A Promising Conference focusing on "Common Ground"

As we all know, IP is a hot (and important) field and there are more interesting conferences concerning IP than any one person could attend.  However, here is one that has piqued my interest as it holds the promise to focus and build on what brings two groups together.  The conference is titled, "Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators" and is sponsored by George Mason University School of Law (October 9-10, 2014).  Here is a description of the theme of the conference:

This groundbreaking conference will explore the common ground shared by the innovation industries and the creative industries, where intellectual property secures bold risk-taking and revolutionary ingenuity by artists and inventors alike.

 

We will take a long overdue, fresh look at the relationship between these two central parts of the U.S. economy.  Stale conventional wisdom says that the creative industries and innovation industries are inevitably and irreconcilably in conflict.  The story goes that creators’ rights are “obstacles” to innovation, and that technological innovation harms creators.  This conventional wisdom is wrong.

The true story of innovation and creativity is a virtuous circle.  Technology gives artists and creators the tools to create entirely new mediums and the ability to reach worldwide audiences. Creativity, in turn, fuels the video, music, and games that make smartphones, iPads, and even the entire Internet so well-loved.

Innovation is creative and creativity is innovative.  Both industries engage in brilliant intellectual work to bring new products and services into the world and both take great risks to commercialize their work. Both also depend on intellectual property, which secures their work and investment, thus promoting the virtuous circle of creativity and innovation.

Notably, Professor Richard Epstein is the keynote speaker for the event.  I have two hopes for the conference.  The first is that it is available via webinar.  The second is that it takes an "international viewpoint" and is not solely U.S. focused.