813), Bavarian Penal Law Book, München (1813), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

UK CDPA 1988, United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

UPOV, International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants

US Copyright Act (1790), in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org

USC, United States Code

WCT, World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty

Abbott, Frederick M., ‘Rethinking Patents: From “Intellectual Property” to “Private Taxation Scheme”’, in Drahos, Peter, Ghidini, Gustavo & Ullrich, Hanns (eds.), Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Albers, Irene & Busch, Bernd, ‘Fotografie/fotografisch’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Akademie-Verlag, 2001), pp. 494–550.Google Scholar

Alexander, Isabella & Gómez-Arostegui, H. Tomás, Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar

Alexander-Katz, Richard, ‘Die zeitliche Begrenzung der Immaterial-Güterrechte. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie dieser Rechte’, in Festgabe der Rechtsanwaltschaft des Kammergerichts für den Geheimen Justizrath Dr. Richard Wilke (Cambridge: Vahlen, 1900), pp. 1–45.Google Scholar

Aoki, Keith, ‘Adrift in the Intertext: Authorship and Audience “Recoding Rights” - Comment on the Robert H. Rotstein, “Beyond Metaphor: Copyright Infringement and the Fiction of the Work”’ (1993), 68 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 805–39.Google Scholar

Aristotle, Poetics, reprint (Cambridge: Penguin Books, 1996).Google Scholar

Baecker, Dirk, ‘Kommunikation’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Akademie-Verlag, 2001), pp. 384–426.Google Scholar

Bahr, Amrei, ‘Was heißt “ein Artefakt illegitim kopieren”? Grundlagen einer artefaktbezogenen Ethik des Kopierens’ (2013), 61 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 283–99.Google Scholar

Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, ‘Foreseeability and Copyright Incentives’ (2009), 122 Harvard Law Review, 1569–1633.Google Scholar

Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, ‘The Normativity of Copying in Copyright Law’ (2012), 62 Duke Law Journal, 203–84.Google Scholar

Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, ‘Alienability and Copyright Law’, in Howe, Helena R. & Griffiths, Jonathan (eds.), Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 161–81.Google Scholar

Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, ‘Causing Copyright’ (2017), 117 Columbia Law Review, 1–77.Google Scholar

Barron, Anne, ‘Commodification and Cultural Form: Film Copyright Revisited’ (2004), 52 New Formations, 58–81.Google Scholar

Barron, Anne, ‘The Legal Properties of Film’ (2004), 67 Modern Law Review, 177–208.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barron, Anne, ‘Copyright Law’s Musical Work’ (2006), 15 Social and Legal Studies, 101–27.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barron, Anne, ‘Introduction: Harmony or Dissonance? Copyright Concepts and Musical Practice’ (2006), 15 Social and Legal Studies, 25–51.Google Scholar

Barron, Anne, ‘Copyright Infringement, “Free-Riding” and the Lifeworld’, in Bently, Lionel, Davis, Jennifer & Ginsburg, Jane C. (eds), Copyright and Piracy: An Interdisciplinary Critique (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 93–127.Google Scholar

Barron, Anne, ‘Kant, Copyright and Communicative Freedom’ (2012), 31 Law and Philosophy, 1–48.Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland, ‘From Work to Text’, in Barthes, Roland (ed.), Image, Music, Text (Cambridge: Hill and Wang, 1988), pp. 155–64.Google Scholar

Bartsch, Michael, ‘Software als Rechtsgut. Zur Wahrnehmung von Software aus Sicht des Rechts, zur Begriffsbildung im Recht und zu den praktischen Konsequenzen’ (2010), 9 CR, 553–59.Google Scholar

Baudrillard, Jean, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (Cambridge: Sage, 1998).CrossRef Google Scholar

Becker, Rudolf Zacharias, Das Eigenthumsrecht an Geisteswerken mit einer dreyfachen Beschwerde über das Bischöflich-Augsburgische Vikariat wegen Nachdruck, Verstümmelung und Verfälschung des Noth- und Hilfsbüchleins (Cambridge, 1789).Google Scholar

Becq, Annie, ‘Creation, Aesthetics, Market: Origins of the Modern Concept of Art’, in Mattick, Paul Jr (ed.), Eighteenth-Century Aesthetics and the Reconstruction of Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 240–54.Google Scholar

Beebe, Barton, ‘ The Semiotic Analysis of Trademark Law’ (2004), 51 UCLA Law Review, 621–704.Google Scholar

Beebe, Barton, ‘The Semiotic Account of Trademark Doctrine and Trademark Culture’, in Dinwoodie, Graeme B. & Janis, Mark D. (eds.), Trademark Law and Theory. A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008), pp. 42–64.Google Scholar

Beebe, Barton, ‘Bleistein, the Problem of Aesthetic Progress, and the Making of American Copyright Law’ (2017), 117 Columbia Law Review, 319–97.Google Scholar

de Beer, Jeremy, ‘Evidence-Based Intellectual Property Policymaking: An Integrated Review of Methods and Conclusions’ (2016), 19 The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 150–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bell, Tom W., ‘ Indelicate Imbalancing in Copyright and Patent Law’, in Adam Thierer, & Crews, Clyde Wayne Jr (eds.), Copy Fights: The Future of Intellectual Property in the Information Age (Cambridge: Cato Institute, 2002), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Bell, Tom W., ‘Copyright as Intellectual Property Privilege’ (2008), 58 S yracuse Law Review, 523–46.Google Scholar

Bellido, Jose, ‘Looking Right: The Art of Visual Literacy in British Copyright Litigation’ (2014), 10 Law, Culture and the Humanities, 66–87.Google Scholar

Bendel-Larcher, Sylvia, ‘Vom Unkraut zum Epistem – Wie Sprache Wirklichkeit schafft’, in René John, Jana Rückert-John, & Esposito, Elena (eds.), Ontologien der Moderne (Cambridge: Springer VS, 2013), pp. 55–74.Google Scholar

Benkard, Georg, Patentgesetz (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2015).Google Scholar

Benkler, Yochai, The Wealth of Networks (Cambridge: Yale University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Bently, Lionel, ‘From Communication to Thing: Historical Aspects of the Conceptualisation of Trademarks as Property’, in Dinwoodie, Graeme B. & Janis, Mark D. (eds.), Trademark and Unfair Competition Law, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014), pp. 118–56.Google Scholar

Berger, Peter L. & Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality (Cambridge: Doubleday, 1966).Google Scholar

Bergström, Svante, ‘Die neue schwedische Gesetzgebung über das Urheberrecht’ (1962), 7–8 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Auslands- und Internationaler Teil, 364–81.Google Scholar

Bertolini, Simona, ‘Beings in the World: Elements for a Comparison between Nicolai Hartmann and Roman Ingarden’, in Peterson, Keith & Poli, Roberto (eds.), New Research on the Philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann (Cambridge: De Gruyter, 2016), pp. 171–90.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario, ‘Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors’ (2006), 73 Social Research: An International Quarterly, 1129–72.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario, ‘Nature and the Commons: The Vegetable Roots of Intellectual Property’, in Gaudillière, Jean-Paul, Kevles, Daniel J. & Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg, Living Properties: Making Knowledge and Controlling Ownership in the History of Biology (Cambridge: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Preprint 382, 2009), pp. 241–50.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario, ‘Genius against Copyright: Revisiting Fichte’s Proof of the Illegality of Reprinting’ (2011), 86 Notre Dame Law Review, 1847–67.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario, ‘Between Knowledge and Technology: Patenting Methods, Rethinking Materiality’ (2012), 22 Anthropological Forum, 285–99.Google Scholar

Biron, Laura, ‘The Elusive “Objects” of Intellectual Property’, in Goldhammer, Michael, Grünberger, Michael & Klippel, Diethelm (eds.), Geistiges Eigentum im Verfassungsstaat (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), pp. 127–41.Google Scholar

Biron, Laura, ‘Two Challenges to the Idea of Intellectual Property’ (2019), 93 The Monist, 382–94.Google Scholar

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Clarendon Press, 1765).Google Scholar

Blumenberg, Hans, ‘Nachahmung der Natur. Zur Vorgeschichte der Idee des schöpferischen Menschen [1957]’ in Hans Blumenberg (ed.), Ästhetische und metaphorologische Schriften (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 2003), pp. 9–46.Google Scholar

