The chapter critically examines the foundations of intellectual property law from a spatial

theory perspective. By focusing on innovation emerging independently of the incentives

provided by intellectual property rights, 1 it contends that intellectual property justifications
fail to recognize the intrinsic role of geography in advancing technological progress. 2 In
challenging the conventional normative basis of intellectual property law, the analysis will
delve into the concept of geography as a trigger for technological advancements. 3
Specifically, the chapter will examine two case studies where the interplay of unique
landscapes and geographical circumstances spurred innovative thinking. 4 The first case study
sheds light on innovations in agriculture which arose outside the purview of intellectual
property law more than five centuries ago. It explores the Inca civilization’s agricultural
expertise and sophisticated irrigation systems, among other things, and emphasizes how
their geographical limitations drove inventive agricultural solutions 5 in the absence of any
laws meant to incentivise innovation. The second case study examines Iceland’s remarkable
success in renewable energy innovation,6 showcasing how the country’s geographical
context played a pivotal role in shaping their energy strategy. 7 As we shall see, while Iceland
has developed advanced geothermal technologies and expertise,8 it has taken a unique
approach when it comes to intellectual property rights, without heavily relying on patents. 9
Rather, the country’s focus has been, inter alia, on the open exchange of information and

1
Elizabeth L Rosenblatt, ‘A Theory of IP’s Negative Space’ (2011) 34(3) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 317; Marta
Iljadica, ‘Painting on walls: street art without copyright?’ in Kate Darling and Aaron Perzanowski (eds.), Creativity Without
Law: Challenging the Assumptions of Intellectual Property (NYU Press, 2017) 118; Christian Katzenbach, ‘There Is Always
More Than Law! From Low IP Regimes to a Governance. Perspective In Copyright Research’ (2018) 22(2) Journal of
Technology Law & Policy 1.
2
Kim Economides, Mark Blacksell and Charles Watkins, ‘The Spatial Analysis of Legal Systems: Towards a Geography of
Law?’ (1986) 13(2) Journal of Law and Society 161.
3
Diamond (n 3) 233-58.
4
ibid.
5
R. Alan Covey, How the Incas Built Their Heartland: State Formation and the Innovation of Imperial Strategies in the
Sacred Valley, Peru (University Michigan Press, 2006); Michael Hessel-Mial, How STEM Built the Incan Empire (The Rosen
Publishing Group, 2020).
6
Halla Hrund Logadóttir, ‘Iceland's Sustainable Energy Story: A Model for the World?’ (December 2015, No. 3 Vol. LII,
Sustainable Energy) <https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/icelands-sustainable-energy-story-model-world> accessed
16 August 2023.
7
Karl Benediktsson, ‘Conflicting imaginaries in the energy transition? Nature and renewable energy in Iceland’ (2021) 29(2)
Moravian Geographical Reports 88.
8
Janelle Knox-Hayes, Shekhar Chandra, Jungwoo Chun, ‘The Role Oo Values In Shaping Sustainable Development
Perspectives And Outcomes: A Case Study Of Iceland’ (2021) 29 Sustainable Development 363; Joan Michelson, ‘7
Renewable Energy Strategies We Can Learn From Iceland’ (28 June 2022, Forbes)
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2022/06/28/iceland-runs-on-85-renewable-energy-7-strategies-we-can-
learn-from-them/?sh=276ee6e2313f> accessed 16 August 2023.
9
WIPO, ‘Intellectual property statistical country profile 2021: Iceland’ (WIPO Data Centre)
<https://www.wipo.int/directory/en/details.jsp?country_code=IS> accessed 16 August 2023.
collaboration with other nations and researchers. 10 Next, the analysis acknowledges that not
all technologies labelled as ‘inventions’ or ‘innovation’ are geographically driven and that the
law remains an effective tool11 in supporting innovative commercial activities. Here an
important distinction will be drawn between innovation fuelled by market dynamics and
innovation triggered by the need to overcome geographical limitations. The conclusion
suggests that distinguishing between these categories of innovation will help us better
understand the diverse motivations that can underpin inventive endeavours and should
necessarily inform the way intellectual property law conceptualises excluded subject matter.
Furthermore, it contends that the extent of private monopolies granted in relation to
innovation which arises as a necessary consequence of geography must be reassessed. More
specifically, it suggests that in situations where innovation is required to surmount
geographical constraints, should intellectual property rights be granted in relation to such
inventions or works, the legal framework should allow for a defence against infringement
when third parties enhance such inventions or works or employ them to address
geographical limitations.

10
Halla Hrund Logadóttir, ‘Iceland's Sustainable Energy Story: A Model for the World?’ (December 2015, No. 3 Vol. LII,
Sustainable Energy) <https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/icelands-sustainable-energy-story-model-world> accessed
16 August 2023.
11
Jenny Kanellopoulou, ‘Of Place and Law’ in Tim Edensor, Ares Kalandides and Uma Kothari (eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of Place (Routledge, 2020) 375.