intellectual property rights (IPR)

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) defines variety of legal rights in protecting products of intellectual efforts of creativity in the fields of applied arts. Intellectual Property Rights mainly comprise trademarks, patents, copyrights, service marks, designs and confidential information know-how etc. And the right to protection from passing off, it is legal property rights over creations of the mind, that both artistic and commercial of the corresponding fields of law.

National standards for intellectual property rights (IPR) protection vary widely between countries. Many discussions suggest that inadequate IPR protection should deter technology transfer since the imitation generates losses to firms conducting innovations. According to a study by the United States International Trade Commission (2005), worldwide losses due to copyright piracy are estimated to be around $25-30 billion per year. Because of this, IPR protection law should influence the multinational firms’ decision to transfer technology to different host countries as well as influence the choice of technology transfer channel: exporting, foreign direct investment (FDI), and licensing. However, it has been unclear in the literature whether strong IPR protection in a host country would lead to a larger transfer in exports, FDI, or licensing.

Technological change has been considered as one of the most important factors for eco- nomic growth, whereas scarcity of exhaustible resources has been considered as one of the barriers to economic growth. Because these opposing factors have a strong rela- tion via energy price changes, a growing number of studies have focused on economic growth in the presence of exhaustible resources. 1 Theoretically, some authors, such as Stiglitz (1974), use models where the technological growth rate is exogenously given to examine the technological growth rate that overcomes the scarcity of exhaustible re- sources. Studies such as Barbier (1999) employ endogenous growth models to address the same issue. These studies usually assume that the intellectual property rights (IPR) of innovators of new technologies are perfectly protected; therefore, research firms have sufficient incentives for research and development (R&D) activities. However, in the real world, newly developed technologies are often imitated and IPR protection is im- perfect. Then, there are global movements to enforce stronger IPR protection. Since the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), all World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries adopted a set of minimum standard on IPRs There are some countries that have much stricter related laws on IPR protection. If IPR protection were too weak, no one would engage in R&D activities, resulting in technical progress becoming too slow to overcome the increasing resource scarcity. The main purpose of the present study is to examine IPR protection policies that overcome the scarcity of exhaustible resources and realize perpetual output growth. On the other hand, perpetual growth does not necessarily imply socially optimal allocation. There- fore, we are also interested in how the presence of exhaustible resources influences the welfare effects of IPR protection policies.

The transfer in international economic policy and the lowering of tariff and nontariff trade barriers to the embrace of strong IPR is genuinely an issue of controversy. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are legal claims settled by governments within their relevant sovereignties that grant trademark, patents and owners of copyright the exclusive right to exploit their intellectual property for a certain period. The fundamental right for IPR protection is to provide an incentive for innovation by granting IP owners an opportunity to recuperate their research and development costs. With the rapid change in technology and social drivers, the introduction of the Intellectual Property Rights has become increasingly important as it provides a legal and policy toolkit to encourage innovation, stimulating investments required to develop, market new innovations and spreading technology. However, certain policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, scholars and others have queried on the roles of IPRs in the 21st century and also whether its full implementation might be very costly to developing nations.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) appears to be vital for the sustenance of our present society. Not only do they seem to protect the original works of the creators but also help in fighting infringement, a major problem in today’s world. But do we really need to fear the use of our works by others? Is it right to consider knowledge as a commodity and seek recognition for it? Ancient Indian scriptures appear to suggest that people of the Indian sub-continent did not uphold the concept of ownership of knowledge and believed that knowledge was to be passed down without reservations: following the parampara (tradition) of the Guru (the erudite teacher) and Sishya (disciple). This article is an effort to understand the views and values of the present and past that appear consistently divergent. In this paper, we also recognise the growing initiatives that call for knowledge to be freely shared through means of open licensing. In fact, these initiatives across the world are indicative of a rising movement with high potential for change in people’s perspectives for a better world where knowledge is free. This paper in this context is our humble attempt to reconnect with the values of the past.

Intellectual Property Rights, IPR and Varous Legal Protection Mechanism : IPR is grant of exclusive rights in a form of patents for a limited time in respect of a new and useful invention. The exact requirements for grant of a patent, the scope of protection it provides and its duration differs depending on national legislation. However, generally the invention must be of patentable subject matter, novel (new), non-obvious (inventive) of industrial application and sufficiently disclosed. Patents provide a wide range of legal rights, including the right to possess, use, transfer by sale or gift, and to exclude others from similar rights. Duration will be for around 20 years. These rights are generally confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the country granting the patent and thus an inventor wishing to protect his/her invention in a number of Volume 12 (3) : 271-275, (2017) in Agriculture and Technology

In an open-economy R&D-based growth model with two intermediate production sectors, we find that strengthening intellectual property rights (IPR) has a positive effect on innovation in the sector that uses domestic inputs but both positive and negative effects on innovation in the sector that uses foreign inputs. We test these results using an empirical analysis of matching samples that combine Chinese provincial IPR data with industrial enterprises database and customs database.

