On intellectual property protection (original) (raw)
Related papers
Seven years ago, a group of international experts foresaw an emerging sea of change in how intellectual property in the life sciences is understood. This group, which I have had the privilege to lead, realized that governments, industry, universities, researchers and NGOs were developing new views about the role of intellectual property -patents, copyrights and trade-marks -in managing life sciences innovation. With an historic financial commitment from the Canadian government, through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property investigated how we can collectively manage the process of biotechnological innovation to respond to the world's food, health and industrial needs.
International Intellectual Property: Law and Policy (with W. Hennessey, S. Perlmutter & G. Austin)
2008
The TRIPS Agreement can be read to reflect a static view of the structure of intellectual property law. In this paper, we address whether-and how-the TRIPS Agreement can, on the other hand, be read with more fluidity, and thus to allow adjustments in national intellectual property regimes designed to reflect the dynamic nature of information production. To focus that inquiry, we concentrate on efforts to ensure a broader public domain for 'upstream' inventions by modifying various elements of US patent law. The paper considers three stylized examples and asks whether each approach could be adopted by the United States without falling afoul of the TRIPS Agreement as it is currently understood. Our purpose is to identify interpretive approaches that allow member states to keep their laws attuned to the developments and needs of science. But in so doing, we also raise broader questions regarding the level of formalism generated by the WTO dispute settlement system, and the extent to which the TRIPS Agreement allocates power between supranational and national institutions, and between international and national laws. introduction The size and content of a rich public domain are affected by a constellation of national intellectual property rules. Since 1995, these domestic rules have, in WTO-member states, been subject to the requirements of the Agreement on
International patent protection: 1960–2005
Research Policy, 2008
This note provides an update to the index of patent protection published in this journal in 1997. The original paper presented the index for 1960-1990 for 110 countries. The index has now been updated to 2005 and extended to 122 countries. The adoption of stronger patent laws and the composition of patent rights vary across countries by level of economic development.
International Intellectual Property Law and Policy (with W. Hennessey & S. Perlmutter)
2001
The TRIPS Agreement can be read to reflect a static view of the structure of intellectual property law. In this paper, we address whether-and how-the TRIPS Agreement can, on the other hand, be read with more fluidity, and thus to allow adjustments in national intellectual property regimes designed to reflect the dynamic nature of information production. To focus that inquiry, we concentrate on efforts to ensure a broader public domain for 'upstream' inventions by modifying various elements of US patent law. The paper considers three stylized examples and asks whether each approach could be adopted by the United States without falling afoul of the TRIPS Agreement as it is currently understood. Our purpose is to identify interpretive approaches that allow member states to keep their laws attuned to the developments and needs of science. But in so doing, we also raise broader questions regarding the level of formalism generated by the WTO dispute settlement system, and the extent to which the TRIPS Agreement allocates power between supranational and national institutions, and between international and national laws. introduction The size and content of a rich public domain are affected by a constellation of national intellectual property rules. Since 1995, these domestic rules have, in WTO-member states, been subject to the requirements of the Agreement on
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 1992
INTERNTIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY position, 5 including IP rights; compulsory licensing and nationalization provisions; 6 rules and procedures with respect to arbitration; environmental laws; export controls; 7 and even bankruptcy laws. 5. Technology transfers by developed countries to developing countries raise a number of concerns in light of the different goals of the parties to the transaction. For example, with respect to trade secrets, issues arise as to limitations that are imposed upon the duration of any trade secret protection, the ownership of improvements to or new applications of the trade secret, and the ability of the licensor to adequately assert its rights to protect the trade secret in the licensee's country. As to the actual terms of any technology transfer license, concerns arise as to limitations on the amount of any royalties, the imposition of "paid-up" rights under patents extending beyond the running royalty payment period, requirements that licenses be governed by local law and subject to local arbitration, restrictions on "grantback" clauses and other competitive practices, warranty requirements, and registration procedures as a condition to enforceability. Among those countries known to have material laws and regulations relating to the inbound transfer of technology as of the end of 1990 were the following:
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
Seven years ago, a group of international experts foresaw an emerging sea of change in how intellectual property in the life sciences is understood. This group, which I have had the privilege to lead, realized that governments, industry, universities, researchers and NGOs were developing new views about the role of intellectual property -patents, copyrights and trade-marks -in managing life sciences innovation. With an historic financial commitment from the Canadian government, through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property investigated how we can collectively manage the process of biotechnological innovation to respond to the world's food, health and industrial needs.
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Development
Knowledge Generation and Protection, 2009
Knowledge embedded as a proportion of the total value of a product grows by the day in all sectors. Technological development is not only present in industrial goods but also in agricultural processes and in services. Capabilities for research, creation, and appropriation of knowledge and its transformation into new technologies form part of the foundations of wealth in the most developed nations and largely explain their economic growth. In this regard, analysis and debate on how to generate knowledge, technological innovation, and development is a topic of utmost importance for the developing countries. As of the entry into effect of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1995, the architecture of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has gradually become more complex. TRIPS has been promoted mainly by the most developed nations, and bilateral trade agreements have progressively incorporated diverse complementary rules, some of them known as TRIPS Plus for extending intellectual property beyond the original TRIPS. The mechanisms for intellectual property protection-patents, trademarks, geographical indications, copyright, breeder rights, etc.-present two important aspects: on the one hand, they are forms of appropriation of income that generate monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic gains for their holders and, on the other, they are financial incentives for research inasmuch as they remunerate the innovator for the investments carried out until succeeding in turn their innovations into market products. Both aspects are examined in this chapter.
Patents, Protections, and Privileges
Isis, 2007
Utility patent protection has been granted broadly to living organisms in the United States only in the last quarter century, but in the late nineteenth century, for reasons related to the nationalization of agricultural markets, animal breeders and plant innovators began attempting to devise alternative arrangements to protect intellectual property (IP) in their living products. The arrangements had to take into account both the requirements of IP protection and the various ways the organisms could be reproduced. For animals, prior to patentability, the arrangements involved mainly breed associations and registries. Plant innovators tried to achieve returns from their IP through pricing strategies and trademarks. Finding neither adequate, they began to agitate for legislation that would protect their type of IP, an effort that resulted in the passage of the Plant Patent Act of 1930, the first legislation anywhere to extend a type of patent protection to living products.