Blumenberg, Hans, ‘Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie’ (1960), 6 Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 7–142.Google Scholar

Blumenberg, Hans, Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 2007).Google Scholar

Bluntschli, Johann Caspar, Deutsches Privatrecht I (Cambridge: Literarisch-artistische Anstalt, 1853).Google Scholar

Boldrin, Michele & Levine, David K., ‘Intellectual Property and the Efficient Allocation of Social Surplus from Creation’ (2005), 2 Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 45–67.Google Scholar

Boldrin, Michele & Levine, David K., Against Intellectual Monopoly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Bone, Robert G., ‘Hunting Goodwill: A History of the Concept of Goodwill in Trademark Law’ (2006), 86 Boston University Law Review, 547–622.Google Scholar

Bosse, Heinrich, Autorschaft ist Werkherrschaft. Über die Entstehung des Urheberrechts aus dem Geist der Goethezeit (Cambridge: Fink, 2014).CrossRef Google Scholar

Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘The Market of Symbolic Goods’, in The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (Cambridge: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 112–41.Google Scholar

Bracha, Oren, ‘The Commodification of Patents 1600–1836: How Patents Became Rights and Why We Should Care’ (2004), 38 Loyola of LA Law Review, 177–244.Google Scholar

Bracha, Oren, Owning Ideas: A History of Anglo-American Intellectual Property (2005), https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/obracha/dissertation/.Google Scholar

Bracha, Oren, ‘The Ideology of Authorship Revisited: Authors, Markets, and Liberal Values in Early American Copyright’ (2008), 118 Yale Law Journal, 187–271.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, John & Drahos, Peter, Information Feudalism (Cambridge: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2002).Google Scholar

Breakey, Hugh, ‘Properties of Copyright. Exclusion, Exclusivity, Non-Interference and Authority’, in Howe, Helena R. & Griffiths, Jonathan, Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2013), pp. 137–60.Google Scholar

Breimesser, Florian Christof, Urheberrecht und Rechtsbegriff: eine Untersuchung am Beispiel des Designrechts (Cambridge: Nomos, 2016).Google Scholar

Burk, Dan L., ‘Copyright and the New Materialism’, in Lai, Jessica & Maget Dominicé, Antoinette, Intellectual Property and Access to Im/material Goods (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016), pp. 44–62.Google Scholar

Burk, Dan L., ‘Patent Silences’ (2016), 69 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1603–30.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf, The Logical Structure of the World (Cambridge: Routledge and Kegal Paul, 1968).Google Scholar

Carrara, Massimiliano & Soavi, Marzia, ‘Copies, Replicas, and Counterfeits of Artworks and Artefacts’ (2010), 93 The Monist, 414–32.Google Scholar

Carrier, Michael A., ‘Cabining Intellectual Property through a Property Paradigm’ (2004), 54 Duke Law Journal, 1–145.Google Scholar

Carvalko, Joseph R. Jr, ‘Introduction to an Ontology of Intellectual Property’ (2005), 2 ABA SciTech Lawyer, 7–9.Google Scholar

Cella, Johann Jacob, ‘Vom Büchernachdruck’’ in Freymüthige Aufsätze (Cambridge: Haueisen, 1784), pp. 76–168.Google Scholar

Chapdelaine, Pascale, ‘Living in the Shadow of the Intangible: The Nature of the Copy of a Copyrighted Work (Part One)’ (2010), 23 Intellectual Property Journal, 83–103.Google Scholar

Chin, Andrew, ‘The Ontological Function of the Patent Document’ (2012), 74 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 263–332.Google Scholar

Coase, Ronald, ‘The Lighthouse in Economics’ (1974), 17 Journal of Law and Economics, 375–76.Google Scholar

Cohen, Felix S., ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’ (1935), 35 Columbia Law Review, 809–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cohen, Julie E., ‘What Kind of Property Is Intellectual Property?’ (2014), 52 Houston Law Review, 691–707.Google Scholar

Cohen, Julie E., ‘Property as Institutions for Resources: Lessons from and for IP’ (2015), 94 Texas Law Review, 1–57.Google Scholar

Collins, Kevin Emerson, ‘The Reach of Literal Claim Scope into After-Arising Technology: On Thing Construction and the Meaning of Meaning’ (2008), 41 Connecticut Law Review, 493–559.Google Scholar

Cornish, William, ‘Conserving Culture and Copyright: A Partial History’ (2009), 13 Edinburgh Law Review, 8–26.Google Scholar

Cotropia, Christopher A., ‘What Is the “Invention”?’ (2012), 53 William & Mary Law Review, 1855–1914.Google Scholar

Cotropia, Christopher A., ‘Physicalism and Patent Theory’ (2016), 69 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1543–71.Google Scholar

Curtis, George Tickner, Treatise on the Law of Copyright. In Books, Dramatic and Musical Compositions, Letters and other Manuscripts, Engravings and Sculpture, as Enacted and Administered in England and America with some Notices of the History of Literary Property (Cambridge: Freeman and Bolles, 1847).Google Scholar

Damme, Felix, Der Schutz technischer Erfindungen als Erscheinungsform moderner Volkswirtschaft (Cambridge: Liebmann, 1910).Google Scholar

Danto, Arthur, ‘The Artworld’ (1964), 61 The Journal of Philosophy, 571–84.Google Scholar

Deazley, Ronan, On the Origin of the Right to Copy (Cambridge: Hart Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar

Deazley, Ronan, Rethinking Copyright (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006).Google Scholar

Decock, Lieven & Douven, Igor, ‘Similarity after Goodman’ (2011), 2 Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 61–75.Google Scholar

Demsetz, Harold, ‘Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint’ (1969), 12 Journal of Law and Economics, 1–22.Google Scholar

Di Palma, Salvatore, The History of Marks from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Société des écrivains, 2015).Google Scholar

Dilworth, John, ‘The Abstractness of Artworks and Its Implications’ (2008), 66 The Journal of Aesthetics and Arts Criticism, 341–53.Google Scholar

Dölemeyer, Barbara, ‘Erfinderprivilegien und frühe Patentgesetze’, in Otto, Martin & Klippel, Diethelm (eds.), Geschichte des deutschen Patentrechts (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), pp. 13–36.Google Scholar

Dogan, Stacey L. & Lemley, Mark A., ‘A Search-Costs Theory of Limiting Doctrines in Trademark Law’ (2007), 97 The Trademark Reporter, 1223–51.Google Scholar

Drahos, Peter, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Cambridge: Taylor and Francis, 1996).Google Scholar

Drassinower, Abraham, What’s Wrong with Copying? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Dreier, Thomas, ‘Primär- und Folgemärkte’, in Schricker, Gerhard, Dreier, Thomas & Kur, Annette (eds.), Geistiges Eigentum im Dienst der Innovation (Cambridge: Nomos, 2001), pp. 51–81.Google Scholar

Drone, Eaton Sylvester, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions in Great Britain and the United States. Embracing Copyright in Works of Literature and Art, and Playright in Dramatic and Musical Compositions (Cambridge: Little, Brown and Company, 1879).Google Scholar

Druey, Jean-Nicolas, Information als Gegenstand des Rechts. Entwurf einer Grundlegung (Cambridge: Schulthess, 1995).Google Scholar

Edelman, Bernard, Ownership of the Image: Elements for a Marxist Theory of Law (Cambridge: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979).Google Scholar

Edelman, Bernard, ‘Une exposition peut être une ɶvre de l’esprit’, in Edelman, Bernard & Heinich, Nathalie (eds.), L’art en conflits (Cambridge: La Découverte, 2002), pp. 43–53.Google Scholar

Eisenlohr, Christian Friedrich, Sammlung der Gesetze und internationalen Verträge zum Schutze des literarisch-artistischen Eigenthums in Deutschland, Frankreich und England (Cambridge: Bangel u. Schmitt, 1857).Google Scholar

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L., The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Eller, Klaas Hendrik, ‘Rechtskritik durch Vertrag. Zu den Semantiken des transnationalen Rechts’ (2014), 97 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung, 191–216.Google Scholar

Elster, Alexander, ‘Zur Ontologie des Urheberpersönlichkeits- und Urhebervermögensrechts. Ein rechtsvergleichender Beitrag zum § 12 des deutschen Urheberrechts-Gesetzentwurfs’ (1932), 6 RabelsZ, 903–25.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A., ‘The Disintegration of Intellectual Property – A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary’ (2010), 62 Stanford Law Review, 455–524.Google Scholar