Inspired by the Chinese experience, we develop a Schumpeterian growth model of distance to frontier in which economic growth in the developing country is driven by domestic innovation as well as imitation and transfer of foreign technologies through foreign direct investment. We show that optimal intellectual property rights (IPR) protection is stage-dependent. At an early stage of development, the country imple- ments weak IPR protection to facilitate imitation. At a later stage of development, the country implements strong IPR protection to encourage domestic innovation. There- fore, the growth-maximizing and welfare-maximizing levels of patent strength increase as the country evolves towards the world technology frontier, and this dynamic pattern is consistent with the actual evolution of patent strength in China.

The last several decades have seen the emergence of intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patents, as a key issue in developments across the fields of law, the economy and the biosciences, and as part of the burgeoning “bioeconomy”. This paper examines how the categories of nature and knowledge, so vital to IPR regimes that support bioeconomy-type projects, are challenged by the allegation of biopiracy. It reflects on the relationship between nature, IPR and the bioeconomy, and presents an example of how the creation of new categories, in this case genetic resources, come to impact on how we come to understand nature in relation to the economy and IPRs. The paper then follows this with an analysis of how knowledge is treated in those same systems, focusing specifically on some of the challenges that arise when attempting to bring traditional knowledge (TK) under the rubric of the IPR system. Finally, it examines the allegation of biopiracy in greater depth, and reflects on how it critiques the way the bioeconomy and the IPR regime treat nature, culture,

Intellectual property rights is a concern for developing countries ever since the publication of Dunkel proposal. Creation of WTO has generated fear in the minds of member nations. These efforts have been viewed as a strategy by the developed world to control the developing world. In India there were discussions on the impact of WTO on agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors. There were specific instances in which very strong criticisms were raised on the patenting of Basmati rice, ponni rice, turmeric and other agricultural products. There were also anxieties on what will be the impact of WTO in other sectors. One such sector is Information Technology. IT contributes substantially to Indian economy. It is very important to understand the importance of WTO and IPR on IT sector. The present article is an effort to discuss impacts of IPR on IT.

Attention was called above to how drugs are now available to sufferers from ‘orphan’ diseases because the US Department of Health set up a rival to patents for protecting drug research and development. For close on two centuries, the granting of intellectual property rights was accepted to be the exclusive responsi- bility of the Patent and Trademark Office. The language used by the Supreme Court in striking down Florida’s boat hull design protection—‘the federal patent laws must determine what is protected, but also what is free for all to use’ 85 — illustrates and endorses this assumption. But what the Court was ruling in that case was that individual states had no power to grant intellectual property rights, because Article 1.8 had specifically reserved this power to Congress. And because Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act, its breach of the USPTO’s historical de facto monopoly of granting intellectual property rights is in line with the Consti- tution. Now that a start has been made, it is not impossible to imagine that Congress might pass other laws allowing the grant of new kinds of intellectual property rights to make up for the failings of the existing patent and copyright regimes.

This conclusion is supported by earlier empirical evidence. For example, Lerner (1995) shows that small firms reduce R&D investments in the fields in which the threat of litigation from larger firms is high. Similarly, Lanjouw and Lerner (2001) find that large firms use the instrument of preliminary injunction to discourage R&D by small firms. Preliminary injunction may result in the court decision to prevent both parts involved in a patent litigation to use the patent under dispute, sometimes by imposing a stop in the production of goods that incorporate the innovation protected by that patent. If a large firm can manage a similar risk, the lack of adequate financial resources can represent an unaffordable obstacle for smaller firms, especially if their activity is concentrated on a single business. In their study based on 252 trials filed in Europe between January 1990 and June 1991, Lanjouw and Lerner (2001) show how the use of preliminary injunctions is a specific prerogative of large firms, which use this instrument twice compared to smaller firms. Large firms use preliminary injunctions as a means to prevent other firms to invest in the same technological areas in which they have been granted for patents. Even in the cases in which patent violation is not strongly demonstrable in court trials, small firms may lack the financial resources to file a patent suit. This behaviour allows larger firms to maintain a monopolistic control over specific technological areas, and eventually results in higher prices for the products that integrate the technology protected with patents. Apart from possible distortion in prices, however, from the social point of view the most negative effect is that the enforcement process of intellectual property rights undermines the R&D incentives of small firms (Lanjouw and Schankerman, 2003). Moreover, the risk of litigation for small firms is larger and patent suits can be longer with respect to firms with large patent portfolios, because the latter may avoid suits or long settlements through the development of cooperative agreements after repeated interactions or disputes with other firms (Lanjouw and Schankerman, 2004).

The university supports the concept that ownership of intellectual property rights in distance education courses does not have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. The university believes that clarification of rights supports mutual interests of both the university and the developers of electronically delivered courses.

