“The Knowledge Game was not created overnight.  Rather it evolved, its nature and complexity [have been] refined by many legal hands over the generations…”pg 51 Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos / John Braithwaite

When considering the above, its certainly easy to offer the obvious cheap joke — Are you wondering who wrote the Book on (not love) but Education?  And then a rousing choir of lawyers would emphatically shout back … We Did!  But I’m going to argue we’re better than that.  While international legal systems have ruled on everything from approved reading lists to mandatory professor credentials, at the same time such regulations and stipulations have also mainstreamed education standards into an applicable, organized structure.  Whether the structure is fair, fully optimized, or culturally flexible are just a few deeper issues lying beyond the idea that the legal system correlates both directly and indirectly to the education system.

Drahos and Braithwaite comments offer that the whole idea surrounding courtroom parlay between Defendant and Prosecutor over intellectual property ownership indicatively leads to creating the ever-evolving Knowledge Game.  We’ve referenced a War of Words, Reporting from the Trenches, but the strategic operation to outwit the court room and prove idea ownership stands to be another matter entirely.  There are many rules, players, argument facets, protocols, and tactics at one’s disposal but even when these measures are carried out to the letter of the law – one can still loose case that their original claim fails and award will be redistributed according to the jury’s conclusions.  So when education models begin to move toward an open content exchange – what must those familiar with the Knowledge Game practice of old now do?  Adapt?  Yes but with caution – because there are still some rules that will always apply.

Consider University Press Systems – an area immersed head deep in the morphing ‘print to digital’ transition and the oncoming consequences.  When professors develop manuscripts and opt to issue a digital-only version of their work – can the accredited educational publishing houses defend their role and revenue process and rights to work with certain esteemed professors even though the work doesn’t even belong to them in the first place?

Beyond this, law school systems are also transitioning and seeing precedent change faster than ever before, now that evidence records include digital transcripts such as text messaging, tweets, Facebook posts, blog comments, and YouTube reactions.  Any ownership clarity prior to the floodgates pouring information into the open public domain now stands dilute, stagnant and complex within the ever increasing social communities the mass populous defers to regarding conversation.  Device production cost that sustains this context will also further decrease, spreading the quandary further, vastly beyond the academic sphere.  Indeed, legal minds will declare rulings and their effects will spread beyond the parties standing before the Judge in session, teachers, students, educational administrators must make a habit to understand governing legal ramifications and how their profession stands to both suffer and benefit from the case of Digital Intellectual ownership vs. Analogue claims.