Erben, Johannes, ‘Zur Geschichte der Deutschen Kollektiva’, in Gipper, Helmut (ed.), Sprache – Schlüssel zur Welt, Festschrift für Leo Weisgerber (Cambridge: Schwann, 1959), pp. 221–28.Google Scholar

Esposito, Elena, ‘Die Ontologie des Finanzwesens’, in John, René, Rückert-John, Jana & Esposito, Elena (eds.), Ontologien der Moderne (Cambridge: Springer, 2013), pp. 137–52.Google Scholar

Feather, John, ‘From Rights in Copies to Copyright: The Recognition of Authors’ Rights in English Law and Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Woodmansee, Martha & Jaszi, Peter (eds.), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Cambridge: Duke University Press, 1994), pp. 191–210.Google Scholar

Fezer, Karl-Heinz, Markenrecht, 4th ed. (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2009).Google Scholar

Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, ‘Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1793)’, reprint, Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org.Google Scholar

Fisher, William W., ‘Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine’ (1988), 101 Harvard Law Review, 1659–1795.Google Scholar

Fontius, Martin, ‘Produktivkraftentfaltung und Autonomie der Kunst’, in Klotz, Günther, Schröder, Winfried & Weber, Peter (eds.), Literatur im Epochenumbruch (Cambridge: Aufbau-Verlag, 1977), pp. 409–529.Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things (Cambridge: Pantheon Books, 1970).Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel, ‘What Is an Author?’, in Rabinow, Paul & Rose, Nikolas (eds.), The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (Cambridge: New Press, 2003), pp. 377–91.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob, ‘Thoughts’, in Frege, Gottlob (ed.), Logical Investigations (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1977), pp. 7–30.Google Scholar

Fromer, Jeanne C., ‘Claiming Intellectual Property’ (2009), 76 Chicago Law Review, 719–96.Google Scholar

Fromer, Jeanne C., ‘A Psychology of Intellectual Property’ (2010), 104 Northwestern University Law Review, 1441–1509.Google Scholar

Gärtner, Janina-Maria, Ist das Sollen ableitbar aus einem Sein – Eine Ontologie von Regeln und institutionellen Tatsachen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Philosophie von John R. Searle und der evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 2010).Google Scholar

Galbraith, John Kenneth, The Affluent Society (Cambridge: Penguin Books, 1967).Google Scholar

Galvez-Behar, Gabriel, La république des inventeurs. Propriété et organisation de l’innovation en France (1791–1922) (Cambridge: Presses Univ. de Rennes, 2008).Google Scholar

Gangjee, Dev, ‘Property in Brands. The Commodification of Conversation’, in Howe, Helena R. & Griffiths, Jonathan (eds.), Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 29–59.Google Scholar

Gaudillière, Jean-Paul & Kevles, Daniel J., ‘Introduction’, in Gaudillière, Jean-Paul, Kevles, Daniel J. & Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds.), Living Properties: Making Knowledge and Controlling Ownership in the History of Biology (Cambridge: Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science, 2009), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

Gaudillière, Jean Paul, Kevles, Daniel J. & Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds.), Living Properties: Making Knowledge and Controlling Ownership in the History of Biology (Cambridge: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2009).Google Scholar

George, Alexandra, Constructing Intellectual Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

George, Alexandra, ‘The Metaphysics of Intellectual Property’ (2015), 7(1) The WIPO Journal, 16–28.Google Scholar

Gephart, Werner & Suntrup, Jan Christoph, The Normative Structure of Human Civilization (Cambridge: Vittorio Klostermann, 2017).Google Scholar

Gergen, Thomas, Die Nachdruckprivilegienpraxis Württembergs im 19. Jahrhundert und ihre Bedeutung für das Urheberrecht im Deutschen Bund (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 2007).Google Scholar

Geulen, Eva, ‘Law and Literature: Who Owns It?’, in Gephart, Werner (ed.), Rechtsanalyse als Kulturforschung (Cambridge: Klostermann, 2012), pp. 309–22.Google Scholar

Giddens, Anthony, ‘Action, Subjectivity, and the Constitution of Meaning’ (1986), 53 Social Research, 529–45.Google Scholar

Gierke, Otto, Deutsches Privatrecht III: Schuldrecht (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 1917).Google Scholar

Gieseke, Ludwig, Vom Privileg zum Urheberrecht. Die Entwicklung des Urheberrechts in Deutschland bis 1845 (Cambridge: Nomos, 1995).Google Scholar

Ginsburg, Jane C., ‘Proto-property in Literary and Artistic Works: Sixteenth Century Papal Printing Privileges’, in Alexander, Isabella & Gómez-Arostegui, H. Tomás (eds.), Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016), pp. 237–67.Google Scholar

Godenhielm, Berndt, ‘Ist die Erfindung etwas Immaterielles?’ (1996), 45 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International 327–30.Google Scholar

Goehr, Lydia, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music (Cambridge: Clarendon Press, 1992).Google Scholar

Göpel, Ernst, Über Begriff und Wesen des Urheberrechts (Cambridge: Schnupfhase in Comm., 1881).Google Scholar

Gräff, Ernst Martin, ‘Versuch einer einleuchtenden Darstellung des Eigentums und der Eigentumsrechte des Schriftstellers und Verlegers und ihrer gegenseitigen Rechte und Verbindlichkeiten (1794)’, reprint, (1998), 137 UFITA, 111–227.Google Scholar

Gray, Kevin, ‘Property in Thin Air’ (1991), 50 Cambridge Law Journal, 252–307.Google Scholar

Grewendorf, Günther & Meggle, Georg, Speech Acts, Mind, and Social Reality. Discussions with John R. Searle (Cambridge: Kluwer, 2002).Google Scholar

Griffiths, Jonathan, ‘Dematerialization, Pragmatism and the European Copyright Revolution’ (2013), 33(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 767–90.Google Scholar

Grimm, Jacob & Grimm, Wilhelm, Deutsches Wörterbuch III (Cambridge: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1860), 799–800.Google Scholar

Gross, Daniel, ‘Creativity under Fire: The Effects of Competition on Creative Production’ (2016), Harvard Business School Strategy Paper No. 16–109, 1–27, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2520123.Google Scholar

Gross, Neil, ‘Comment on Searle’ (2006), 6 Anthropological Theory, 45–56.Google Scholar

Gruner, Richard S., ‘Dispelling the Myth of Patents as Non-Rivalrous Property: Patents as Tools for Allocating Scarce Labor and Resources’ (2012), 13 Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 1–70.Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989).Google Scholar

Häberle, Peter, ‘Vielfalt der Property Rights und der verfassungsrechtliche Eigentumsbegriff’ (1984), 109 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 36–76.Google Scholar

Häseler, Jens, ‘Original/Originalität’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 7 (Cambridge: J. B. Metzler Verlag, 2005), pp. 638–55.Google Scholar

Haferkorn, Hans-Jürgen, ‘Der freie Schriftsteller’ (1964), 5 Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, 523–712.Google Scholar

Hargreaves, Ian, ‘Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth’, UK Government (London, 2011), http://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf.Google Scholar

Hartmann, Nicolai, Das Problem des geistigen Seins. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der Geschichtsphilosophie und der Geisteswissenschaften (Cambridge: De Gruyter, 1949).Google Scholar

Hauptmann, Felix, ‘Wesen und Begriff der sogenannten Immateriellen Güter. Dogmatische Untersuchung’, in Juristenverein, Schweizerischer, Festgabe der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Freiburg (Schweiz) zur 59. Jahresversammlung des Schweizerischen Juristenvereins (Cambridge: Librairie de L’Université, 1924), pp. 50–69.Google Scholar

Hay, Colin, ‘Good in a Crisis: The Ontological Institutionalism of Social Constructivism’ (2016), 21 New Political Economy, 520–35.Google Scholar

Hediger, Vinzenz, ‘The Original Is Always Lost’, in de Valck, Marijke & Hagener, Malte (eds.), Cinephilia: Movies, Love and Memory (Cambridge: University Press, 2005), pp. 133–47.Google Scholar

