Suchergebnisse

Proposes an interpretation of intercultural processes that take place in the exchange of traditional knowledge between ethnic groups and different kinds of agents in modern societies. Guidelines for a regulatory framework protecting vernacular knowledge and simultaneously providing incentives for modern scientific research are suggested. Under this scheme, communities might improve their ability to defend their rights and demand the enforcement of certain rules conditioning the use of traditional knowledge by firms, laboratories, and research institutes. (Original abstract - amended)

Knowledge-based assets, intellectual property, and capital play a fundamental role in an enterprise's competitiveness, especially in small knowledge intensive enterprises. Small knowledge intensive enterprises need to create new ways of operating in order to manage the intellectual and knowledge-based assets in their organizations more efficiently. Organizational knowledge and intellectual property can be protected, either formally via IPR, or informally via efficient knowledge management. Successful IP protection requires systematic intellectual property and knowledge management. Intellectual property protection via efficient knowledge management affects the entire organization rather than being just a separate task. It needs to be embedded in organizational work routines, practices, and processes as an overall operational strategy. When embedded in organizational work processes, IP protection and knowledge management become a continuous part of work routines and tasks in the enterprise, not a separate action.

Introducing the results of innovative activity into economic circulation is one of the essential characteristics of an effective industrial enterprise. Commercializing intellectual property objects involves coordinated production and commercial activity, adopting and implementing scientifically based decisions. This is necessary to successfully pass an intellectual product through all stages of its life cycle.The purpose of this study is to form market processes for commercializing intellectual property objects at industrial enterprises, finding the most effective option for their introduction into economic circulation.The theoretical investigation of the problem made it possible to identify and analyze various possible conceptual approaches to commercializing intellectual property in an industrial enterprise. Among them are market push, market pull, engineering, and reengineering commercialization models.Separate stages of forming the market model for commercializing intellectual property in an industrial enterprise are highlighted. First, the methodological principles of the vertical, horizontal, and vertical-horizontal market processes of intellectual property commercialization have been developed. The peculiarities of an intellectual product's life cycle are determined; based on this, a market model of intellectual property's life cycle (model of successive changes) is proposed. Finally, for each of the proposed market processes, the main advantages and disadvantages of their practical use are determined, as well as the areas of their most effective usage.

This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online.

The most important rights, which state such a balance between these two parties, are the rights of intellectual property. Thus, an important question is to what extent 3D-printing conflicts with intellectual property rights. In general, intellectual property balances the rights between the owners of genuine products and their use through third parties. On the one hand the intellectual property rights give exclusive rights to the genuine owners, on the other hand they give as well some important exceptions for the use of third parts material. Hence, the purpose of this work is to examine, which intellectual property rights are affected by the production of a 3D-printed object. In each of the following chapters I will look at the different categories of intellectual property rights. I will examine in how far the creators of a CAD, the uploaders who upload a CAD on a website for a free or commercial download, the website owners who facilitate that uploads and the printers, whether private or with a commercial purpose, may be in conflict with any intellectual property rights. The most important intellectual property rights, which could be affected, are copyright, patents, registered designs, trade marks and passing off. For the present investigation it will be necessary to have a closer look at the different steps of the developing process of a 3D-printed product. More precisely, we have to differentiate between the creation of the CAD, the uploading of a CAD and finally the home-printing or the printing on demand through a specialised company. The aim of this work is to show how these single steps conflict with intellectual property rights and how the different actors in this process are liable for any infringing activity and in how far their activity is covered by any exception. Furthermore, we will also examine whether current legislation and jurisdiction appropriately address issues brought about by this new technology. Because of the reason, that the issue of 3D-printing in relation to intellectual property is quite a new one, this work will occasionally have a look abroad to other jurisdiction how they already dealt with similar problems. With this in mind, especially the US, European and German jurisdiction and laws will be regarded.

AbstractThis article documents the practices of pharmaceutical creativity in Ayurveda, focusing in particular on how practitioners appropriate multiple sources to innovate medical knowledge. Drawing on research in linguistic anthropology on the social circulation of discourse—a process calledentextualization—I describe how the ways in which Ayurveda practitioners innovate medical knowledge confounds the dichotomous logic of intellectual property (IP) rights discourse, which opposes traditional collective knowledge and modern individual innovation. While it is clear that these categories do not comprehend the complex nature of creativity in Ayurveda, I also use the concept of entextualization to describe how recent historical shifts in the circulation of discourse have caused a partial entailment of this opposition between the individual and the collectivity. Ultimately, I argue that the method exemplified in this article of tracking the social circulation of medical discourse highlights both the empirical complexity of so-called traditional creativity, and the politics of imposing the categories of IP rights discourse upon that creativity, situated as it often is, at the margins of the global economy.