Suchergebnisse

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Improperly defined intellectual property rights in a government contract can result in the loss of an entity's critical assets or limit the development of applications critical to public health or safety. Conversely, successful contracts can spur economic development, innovation, and growth, and dramatically improve the quality of delivered goods and services. Contracting for intellectual property rights is difficult. The stakes are high, and negotiating positions are frequently ill-defined. Moreover, the concerns raised must be tempered with the understanding that government contracting can be challenging even without the complexities of intellectual property rights. Further, contractors often have reasons for not wanting to contract with the government, including concerns over profitability, capacity, accounting and administrative requirements, and opportunity costs. Within the commercial sector, companies identified a number of specific intellectual property concerns that affected their willingness to contract with the government. These included perceived poor definitions of what technical data is needed by the government, issues with the government's ability to protect proprietary data adequately, and unwillingness on the part of government officials to exercise the flexibilities available concerning intellectual property rights. Some of these concerns were on perception rather than experience, but, according to company officials, they nevertheless influence decisions not to seek contracts or collaborate with federal government entities. Agency officials shared many of these concerns. Poor upfront planning and limited experience/expertise among the federal contracting workforce were cited as impediments. Although agency officials indicated that intellectual property rights problems may have limited access to particular companies, they did not cite specific instances where the agency was unable to acquire needed technology. Agency officials said that improved training and awareness of the flexibility already in place as well as a better definition of data needs on individual contracts would improve the situation."

Introduction. The transition of Ukraine to the information society requires a constructive rethinking of the role of intellectual property, which acts as the driving force behind the creation of competitive advantages and the formation of the potential of industrial and economic relations at the national and international levels.In many cases, market relations are not capable of ensuring the transformation of the results of innovation activity into goods. Therefore, in the given conditions, effective state regulation of the commercialization of intellectual property objects becomes the first place.Purpose. The purpose of this work is to study the processes of commercialization of intellectual property and the possibility of adapting foreign experience to the realities of today's Ukraine.Methods. Theoretical analysis and graphical method.Results. In accordance with the main goal in the work the following issues are considered: various scientific approaches to the definition of the concept of "intellectual property" are investigated; considered the main ways of using intellectual property; highlighted and analyzed the main groups of problems of regulation of relations connected with the commercialization of the results of intellectual property; the experience of foreign countries regarding the commercialization of the results of intellectual property was considered, namely, the main problems of this process were identified, possible solutions were proposed and the main toolkit used in the settlement of these problems was identified; The mechanism for the development of solutions based on the problems described in the work will be based and presented in a schematic form.Originality. The experience of commercialization of the results of intellectual activity abroad is generalized. The mechanism of solving the problems of commercialization of the results of intellectual activity is proposed.Conclusions. Thus, we can conclude that any problem of commercialization of intellectual property objects can be solved by finding a compromise between the parties, taking into account the legislative framework operating in the country, the choice of fundamental criteria, the assessment of the effectiveness and risks of a number of proposed options. Every solution proposed for the next implementation must be documented in the enterprise and have a correlation with the main development strategy.

Introduction to the 2018 Annual Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette'Blockbuster Sermons' and Authorship Issues in Evangelicalism TJ Geiger, Baylor UniversityPlagiarizing a Pushcart Prize Lanette Cadle, Missouri State UniversitySue for Mario Bros.: Nintendo vs Emulation Kyle D. Stedman, Rockford UniversityCockygate: Trademark Trolling, Romance Novels, and Intellectual Property Devon Fitzgerald Ralston, Winthrop UniversityA (Zombie) Legislative Proposal with Implications for Fair Use and Remix Culture Kim Gainer, Radford University

Are intellectual property rights like other property rights? More and more of the world's knowledge and information is under the control of intellectual property owners. What are the justifications for this? What are the implications for power and for justice of allowing this property form to range across social life? Can we look to traditional property theory to supply the answers or do we need a new approach? Intellectual property rights relate to abstract objects – objects like algorithms and DNA sequences. The consequences of creating property rights in such objects are far-reaching. A Philosophy of Intellectual Property argues that lying at the heart of intellectual property are duty-bearing privileges. We should adopt an instrumentalist approach to intellectual property and reject a proprietarian approach – an approach which emphasises the connection between labour and property rights. The analysis draws on the history of intellectual property, legal materials, the work of Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, Marx and Hegel, as well as economic, sociological and legal theory. The book is designed to be accessible to specialists in a number of fields as well as students. It will interest philosophers, political scientists, economists, and legal scholars, as well as those professionals concerned with policy issues raised by modern technologies and the information society.