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, ‘Elements of the Philosophy of Right’ (1821), reprint, Wood, Allen (ed.), Hegel. Elements of the Philosophy of Right (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), § 69.Google Scholar

Hellmann, Kai-Uwe, Soziologie der Marke (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 2003).Google Scholar

Henning-Bodewig, Frauke & Kur, Anette, Marke und Verbraucher, Volume 1: Grundlagen (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2000).Google Scholar

Hesse, Carla, ‘The Rise of Intellectual Property, 700 B.C.-A.D. 2000: An Idea in the Balance’ (2002), 131 Daedalus, 26–45.Google Scholar

Hesse, Nora, Die Vereinbarkeit des EU-Grenzbeschlagnahmeverfahrens mit dem TRIPS-Abkommen (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2018).Google Scholar

Hetmank, Sven, ‘Was ist Prüfungs‑ und Schutzgegenstand des Patentrechts? – Die Ambiguität des Erfindungsbegriffs’ (2015), 7 Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum, 460–72.Google Scholar

Heymann, Laura A., ‘A Tale of (at Least) Two Authors: Focusing Copyright Law on Process over Product’ (2009), 34 Journal of Corporation Law, 1009–32.Google Scholar

Hick, Darren Hudson, ‘ Toward an Ontology of Authored Works’ (2011), 51 British Journal of Aesthetics, 185–99.Google Scholar

Hick, Darren Hudson, ‘Ontology and the Challenge of Literary Appropriation’ (2013), 71 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 155–65.Google Scholar

Hilpinen, Risto, ‘Authors and Artifacts’ (1993), 93 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 155–78.Google Scholar

Hirdina, Heinz, ‘Design’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 2 (Cambridge: J. B. Metzler Verlag, 2001), pp. 41–63.Google Scholar

Hirsch, Ernst E., ‘Die Werkherrschaft. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Natur der Rechte an Geisteswerken’ (1962), 36 UFITA, 19–54.Google Scholar

Hitzig, , Eduard, Julius, Das Königl. Preußische Gesetz vom 11. Juni 1837 zum Schutze des Eigenthums an Werken der Wissenschaft und Kunst gegen Nachdruck und Nachbildung (Cambridge: Dümmler, 1838).Google Scholar

HKK, Historisch-Kritischer Kommentar zum BGB, Schmoeckel, Mathias, Rückert, Joachim & Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Vol. 3 (Part 1) (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).Google Scholar

Höffner, Eckhard, Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts, Vols. 1 and 2 (Cambridge: Verlag Europäische Wirtschaft, 2010).Google Scholar

Houston, Robert Allan, Literacy in Early Modern Europe: Culture and Education, 1500–1800, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Routledge, 2014).Google Scholar

Hubmann, Heinrich, Das Recht des schöpferischen Geistes. Eine philosophisch-juristische Betrachtung zur Urheberrechtsreform (Cambridge: De Gruyter, 1954).Google Scholar

Hubmann, Heinrich, ‘Immanuel Kants Urheberrechtstheorie’ (1987), 106 UFITA, 145–54.Google Scholar

Hughes, Justin, ‘Created Facts and the Flawed Ontology of Copyright Law’ (2007), 83 Notre Dame Law Review, 43–108.Google Scholar

Ingerl, Reinhard & Rohnke, Christian, Markengesetz. Kommentar, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2010).Google Scholar

Irvin, Sherri, ‘The Artist’s Sanction in Contemporary Art’ (2005), 63 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 315–26.Google Scholar

Isay, Hermann, ‘Die Selbstständigkeit des Rechts an der Marke’ (1929), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 23–42.Google Scholar

Jacob, Jan, Ausschließlichkeitsrechte an immateriellen Gütern – eine kantische Rechtfertigung des Urheberrechts (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).Google Scholar

Jänich, Volker, Geistiges Eigentum – eine Komplementärerscheinung zum Sacheigentum? (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck 2002).Google Scholar

Jansen, Ludger, Gruppen und Institutionen: Eine Ontologie des Sozialen (Cambridge: Springer, 2017).Google Scholar

Jaszi, Peter, ‘Toward a Theory of Copyright. The Metamorphoses of “Authorship”’ (1991), 40 Duke Law Journal, 455–502.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Thomas, ‘Letter to Isaac McPherson, 13.8.1813’, in Kurland, Philip B. & Lerner, Ralph (eds.), The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: University of Chicago Press, 2000), Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html.Google Scholar

Jhering, Rudolf, Scherz und Ernst in der Jurisprudenz (Cambridge: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1884).Google Scholar

John, René, Rückert-John, Jana & Esposito, Elena (eds.), Ontologien der Moderne (Cambridge: Springer, 2013).Google Scholar

Johns, Adrian, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Cambridge: University of Chicago Press, 2000).Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel, ‘On the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1785)’, reprint, Bently, Lionel & Kretschmer, Martin (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org.Google Scholar

Kawohl, Friedemann, ‘Wie der Wein in die Flaschen kam. Oder: Die Entstehung des musikalischen Formbegriffs aus dem Geist des Urheberrechts’, in Sanio, Sabine & Scheib, Christian (eds.), Form – Luxus, Kalkül und Abstinenz: Fragen, Thesen und Beiträge zu Erscheinungsweisen aktueller Musik (Cambridge: Pfau, 1999), pp. 136–47.Google Scholar

Kawohl, Friedemann, Urheberrecht der Musik in Preußen (1820–1840) (Cambridge: Schneider, 2002).Google Scholar

Kawohl, Friedemann & Kretschmer, Martin, ‘Abstraction and Registration: Conceptual Innovations and Supply Effects in Prussian and British copyright (1820–50)’ (2003), 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly, 209–28.Google Scholar

Kevles, Daniel J., ‘Inventions, Yes; Nature, No: The Products-of-Nature Doctrine From the American Colonies to the US Courts’ (2015), 23 Perspectives on Science, 13–34.Google Scholar

Kevles, Daniel J., ‘New Blood, New Fruits: Protections for Breeders and Originators, 1789–1930’, in Biagioli, Mario, Jaszi, Peter & Woodmansee, Martha (eds.), Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property (Cambridge: University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 253–76.Google Scholar

Kiesel, Helmut & Münch, Paul, Gesellschaft und Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert – Voraussetzungen und Entstehung des literarischen Markts in Deutschland (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 1977).Google Scholar

Kitch, Edmund W., ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’ (1977), 20 Journal of Law and Economics, 265–90.Google Scholar

Klippel, Diethelm, ‘Ueber die Unzulässigkeit des Büchernachdrucks nach dem natürlichen Zwangsrecht. Der Diskurs über den Büchernachdruck im Jahre 1784’, in Chiusi, Tiziana J., Gergen, Thomas & Jung, Heike (eds.), Das Recht und seine historischen Grundlagen, Festschrift für Elmar Wadle zum 70. Geburtstag (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 2008), pp. 477–98.Google Scholar

Klippel, Diethelm, ‘Persönlichkeitsrecht und Persönlichkeitsrechte bei Josef Kohler’ (2014), 6 Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum, 443–69.Google Scholar

Klippel, Diethelm, ‘Geistiges Eigentum, Privileg und Naturrecht in rechtshistorischer Perspektive’ (2015), 7 Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum, 49–76.Google Scholar

Kneale, W. C., ‘The Idea of Invention’ (1955), 41 Proceedings of the British Academy, 86–108.Google Scholar

v. Knigge, Adolph, ‘Ueber den Bücher-Nachdruck. An den Herrn Johann Gottwerth Müller, Doctor der Weltweisheit in Itzehoe’ (1792), reprint, Albrecht Götz v. Olenhusen (ed.), 1974, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar

Kober, Michael & Michel, Jan G., John Searle (Cambridge: Mentis, 2011).Google Scholar

Köbler, Gerhard, ‘Vom Urheber und Patent zum Urheberrecht und Patentrecht’, in Chiusi, Tiziana J., Gergen, Thomas & Jung, Heike, Das Recht und seine historischen Grundlagen, Festschrift für Elmar Wadle zum 70. Geburtstag, (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 2008), pp. 499–523.Google Scholar

Kölbel, Martin, ‘Das literarische Werk. Zur Geschichte eines Grundbegriffs der Literaturtheorie’ (2005), 10 Text. Kritische Beiträge, 27–44.Google Scholar

