Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I propose to research the relationships between Internet Infrastructure, development and brain drain. Asymmetrical global development has resulted in a migration of the best and brightest from the South to the North, magnifying the development gap among regions over time. Recently brain gain and brain circulation arguments have suggested that through digital Diaspora networks expatriated human capital can engage in capacity building in home nations. The asymmetrical penetration and support of Internet across development spheres though suggests some caution in assuming that Diaspora Networks are uniformly distributed across all nations and all fields. Certain fields in particular nations are supported over others owing to economic emphasis. Fields that could diversify dependent economies are located at the high end of the brain drain continuum. During the globalization of the Internet, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase in immigration even after September 11th. Aside from individual level factors, a variety of macro push and pull mechanisms motivate migration choices. This research combines individual level data with composite change variables that measure the difference between home and host nations’ development and Internet indices. The research question guiding this proposed research asks: Is the Internet facilitating all categories of immigration or is it acting as a focused conduit for high-end brain drain? A variety of databases will be accessed during this research including those compiled by the NSF and the World Bank.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Several key topics are discussed in the report: the economic and social context of the skilled labor force circulation with the post-Soviet area; factors that determine migrants’ choice of a state of immigration; employment patterns of the highly skilled labor from CIS countries in Russia, their wages and scope of their remittances; the role of educational migration; social, cultural and institutional aspects of immigrants-intellectuals’ integration in Russia. Fragmentation of the post-Soviet area along the North-South line defines various patterns of the highly skilled labor’s movements that can be described as the brain drain and the brain circulation. Within limits of the North brain circulation predominates while the brain drain is specific for the North-South dimension. Decrease of differentiation among standards of living in a donor state and the recipient state is the decisive factor of transition from the brain drain to the brain circulation.The emphasis is made on steams of intellectual immigration from CIS countries to Russia. Coming to conclusion that social and economic development of Russia determines a stable internal demand on highly skilled labor of migrants, the author examines factors that contribute to the explosive growth in intellectuals’ influx into Russia from CIS countries. The author provides am estimate of scopes and spheres of employment, wages and remittances of various categories of intellectual migrants in Russia.Finally, the author analyzes consequences that changes in Russia’s immigration policy transformation in 2007 have for the highly skilled immigrants from CIS countries: implementation of the state program of compatriots’ repatriation, liberalization of access to the Russian labor markets granted to immigrants from CIS countries and of the legal regime of migrants’ staying/residing in Russia. The author concludes that the key link of Russia’s migration policy is to be politics of the highly skilled immigrants’ integration.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The paper discusses the major trends of Russian intellectual migration. Analyzed and compared are both the intellectual migration from Russia to the West and the newly forming migration flow of scientists from the post-Soviet states to Russia. The authors intend to offer a comprehensive discussion of both positive and negative aspects of the intellectual migration for both the home and host countries of migrants. Special attention is to be given to the policy changes of the last two years in Russia, including the state program of compatriots’ repatriation, the liberalization of access to the Russian labor markets granted to the immigrants from the CIS countries and the adjustments in the legal position of labor migrants.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The rights of co-inventors to a joint patent and the rights of co-authors to a joint copyright are treated very differently from each other under American intellectual property law. Individuals are only joint authors under copyright law if they each intended to be co-authors and each made an independently copyrightable contribution to the work. Patent law is more lenient in this regard: individuals can be joint inventors regardless of intent, if their contributions were not independently patentable, and even where one inventor only contributed to a subset of the patent claims. These differences result more from historically independent development rather than intentional differentiation. Other jurisdictions apply different substantive law concerning joint authorship and inventorship, and often do not reveal as significant a divide as in the United States.

This article explores the rationales for disparate treatment of joint authors and joint inventors. At the heart of these distinctions lie differing social attitudes towards creativity of authors versus inventors, perceived differences in their creative processes, and different opinions concerning the natural rights that authors versus inventors should be entitled to hold in their labor and creations. These differences are rooted in conflicting conceptions of creativity concerning authors versus inventors. Authorship is perceived and governed as right brain mode of thinking, inventorship as left brain. In reality, this dichotomy between modes of creativity for authors and inventors—in both perception and in intellectual property law—is exaggerated. As a result, intellectual property law likely does not appropriately reward or incentivize certain creative work, and in particular may fail to adequately incentivize collaborative endeavors and extraordinary invention.