Background Australia provides statutory protection for intellectual property through patents, trade marks, geographical indications, registered designs, plant breeders' rights, copyright, moral rights, performers' rights and circuit layout rights. Current laws are consistent with treaties under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Health Organization to which Australia has acceded, as well as bilateral and regional trade agreements. The global economy and technology are changing and there have been increases in the scope and duration of intellectual property protection. The Australian Government seeks to ensure that the appropriate balance exists between incentives for innovation and investment and the interests of both individuals and businesses, including small businesses, in accessing ideas and products. This issues paper has been released by the Commission to assist individuals and organisations to prepare submissions to the inquiry. This paper outlines: the scope of the inquiry a proposed framework for considering intellectual property arrangements some broad questions about the objectives and operation of Australia's intellectual property arrangements, as well as some more specific questions, which relate to particular forms of intellectual property rights how to make a submission. Participants should not feel that they are restricted to comment only on matters raised in the issues paper. The Commission wishes to receive information and comment on issues that participants consider relevant to the inquiry's terms of reference. Submissions are due by 30 November 2015. Opportunity for further comment will be sought upon release of the draft report in March/April 2016.

The debate over international intellectual property rights has become an important foreign policy issue for many industrialized countries, and particularly for the United States. US companies complain that they have suffered greatly from the lack of rigorous and uniform international standards for intellectual property rights, and the US government has consequently undertaken to strengthen rights protection – through bilateral consultations with other countries and through multilateral forums such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization. Most developing countries have committed to raising their standards of intellectual property protection, but how quickly they will adopt new standards of protection and what form the standards will take remain open questions. Intellectual Property Rights in Emerging Markets, edited by Clarisa Long, considers the three geographical regions that present the greatest intellectual property rights problems to US industries – China, Latin America, and India. The authors assess the effects of regional and local factors on levels of protection; describe how trade pacts, domestic interest groups, and development policies affect incentives to protect intellectual property rights; and propose steps to motivate the three regions to improve protection. Their findings and recommendations offer much-needed guidance to the US business community. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1122/thumbnail.jpg

Introduction to the 2018 Annual Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette 'Blockbuster Sermons' and Authorship Issues in Evangelicalism TJ Greiger, Baylor University Plagiarizing a Pushcart Prize Lanette Cadle, Missouri State University Sue for Mario Bros.: Nintendo vs Emulation Kyle D. Stedman, Rockford University Cockygate: Trademark Trolling, Romance Novels, and Intellectual Property Devon Fitzgerald Ralston, Winthrop University A (Zombie) Legislative Proposal with Implications for Fair Use and Remix Culture Kim Gainer, Radford University

Within intellectual property, Darcy v. Allen and the Statute of Monopolies are frequently, almost reflexively, invoked as establishing a baseline norm of economic freedom from which governments depart when they grant exclusive rights to deal in any trade or article of commerce. Against this free-market backdrop, all such grants are suspect, and only those that are justified by reference to their originality or utility are valid. Rejecting the dominant view of Darcy and the Statute of Monopolies, the paper provides a more detailed political and legislative history of both the compromise leading to Darcy and the adoption of the Statute of Monopolies than any to date, and consequently demonstrates that their true importance lies in their political, not economic, content. This reinterpretation suggests that both events are best viewed through the lens of political accountability, not economic doctrine. The paper concludes by considering the ramifications that this new understanding has for modern debates about intellectual property. This paper is forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review.

Previously published in the International bulletin of industrial property, v. 2, no. 5-12, v. 3, no. 1-9. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Intellectual Property Consultants appointed by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights is an office that has a limited authority to carry out their duties; The appointment of IPR consultant are intended to assist Ministry of Law and Human Rights in resolving the matter on IPR registration. Due to the reason that IPR is the scope of Ministry of Law and Human Rights authority, the one which has the authority to appoint someone as IPR Consultant is also Ministry of Law and Human Right. Appointment of IPR Consultant should be specially granted for Law School Graduate due to the reason that Consultant shall understand and able to execute the procedure of authority and regulation that limits its authority in running Consultant position. In carrying out its duties, IPR Consultant will be closely related to legal action and must strictly comply with the Law and assume responsibility given by the client. The duties and responsibilities attached to IPR Consultant have a legal consequence. In conducting its duties, IPR Consultant shall be able to read and implement the regulation enforced by the government.