König, Michael, ‘Software (Computerprogramme) als Sache und deren Erwerb als Sachkauf’ (1993), 48 NJW, 3121–24.Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, Das Autorrecht: eine zivilistische Abhandlung; zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Eigenthum, vom Miteigenthum, vom Rechtsgeschäft und vom Individualrecht (Cambridge: Fischer, 1880).Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, Das Recht des Markenschutzes (Cambridge: Stahel, 1884).Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, ‘Die Immaterialgüterrechtsidee im Jahre 1875’, in Forschungen aus dem Patentrecht (Cambridge: Bensheimer, 1888), pp. 116–24.Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, Handbuch des deutschen Patentrechts in rechtsvergleichender Darstellung (1900), reprint, (Cambridge: Scientia-Verlag, 1980).Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, Urheberrecht an Schriftwerken und Verlagsrecht (Cambridge: Enke, 1907).Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, Musterrecht: Geschmacks- und Gebrauchsmusterrecht (Cambridge: Enke, 1909).Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, ‘Die Idee des geistigen Eigentums’ (1993), 123 UFITA, 99–167.Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef, ‘Die spanischen Naturrechtslehrer des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts’ (1917), 10 Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie, 235–63.Google Scholar

Kostylo, Joanna, ‘Commentary on the Venetian Statute on Industrial Brevets (1474)’, in Lionel Bently & Martin Kretschmer (eds.), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), www.copyrighthistory.org.Google Scholar

Kristeller, Paul Oskar, ‘The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the Historics of Aesthetics, Part I’ (1951), 12 Journal of the History of Ideas, 496–527.Google Scholar

Kristeller, Paul Oskar, ‘The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the Historics of Aesthetics, Part II’ (1952), 13 Journal of the History of Ideas, 17–46.Google Scholar

Kruse, Frederik Vinding, Das Eigentumsrecht, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: de Gruyter, 1931).Google Scholar

Künne, Wolfgang, Abstrakte Gegenstände: Semantik und Ontologie (Cambridge: Klostermann, 2007).Google Scholar

Küppers, Monika, Challenging the Public Domain – Protection of Traditional Cultural Expression in the Light of Retroactive Copyright Protection (Cambridge: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2018).Google Scholar

Kulenkampff, Jens, ‘Gibt es ein ontologisches Problem des Kunstwerks?’, in Schmücker, Reinold (ed.), Identität und Existenz. Studien zur Ontologie der Kunst (Cambridge: Mentis, 2003), pp. 121–40.Google Scholar

Kunz-Hallstein, Hans Peter, ‘Verschärfter Ausübungszwang für Patente? – Überlegungen zur geplanten Revision des Art. 5 A PVÜ’ (1981), 6 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, pp. 347–57.Google Scholar

Kurz, Peter, Weltgeschichte des Erfindungsschutzes. Erfinder und Patente im Spiegel der Zeiten (Cambridge: Heymann, 2000).Google Scholar

Lai, Jessica C., ‘A Tale of Two Histories: The “Invention” and Its Incentive Theory’, in Lai, Jessica C. & Dominicé, Antoinette Maget (eds.), Intellectual Property and Access to Im/material Goods (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016), pp. 94–120.Google Scholar

Landes, William M. & Posner, Richard A., The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (CambridgeA: Belknap Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Lange, Max, ‘Kritik der Grundbegriffe vom geistigen Eigentum (1837)’, reprint, (1991), 117 UFITA, 169–248.Google Scholar

Laskowska, Ewa & Mania, Grzegorz, ‘Copyright as a Service: How Does the Development of the Music Business Determine the Shape of Copyright?’ (2016), 132 Prace z Prawa Wlasnosci Intellektualnej, 91–103.Google Scholar

Lee, Nari, ‘Patent Eligible Subject Matter Reconfiguration and the Emergence of Proprietarian Norms – The Patent Eligibility of Business Methods’ (2005), 45 IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 321–59.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., ‘Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding’ (2005), 83 Texas Law Review, 1031–75.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., ‘Taking the Regulatory Nature of IP Seriously’ (2014), 92 Texas Law Review, 107–19.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., ‘Faith-Based Intellectual Property’ (2015), 62 UCLA Law Review, 1328–46.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., ‘IP in a World Without Scarcity’ (2015), 90 New York University Law Review, 460–515.Google Scholar

Levinson, Jerrold, ‘What a Musical Work Is’ (1980), 77 The Journal of Philosophy, 5–28.Google Scholar

Liivak, Oskar, ‘Rescuing the Invention from the Cult of the Claim’ (2012), 42 Seton Hall Law Review, 1–54.Google Scholar

Livingston, Paisley, ‘History of the Ontology of Art’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2016 ed., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/art-ontology-history/.Google Scholar

Long, Pamela O., ‘Invention, Authorship, “Intellectual Property”, and the Origin of Patents: Notes toward a Conceptual History’ (1991), 32 Technology and Culture, 846–84.Google Scholar

Loschelder, Michael, ‘Die Rechtsnatur der geographischen Herkunftsangaben’, in Büscher, Wolfgang et al. (eds.), Marktkommunikation zwischen Geistigem Eigentum und Verbraucherschutz. Festschrift für Karl-Heinz Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2016), pp. 711–24.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas, ‘Das Kunstwerk und die Selbstreproduktion der Kunst’, in Ulrich Gumbrecht, Hans & Pfeiffer, K. Ludwig (eds.), Stil. Geschichten und Funktionen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Diskurselements (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 1986), pp. 620–72.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas, ‘Der Ursprung des Eigentums und seine Legitimation’, in Krawietz, Werner, Martino, Antonio A. & Winston, Kenneth I. (eds.), Technischer Imperativ und Legitimationskrise des Rechts (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 1991), pp. 43–57.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas, Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 1994).Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas, Die Kunst der Gesellschaft (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 1997).Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Vols. 1 and 2 (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 1998).Google Scholar

Lunney, Glynn S. Jr, ‘Reexamining Copyright’s Incentives-Access Paradigm’ (1996), 49 Vanderbilt Law Review, 483–656.Google Scholar

MacLeod, Christine, Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System 1660–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

Madison, Michael J., ‘Law as Design: Objects, Concepts, and Digital Things’ (2005), 56 Case Western Reserve Law Review, 381–478.Google Scholar

Madison, Michael J., ‘The End of the Work as We Know It’ (2012), 19 Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 325–55.Google Scholar

Mann, Larisa, ‘If it Ain‘t Broke … Copyright’s Fixation Requirement and Cultural Citizenship’ (2011), 34 The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 201–29.Google Scholar

Margolis, Joseph, ‘The Ontological Peculiarity of Works of Art’ (1977), 36 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 45–50.Google Scholar

Marinkovic, Daniel F., Sprache – Geltung – Recht (Cambridge: VDM Müller, 2007).Google Scholar

May, Christopher, ‘The Venetian Moment: New Technologies, Legal Innovation and the Institutional Origins of Intellectual Property’ (2002), 20 Prometheus, 159–79.Google Scholar

McKenna, Mark P., ‘The Normative Foundations of Trademark Law’ (2007), 82 Notre Dame Law Review, 1839–1916.Google Scholar

McLuhan, Marshall, The Gutenberg Galaxy (Cambridge: University of Toronto Press, 1962).Google Scholar

Meixner, Uwe, Einführung in die Ontologie (Cambridge: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004).Google Scholar

Menke, Christoph, Recht und Gewalt (Cambridge: Augst Verlag, 2012).Google Scholar

Menke, Christoph, Kritik der Rechte (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 2015).Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P., Justifying Intellectual Property (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P., ‘What Kind of Rights Are Intellectual Property Rights?’, in Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper & Pila, Justine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 57–94.Google Scholar

Merkl, Joachim, Der Begriff des Immaterialgüterrechts (Cambridge: Erlangen-Nürnberg Jur. F., 1961).Google Scholar

Miller, Seumas, ‘Social Institutions’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2014 ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/social-institutions/.Google Scholar

Milton, John, ‘Areopagitica: A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parliament of England’ (1644), www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/text.shtml.Google Scholar

Möllers, Christoph, Die Möglichkeit der Normen. Über eine Möglichkeit jenseits von Moralität und Kausalität (Cambridge: Suhrkamp, 2015).Google Scholar

