The alt solves innovation better by encouraging pluralism.

In conclusion, I wish to briefly reflect on what the above exegesis of local Melanesian intellectual property systems can offer for critical intellectual property discussion more broadly. There are two broad observations that emerge. The first is the value of plurality in this field that is currently so heavily dominated by standardisation and a quest for uniformity. The preceding discussion suggests that there are serious side effects of a uniform approach to intellectual property regulation, and that it can even undermine the conditions that are most likely to lead to innovation and creativity in all its wondrous diversity. In other words, although seeking to incentivise further creativity and innovation, the global intellectual property system is actually gradually homogenising the conditions in which creativity and innovation is produced. Ironically, and almost certainly, this is likely in the long run to lead to less creativity and innovation, or at least less radical and heterogeneous creativity and innovation. The examples from Melanesia illustrate that it is a mistake to try to separate the systems that regulate intellectual property from the resources themselves. Therefore, if as a matter of global policy we really do value innovation, in its real sense of offering true alternatives and new directions, we should also recognise and value alternative intellectual property mechanisms to the dominant global model. Although these systems are more apparent in places such as Melanesia where the global intellectual property system has not as yet established a strong hold, they exist throughout the world in areas such as the informal economy and elsewhere there are intangible resources not currently regulated by the global system. I suggest that rather than merely accepting as inevitable their ultimate domination by the global system, there is exploration of ways in which this can be resisted and a plural regulatory approach adopted. The ways in which this will occur will need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis depending upon the particular circumstances and opportunities, but can only occur if there is first of all a change of mindset towards an embracing of pluralism and an awareness of the undesirability of the global system’s current claims of universality.

The second observation emerging from the investigation of Melanesian intellectual property systems is that the current neoliberal or market-based focus of the global intellectual property system is a narrow one. Problematically, it largely renders invisible a whole range of factors that have powerful impacts upon both the creation of new intangible resources and their distribution. These include social relationships and cultural and cosmological understandings. A market-based focus can also obscure the fact that there may be values associated with particular intangible resources that are unable to be factored into a purely neoliberal economic framework—for example, values associated with particular aspects of cultural heritage or even genetic resources. One response is to seek to carve out certain areas as being explicitly inalienable and available to all, such as the Italian public cultural public domain (see articles 822.2, 826.2 and 3. of the Italian civil code). An alternative approach is to work towards gradually imbuing intellectual property mechanisms with more non-economic considerations, such as, for example including questions of culture as relevant (or even central) to intellectual property policy design.