This chapter examines the assumption that some types of property rights over some R&D inputs encourage innovation, while property rights over other inputs can hinder scientific innovation, and how to determine the difference between the two. Applying ‘the romantic vision of authorship’ lens of James Boyle in his book Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society and drawing parallels between the decision in Moore v Regents of the University of California and the DSI debate, the chapter concludes that the logic to justify some forms of (intellectual) property over information because it promotes innovation and deny sovereign rights over information because it retards innovation is shaky. The chapter calls for enhanced opportunities to capitalise on open access so it truly is beneficial for all.