Moritz, Karl Philipp, ‘Über den Begriff des in sich selbst Vollendeten (1785)’, reprint, Jahn, Jürgen (ed.), Karl Philipp Moritz: Werke in zwei Bänden, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Verlag Neues Leben, 1973), pp. 203–11.Google Scholar

Moser, Petra, ‘How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World’s Fairs’ (2005), 99 The American Economic Review, 1214–36.Google Scholar

Mossoff, Adam, ‘Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought about Patents? Reevaluating the Patent “Privilege” in Historical Context’ (2007), 92 Cornell Law Review, 953–1012.Google Scholar

Nazari-Khanachayi, Arian, Rechtfertigungsnarrative des Urheberrechts im Praxistest (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2016).Google Scholar

Niebel, Rembert, ‘Das Know-how auf dem Weg zum Immaterialgüterrecht’, in Büscher, Wolfgang et al. (eds.), Marktkommunikation zwischen Geistigem Eigentum und Verbraucherschutz. Festschrift für Karl-Heinz Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2016), pp. 799–814.Google Scholar

Oberndörfer, Pascal, Die philosophische Grundlage des Urheberrechts (Cambridge: Nomos, 2005).Google Scholar

O’Connor, Sean M., ‘Distinguishing Different Kinds of Property in Patents and Copyrights’ (2019), 27(1) George Mason Law Review, 205–61.Google Scholar

Ohly, Ansgar, ‘Geistiges Eigentum?’ (2003), 58 Juristenzeitung, 545–54.Google Scholar

Ong, Walter J., Orality and Literacy, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Routledge, 2012).Google Scholar

Opderbeck, David W., ‘Deconstructing Jefferson’s Candle: Towards a Critical Realistic Approach to Cultural Environmentalism and Information Policy’ (2009), 49 Jurimetrics Journal, 203–44.Google Scholar

Ortland, Eberhard,‘ Zur Konstitution des musikalischen Gegenstandes’, in Polth, Michael, Schwab-Felisch, Oliver & Thorau, Christian (eds.), Klang – Struktur – Metapher: Musikalische Analyse zwischen Phänomen und Begriff (Cambridge: J. B. Metzler, 2000), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Ortland, Eberhard,‘Genie’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 2 (Cambridge: J. B. Metzler, 2001), pp. 661–709.Google Scholar

Ortland, Eberhard,‘Urheberrecht und ästhetische Autonomie’ (2004), 52 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 773–92.Google Scholar

Ortland, Eberhard & Schmücker, Reinold ‘Copyright & Art’ (2005), 6 German Law Journal, 1762–76.Google Scholar

Osterrieth, Albert, ‘Die Geschichte des Urheberrechts in England mit einer Darstellung des geltenden englischen Urheberrechts (1895) – 1. Teil’ (1996), 131 UFITA, 171–274.Google Scholar

Osterrieth, Albert, ‘Die Geschichte des Urheberrechts in England mit einer Darstellung des geltenden englischen Urheberrechts (1895) – 2. Teil’ (1996), 132 UFITA, 101–231.Google Scholar

Otabe, Tanehisa, ‘Die moderne Eigentumslehre und der Begriff der Kunst. Zur Politik der modernen Ästhetik’ (1996), 21 Journal of the Faculty of Letters, the University of Tokyo, Aesthetics, 141–52.Google Scholar

Pahlow, Louis, ‘Geistiges Eigentum’, in Cordes, Albrecht et al. (eds.), Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (HRG), Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2008).Google Scholar

Pahlow, Louis, ‘Josef Kohler und der Begriff des Immaterialgüterrechts’ (2014), 6 ZGE, 429–42.Google Scholar

Parry, Bronwyn, ‘Material Cultures of “Type Specimen” Generation and Their Role in Practices of Biological Regulation’, in Gaudillière, Jean-Paul, Kevles, Daniel J. & Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds.), Living Properties: Making Knowledge and Controlling Ownership in the History of Biology (Cambridge: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 2009), pp. 21–29.Google Scholar

Patterson, Lyman Ray, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

Patzig, Günther, ‘Über den ontologischen Status von Kunstwerken’, in Schmücker, Reinold (ed.), Identität und Existenz: Studien zur Ontologie der Kunst , 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Mentis, 2005).Google Scholar

Penner, James, The Idea of Property in Law (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

Pettersson, Anders, The Idea of a Text and the Nature of Textual Meaning (Cambridge: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017).Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Das Sacheigentum in der Informationsgesellschaft’, in Ohly, Ansgar et al. (eds.), Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts, Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker zum 70. Geburtstag (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2005), pp. 149–63.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, Güterzuordnung als Rechtsprinzip (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck 2008).Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘“Sonstige Gegenstände” im Rechtsverkehr’, in Leible, Stefan, Lehmann, Matthias & Zech, Herbert (eds.), Unkörperliche Güter im Zivilrecht (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 95–122.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, Die Gemeinfreiheit (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Intellectual Property’, in Basedow, Jürgen, Hopt, Klaus J. & Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 926–30.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Why Do “Good People” Disregard Copyright on the Internet?’, in Geiger, Christophe (ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012), pp. 151–67.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Die Expansion des Urheberrechts – eine polanyische Perspektive’, in Dreier, Thomas & Hilty, Reto M. (eds.), Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media – Festschrift 50 Jahre Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG) (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2015), pp. 305–17.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Intellectual Property: The Global Spread of a Legal Concept’, in Drahos, Peter, Ghidini, Gustavo & Ullrich, Hanns (eds.), Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015), pp. 114–33.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘The Fundamental Right to (Intellectual) Property and the Discretion of the Legislature’, in Geiger, Christophe (ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015), pp. 132–48.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Vom Warenzeichen zum Markeneigentum. Ein polanyischer Erklärungsversuch’, in Büscher, Wolfgang et al. (eds.), Marktkommunikation zwischen Geistigem Eigentum und Verbraucherschutz: Festschrift für Karl-Heinz Fezer zum 70. Geburtstag (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2016), pp. 405–26.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Vereinheitlichung des Immaterialgüterrechts: Strukturen, Akteure, Zwecke’ (2017) 81 RabelsZ, 158–93.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Fictitious Commodities: A Theory of Intellectual Property Inspired by Karl Polanyi’s “Great Transformation”’ (2019), 29 Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 1151–1200.Google Scholar

Peukert, Alexander, ‘Immaterialgüterrecht, Privatautonomie und Innovation’, in Grundmann, Stefan & Möslein, Florian (eds.), Innovation und Vertragsrecht (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), pp. 69–98.Google Scholar

Pfister, Bernhard, Das technische Geheimnis ‘Know How’ als Vermögensrecht (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 1974).Google Scholar

Pfister, Laurent, ‘La propriété intellectuelle est-elle une propriété?’ (2005), 205 Revue internationale du droit d’auteur, 117–209.Google Scholar

Phillips, Jeremy, ‘The English Patent as a Reward for Invention: The Importation of an Idea’ (1982), 3 Journal of Legal History, 71–79.Google Scholar

Pila, Justine, ‘An Intentional View of the Copyright Work’ (2008), 71 The Modern Law Review, 535–58.Google Scholar

Planck, Gottlieb, ‘Vorlesung Immaterialgüterrecht (1902)’, reprint, (2012), 1 UFITA, 197–251.Google Scholar

Plumpe, Gerhard, ‘Eigentum – Eigentümlichkeit. Über den Zusammenhang ästhetischer und juristischer Begriffe im 18. Jahrhundert’ (1979) 23 Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 175–96.Google Scholar

Plumpe, Gerhard, ‘Der Autor als Rechtssubjekt’, in Brackert, Helmut & Stückrath, Jörn (eds.), Literaturwissenschaft. Grundkurs 2 (Cambridge: Rowohlt, 1981), pp. 179–93.Google Scholar

Pohlmann, Hansjörg, Die Frühgeschichte des musikalischen Urheberrechts (Cambridge: Bärenreiter-Verlag, 1962).Google Scholar

Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Cambridge: Beacon Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Porter, James I., ‘Is Art Modern? Kristeller’s “Modern System of the Arts” Reconsidered’ (2009), 49 British Journal of Aesthetics, 1–24.Google Scholar

Pottage, Alain & Sherman, Brad, Figures of Invention: A History of Modern Patent Law (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Pottage, Alain & Sherman, Brad, ‘On the Prehistory of Intellectual Property’, in Howe, Helena R. & Griffiths, Jonathan, Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 11–28.Google Scholar