This article analyses the Constitutional Court's treatment of property interests in the face of state regulation to gain an understanding of the type of state interference that is justifiable in terms of section 25(1) of the Bill of Rights. This is done by examining the Constitutional Court's dicta relating to the meaning of deprivation and how these inform the meaning of property in the constitutional context. The methodology that the Constitutional Court has formulated to assess if state interference complies with the provisions of section 25 is explained to show the type of state regulation that has been found legitimate. We then consider how this understanding of constitutional property and the state's legitimate exercise of its inherent police power interact in the setting of intellectual property by contrasting the various policy objectives underlying the different statutory regimes governing intellectual property. This theoretical analysis is then applied to two contemporary examples of feasible state interference with existing intellectual property interests, namely the proposed plain packaging measures which severely restrict the use of tobacco trade marks, and a fair dealing exception allowing the use of copyright works for the purpose of parody. These examples serve to illustrate the context and manner in which intellectual property interests may come before the Court and the necessary differentiation with which these interests should be treated. The appropriate judicial assessment of the true impact that state action could have on vested property interests is explained and contrasted with the balancing exercise that is employed at the earlier stage of policy making. This discussion is concluded by highlighting some of the interpretational issues that will arise and how some constitutional values could be curtailed in the absence of legislative intervention.

This article analyses the Constitutional Court's treatment of property interests in the face of state regulation to gain an understanding of the type of state interference that is justifiable in terms of section 25(1) of the Bill of Rights. This is done by examining the Constitutional Court's dicta relating to the meaning of deprivation and how these inform the meaning of property in the constitutional context. The methodology that the Constitutional Court has formulated to assess if state interference complies with the provisions of section 25 is explained to show the type of state regulation that has been found legitimate. We then consider how this understanding of constitutional property and the state's legitimate exercise of its inherent police power interact in the setting of intellectual property by contrasting the various policy objectives underlying the different statutory regimes governing intellectual property. This theoretical analysis is then applied to two contemporary examples of feasible state interference with existing intellectual property interests, namely the proposed plain packaging measures which severely restrict the use of tobacco trade marks, and a fair dealing exception allowing the use of copyright works for the purpose of parody. These examples serve to illustrate the context and manner in which intellectual property interests may come before the Court and the necessary differentiation with which these interests should be treated. The appropriate judicial assessment of the true impact that state action could have on vested property interests is explained and contrasted with the balancing exercise that is employed at the earlier stage of policy making. This discussion is concluded by highlighting some of the interpretational issues that will arise and how some constitutional values could be curtailed in the absence of legislative intervention.

We study the incentives that governments have to protect intellectual property in a trading world economy. We consider a world economy with ongoing innovation in two countries that differ in market size and in their capacities for innovation. We associate the strength of IPR protection with the duration of a country's patents that are applied with national treatment. After describing the determination of national policies in a non-cooperative regime of patent protection, we ask, Why are patents longer in the North? We also study international patent agreements by deriving the properties of an efficient global regime of patent protection and asking whether harmonization of patent policies is necessary or sufficient for global efficiency.

If redistribution is distortionary, and if the income of skilled workers is due to knowledgeintensive activities and depends positively on intellectual property, a social planner which cares about income distribution may in principle want to use a reduction in Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) rather than redistributive transfers. On the one hand, such a reduction reduces statis inefficiency. On the other hand, standard redistribution also reduces the level of R and D because it distorts occupational choice. We study this possibility in the context of a model with horizontal innovation, where the government, in addition to taxes and transfers, controls the fraction of innovations that are granted patents. The model predicts that standard redistribution always dominates limitations to IPRs.

This study attempts to experimentally capture the effects of democratic reform of intellectual property (IP) and measure how a vote "against IP" can disappoint the most talented innovators and reduce their creativity. Contrary to expectations, the results show that such a vote increases overall creativity. Actually, the most talented innovators do not vote in favor of IP. Rather, those who vote in favor of IP are those who benefit relatively more from royalties. Surprisingly, no correlation is found between these two populations: the IP in our experiment seems not to reward the best players, but the players choosing an 'autarkic' strategy of relying on their own creationsand forego cross-fertilization with other players. These are not particularly brilliant players thatopt for a rent-seeking strategy that maximises gainsfromthe IP systemitself. There are plausible arguments to argue that this result is at least partly valid in the real world, especially for complexand highly sequential innovations where it has been proven that patent trolls and anti-competitivestrategies are important. These findings lead us not to recommend IP constitutional protections,because there are no major "tyranny from the majority" concerns.