Prager, Frank D., ‘History of Intellectual Property from 1545 to 1787’ (1944) 26 Journal of the Patent Office Society, 711–60.Google Scholar

Pudelek, Jan-Peter, ‘Werk’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 6 (Cambridge: J. B. Metzler, 2010), pp. 520–88.Google Scholar

Pütter, Johann Stephan, Der Büchernachdruck nach ächten Grundsätzen des Rechts geprüft (1774), reprint, (Cambridge: Kraus International, 1981).Google Scholar

Rachum-Twaig, Omri, ‘Recreating Copyright: The Cognitive Process of Creation and Copyright Law’ (2017), 27 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 287–348.Google Scholar

Raue, Benjamin, Die dreifache Schadensberechnung. Eine Untersuchung zum deutschen und europäischen Immaterialgüter-, Lauterkeits- und Bürgerlichen Recht (Cambridge: Nomos, 2017).Google Scholar

Redeker, Helmut, ‘Information als eigenständiges Rechtsgut. Zur Rechtsnatur der Information und dem daraus resultierenden Schutz’ (2011), 27 Computer und Recht, 634–39.Google Scholar

Rehbinder, Manfred & Peukert, Alexander, Urheberrecht, 18th ed. (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2018).Google Scholar

Reich, Philipp Erasmus, Der Bücher-Verlag in allen Absichten genauer bestimmt (Cambridge, 1773).Google Scholar

Reicher, Maria Elisabeth, ‘Eine Typenontologie der Kunst’, in Schmücker, Reinold (ed.), Identität und Existenz: Studien zur Ontologie der Kunst (Cambridge: Mentis, 2003), pp. 180–99.Google Scholar

Reicher, Maria Elisabeth, ‘Materielle und abstrakte Artefakt-Fragmente’, in Malcher, Kay et al. (eds.), Fragmentarität als Problem der Kultur und Textwissenschaften (Cambridge: Fink, 2013), pp. 211–32.Google Scholar

Reicher, Maria Elisabeth, ‘Wie aus Gedanken Dinge werden. Eine Philosophie der Artefakte’ (2013), 61 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 219–32.Google Scholar

Reicher, Maria Elisabeth, ‘Ontologie fiktiver Gegenstände’, in Klauk, Tobias & Köppe, Tilmann (eds.), Fiktionalität: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch (Cambridge: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 159–89.Google Scholar

Reicher, Maria Elisabeth, ‘Kommunikative Absichten und die Ontologie des Literarischen Werkes’, in Borkowski, Jan et al. (eds.), Literatur interpretieren (Cambridge: Mentis, 2015), pp. 191–217.Google Scholar

Reimarus, Johann Albert, ‘Der Bücherverlag, in Betrachtung der Schriftsteller, der Buchhändler und des Publikums abermals erwogen’ (1791), 1 Deutsches Magazin, 383–414.Google Scholar

Renouard, Augustin-Charles, Traité des droits d’auteur, dans la littérature, les sciences et les beaux-arts, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: J. Renouard, 1838).Google Scholar

Renouard, Augustin-Charles, Traité des brevets d’invention (Paris, 1844).Google Scholar

Ricolfi, Marco, ‘The New Paradigm of Creativity and Innovation and Its Corollaries for the Law of Obligations’, in Drahos, Peter, Ghidini, Gustavo & Ullrich, Hanns (eds.), Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015), pp. 134–205.Google Scholar

Rognstad, Ole-Andreas, Property Aspects of Intellectual Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).Google Scholar

Rose, Mark, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Rose, Mark, ‘Nine-Tenths of the Law: The English Copyright Debates and the Rhetoric of the Public Domain’ (2003), 66 Law & Contemporary Problems, 75–87.Google Scholar

Ross, Alf, ‘ Ophavsrettens grundbegreber’ (1945), 58 Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap, 321–53.Google Scholar

Ross, Alf, On Law and Justice (Cambridge: University of California Press, 1959).Google Scholar

Rothe, Arnold, Der literarische Titel: Funktionen, Formen, Geschichte (Cambridge: Klostermann, 1986).Google Scholar

Rotstein, Robert H., ‘Beyond Metaphor: Copyright Infringement and the Fiction of the Work’ (1993), 68 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 725–804.Google Scholar

Rudner, Richard, ‘The Ontological Status of the Esthetic Object’ (1950), 10 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 380–88.Google Scholar

Savigny, Friedrich Carl, ‘Savignys Notizen zum Gesetz über den Nachdruck’, reprint, Wadle, Elmar (ed.), Friedrich Carl von Savignys Beitrag zum Urheberrecht (Cambridge: Heymann, 1992), pp. 28–46.Google Scholar

Schack, Haimo, Kunst und Recht (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).Google Scholar

Schechter, Frank I., ‘The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’ (1927), 40 Harvard Law Review, 813–33.Google Scholar

Schefczyk, Michael, ‘Rechte an Immaterialgütern – eine kantische Perspektive’ (2004), 52 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 739–53.Google Scholar

Scherer, Frederic M., Quarter Notes and Banknotes. The Economics of Music Composition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Princeton University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

Schmidt, Christian, ‘Die zwei Paradoxien des geistigen Eigentums’ (2004), 52 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 755–72.Google Scholar

Schmücker, Reinold, Was ist Kunst? Eine Grundlegung (Cambridge: Klostermann, 2014).Google Scholar

Schneider, Dieter, ‘Die Klarheit von Patentansprüchen – Anmerkungen zum deutschen und europäischen Recht’ (2016), Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte, 49–54.Google Scholar

Schreiner, Rupert, Die Dienstleistungsmarke (Cambridge: Heymann, 1983).Google Scholar

Schricker, Gerhard & Loewenheim, Ulrich, Urheberrecht. Kommentar, 6th ed. (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 2020).Google Scholar

Schützeichel, Rainer, ‘Searle und die Soziologie’ (2015), 38 Soziologische Revue, 503–14.Google Scholar

Schuster, Heinrich M., Das Urheberrecht der Tonkunst. In Oesterreich, Deutschland und andern europäischen Staaten: Mit Einschluss der allgemeinen Urheberrechtslehren. Historisch und dogmatisch dargestellt (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 1891).Google Scholar

Scotchmer, Suzanne, Innovation and Incentives (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004).Google Scholar

Searle, John R., ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’ (1980), 3 The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 417–57.Google Scholar

Searle, John R., The Construction of Social Reality (Cambridge: Free Press, 1995).Google Scholar

Searle, John R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

Searle, John R., Mind, Language and Society (Cambridge: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999).Google Scholar

Searle, John R., ‘Social Ontology and the Philosophy of Society’, in Margolis, Eric & Laurence, Stephen (eds.), Creations of the Mind (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 3–18.Google Scholar

Searle, John R., Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Searle, John R., ‘The Normative Structure of Human Civilization’, in Gephart, Werner & Suntrup, Jan Christoph (eds.), The Normative Structure of Human Civilization: Readings in John Searle’s Social Ontology (Cambridge: Vittorio Klostermann, 2017), pp. 21–32.Google Scholar

Seitz, Claudia & Kock, Michael A., ‘Wettbewerbsrechtliche Aspekte von Sortenschutz- und Patentlizenzen im Saatgutbereich – Schutzrechtslizenzen zwischen sortenschutzrechtlichen, patentrechtlichen und kartellrechtlichen Vorgaben’ (2012), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International 711–20.Google Scholar

Shavell, Steven, Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

Sherman, Brad, ‘What Is a Copyright Work?’ (2011), 12 Theoretical Inquiries in Law Forum, 99–121.Google Scholar

Sherman, Brad & Bently, Lionel, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760–1911 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

Sherman, Brad & Wiseman, Leanne, Copyright and the Challenge of the New (Cambridge: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2012).Google Scholar

Shiffrin, Seana, ‘Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property’, in Stephen Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 138–67.Google Scholar

Shiffrin, Seana, ‘Intellectual Property’, in Goodin, Robert, Pettit, Philip & Pogge, Thomas (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Blackwell, 2007), pp. 653–69.Google Scholar

Silberstein, Marcel, Erfindungsschutz und merkantilistische Gewerbeprivilegien (Cambridge: Polygraphischer Verlag, 1961).Google Scholar

Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (Cambridge: Management Laboratory Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Spindler, Gerald, ‘Roboter, Automation, künstliche Intelligenz, selbst-steuernde Kfz – Braucht das Recht neue Haftungskategorien? Eine kritische Analyse möglicher Haftungsgrundlagen für autonome Steuerungen’ (2015), 12 CR, 766–76.Google Scholar

Spoor, Jacob Hendrik, ‘De twee Betekenissen van het Woord ‚Verveelvoudigen’ in de Auteurswet 1912’ (1974), 105 Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, 165–70.Google Scholar

Stallberg, Christian G., Urheberrecht und moralische Rechtfertigung (Cambridge: Duncker und Humblot, 2006).Google Scholar

Star, Susan Leigh, ‘Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept’ (2010), 35 Science, Technology, & Human Values, 601–17.Google Scholar

Star, Susan Leigh & Griesemer, James R., ‘Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeleys Museum of Vertebrate Zoology’ (1989), 19 Social Studies of Science, 387–420.Google Scholar

Steinvorth, Ulrich, ‘Natürliche Eigentumsrechte, Gemeineigentum und geistiges Eigentum’ (2004), 52 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 717–38.Google Scholar

Sterne, Jonathan, The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction (Cambridge: Duke University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Stobbe, Otto, Handbuch des deutschen Privatrechts, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Hertz, 1882).Google Scholar

Strömholm, Stig, ‘Der urheberrechtliche Werkbegriff in der neueren nordischen Rechtslehre – 1. Teil’ (1963), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 433–43.Google Scholar

Strömholm, Stig, ‘Der urheberrechtliche Werkbegriff in der neueren nordischen Rechtslehre – 2. Teil’ (1963), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 481–89.Google Scholar

Tamura, Yoshiyuki, ‘Conceptual Fallacies behind the Idea of Unprotected Intellectual Works’ (2012), Nordic Journal of Commercial Law, 1–10.Google Scholar

Teilmann-Lock, Stina, The Object of Copyright: A Conceptual History of Originals and Copies in Literature, Art and Design (Cambridge: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar

Thierse, Wolfgang, ‘Thesen zur Problemgeschichte des Werk-Begriffs’ (1985), 6 Zeitschrift für Germanistik, 441–49.Google Scholar

Thierse, Wolfgang, ‘Das Ganze aber ist das, was Anfang, Mitte und Ende hat. Problemgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Geschichte des Werkbegriffs’ (1990), 36 Weimarer Beiträge, 240–64.Google Scholar

Thomasson, Amie L., ‘Ontological Innovation in Art’ (2010), 68 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 119–30.Google Scholar

Toynbee, Jason, ‘Copyright, the Work and Phonographic Orality’ (2006), 15 Music, Social and Legal Studies, 77–99.Google Scholar

Troller, Alois, Internationale Zwangsverwertung und Expropriation von Immaterialgütern (Cambridge: Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft, 1955).Google Scholar

Troller, Alois, ‘Urheberrecht und Ontologie’ (1967), 50 UFITA, 385–418.Google Scholar

Troller, Alois, Immaterialgüterrecht, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Helbing und Lichtenhahn, 1983).Google Scholar

Tsohatzidis, Savas L., Intentional Acts and Institutional Facts: Essays on John Searle’s Social Ontology (Cambridge: Springer, 2007).Google Scholar

Tuomela, Raimo, The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Tushnet, Rebecca, ‘Copy This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It’ (2004), 114 Yale Law Journal, 535–90.Google Scholar

Ulmer, Eugen, Urheber- und Verlagsrecht (Cambridge: Springer, 1980).Google Scholar

van Dijk, Niels, Grounds of the Immaterial: A Conflict-Based Approach to Intellectual Rights (Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017).Google Scholar

van Eechoud, Mireille, ‘Voices Near and Far’, in van Eechoud, Mireille (ed.), The Work of Authorship (Cambridge: Amsterdam University Press, 2014), pp. 7–17.Google Scholar

van Overwalle, Geertrui, ‘Rethinking IP Protection for Plants? Revisiting the Exclusivity-Access Balance through the Type-Token Ontology’, in Sikorski, Rafał & Pacud, Żaneta Zemła (eds.), Patents as an Incentive for Innovation (Cambridge: Kluwer Law International, forthcoming).Google Scholar

Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Völker, Stefan & Elskamp, Gregor, ‘Die neuen Markenfunktionen des EuGH’ (2010), 1 WRP, 64–72.Google Scholar

Vogt, Tobias, Untitled. Zur Karriere unbetitelter Kunst in der jüngsten Moderne (Cambridge: Fink, 2006).Google Scholar

Wadle, Elmar, ‘Der Einfluß Frankreichs auf die Entwicklung gewerblicher Schutzrechte in Deutschland: Eine Skizze zur Rechtsgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Lüke, Gerhard et al. (eds.), Rechtsvergleichung, Europarecht und Staatenintegration: Gedächtnisschrift für Léontin-Jean Constantinesco (Cambridge: Heymann, 1983), pp. 871–98.Google Scholar

Wadle, Elmar, Geistiges Eigentum: Bausteine zur Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: C. H. Beck, 1996).Google Scholar

Wadle, Elmar, Geistiges Eigentum: Bausteine zur Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, C. H. Beck, 2003).Google Scholar

Wadle, Elmar, ‘Urheberrecht zwischen Gestern und Morgen. Anmerkungen eines Rechtshistorikers’, in Wadle, Elmar (ed.), Beiträge zur Geschichte des Urheberrechts (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 2012), pp. 11–28.Google Scholar

Wadle, Elmar, ‘Urheberrecht im Horizont historischer Disziplinen’, in Wadle, Elmar (ed.), Beiträge zur Geschichte des Urheberrechts (Cambridge: Duncker & Humblot, 2012), pp. 29–38.Google Scholar

Wächter, Oscar, Das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste, Photographien und gewerblichen Mustern (Cambridge: Enke, 1877).Google Scholar

Waldron, Jeremy, ‘From Authors to Copiers: Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property’ (1993), 68 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 841–87.Google Scholar

Werner, Hans, Die Geschichte des deutschen Geschmacksmusterrechts unter Berücksichtigung der Entwürfe und Vorschläge zur Änderung des Gesetzes vom 11. Januar 1876 (Cambridge, 1954).Google Scholar

Wetzel, Michael, ‘Autor/Künstler’, in Barck, Karlheinz et al. (eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe (ÄGB), Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Metzler, 2000), pp. 480–544.Google Scholar

Wiener, Norbert, The Human Use of Human Beings (Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin, 1950).Google Scholar

Wilson, James, ‘Ontology and the Regulation of Intellectual Property’ (2010), 93 The Monist, 450–63.Google Scholar

Windscheid, Bernhard & Kipp, Theodor, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts unter vergleichender Darstellung des deutschen bürgerlichen Rechts, Vol. 1, reprint, (Frankfurt, 1906).Google Scholar

Winkler, Heinz, ‘Der Schutzumfang der Patente in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft’ (1977), 79 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 394–404.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1958).Google Scholar

Woodmannsee, Martha, The Author, Art and the Market: Rereading the History of Aesthetics (Cambridge: Columbia University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

Wreen, Michael, ‘The Ontology of Intellectual Property’ (2010), 93 The Monist, 433–49.Google Scholar

Würtenberger, Gert & Ekvad, Martin, Paul van der Kooij and Bart Kiewiet, European Union Plant Variety Protection (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Young, Edward, ‘On Lyric Poetry, 1728’, in Conjectures on Original Composition (Cambridge: Manchester University Press, 1918), pp. 56–62.Google Scholar

Young, James O., ‘The Ancient and Modern System of the Arts’ (2015), 55 British Journal of Aesthetics, 1–17.Google Scholar

Zahrádka, Pavel, ‘Ontologie díla v autorském zákoně České republiky’ [The Ontology of the Work in the Copyright Act of the Czech Republic] (2017), 65 Filosofický časopis, 739–61.Google Scholar

Zech, Herbert, Information als Schutzgegenstand (Cambridge: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).Google Scholar

Zech, Herbert, ‘Die Dematerialisierung des Patentrechts und ihre Grenzen: Zugleich Besprechung von BGH “Rezeptortyrosinkinase II”’ (2017), 119 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 475–78.Google Scholar

Materials