ABSTRACT: Having the necessary executive guarantees such as legal and criminalis the most important issue in discussing the protection of intellectual property rights. Because without executive guarantees, possibility of support and its effectiveness is only conceivable in the world of the mindand it is impossible to ensure or guarantee the rights of owners of the intellectuals.Therefore,today, in addition to integrity and transparency having the rational and efficient executive guarantees is one of the indices of the laws evaluation. The executive guarantees can bedivided into two sections,criminal and civil (legal).However, criminal executive guarantee is the most important and the most severe executive guarantee violations of intellectual property rights.In addition to supplying and guaranteeing the intellectual property rights, it also has a preventive effect.And because the civil executive guarantee cannot be enough to establish a social order,therefore, the existence of criminal executive guarantee is necessary and inevitablein the realm of intellectual property rights.Anda part of this rightis associated with public order.In this article,theanticipated executive guarantees are considered within domestic legislation and international instruments on intellectual property rightsspecially trademarks, patents, industrial designs.

Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey Anja, Breitwieser and Neil, Foster University of Vienna, Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies...[r]

Following what became a highly public controversy concerning access to drugs, medical patents and the right to health in the context of the price of HIV/AIDS drugs in sub-Saharan African countries most affected by the epidemics, the ESCR Committee decided to first adopt a statement on intellectual property rights and human rights in 2001 as a first step towards the adoption of a General Comment. The 2001 Statement was adopted in the wake of the collapse of the case filed by pharmaceutical companies against the South African government for attempting to limit their patent rights and the Doha Health Declaration adopted by the 2001 Ministerial Conference of the WTO. 4 In this Statement, the ESCR Committee specifically argued that the protection of the moral and material interests of authors must be balanced with the right to take part in cultural life also introduced at Article 15. It argued that intellectual property protection must serve the objective of human well-being which is primarily given legal expression through human rights. In other words, intellectual property regimes should promote and protect all human rights. More specifically, the Committee stated that any intellectual property rights regime that would make it more difficult for a state to comply with its core obligations in relation to the right to health and food would be inconsistent with the legally binding obligations of the concerned state. 5 At the national level, there is a duty for governments to ensure that everyone has access to all technologies that contribute to the fulfilment of human rights. An additional duty of governments is to ensure, as required by Article 2(2), that the benefits of scientific progress and its applications are available to all without any discrimination. Article 15(1) b also has an important international dimension. The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress implies that everyone in all countries should be able to benefit from all scientific and technological advances. Given the highly skewed distribution of technology around the world, the realization of this right in most developing countries necessitates international assistance and

In the …rst year of graduate coursework in economics, students are often en- countered with the following important and perhaps surprising theoretical result. The …rst fundamental theorem of welfare economics states that any competitive or Walrasian equilibrium leads to a Pareto e¢cient allocation of resources. In other words, competitive markets are e¢cient. Therefore, governments should simply let the market do its work and the market out- come will be Pareto e¢cient. However, in reality, the ideal conditions of perfect competition are not necessarily satis…ed. In this situation, we may have market failures in over-providing or under-providing certain resources. An important example is investment in research and development (R&D). There is an established empirical …nding that the social return to R&D is much higher than the private return. 1 Jones and Williams (1998, 2000) develop an R&D-based growth model and use these empirical estimates to show that the socially optimal level of R&D is at least two to four times higher than the market level. Therefore, overcoming this market failure would increase R&D towards the socially optimal level as well as increasing innovation, economic growth and social welfare. The purpose of this paper is to provide a selective survey on studies that analyze the macroeconomic e¤ects of intellectual property rights.

In addition, a policy regime (R) will be taken to define a distribution of innovations over innovations over the innovation space IS which can be represented by some density function, say g R . This function is primarily intended to capture information about the distribution of innovations at the aggregate level, for example industry or economy wide. This will be important because one cannot make decisions about the strength or pres- ence of intellectual property rights on a firm-by-firm or technology-by-technology basis. Instead a policy-maker must set them at a very macro level – for example the length of patent protection is set by international treaty and must be the same across all patentable technologies. Even where there is choice, as in recent debates as to whether to extend patentability to software or copyright to perfumes, the decision must be made for an entire class of products displaying very substantial heterogeneity. 15

Ghana had now realized the impact that lack of enforcement of Intellectual property rights has had on the economy, the local Industries and the Culture. Previously Ghana has had a very basic problem with the philosophy of Intellectual property rights, which have been enforced primarily through civil litigation. Only recently has the Government of Ghana regarded the enforcement of Intellectual property rights as its responsibility and those persons who infringe upon these rights as engaging in acts inimical to the interest of the state. However, Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights, popularly known as TRIPS, has emerged as a major area of concern for developing economies (including Ghana) owing to its widespread socio- economic and political implications. In spite of a lot of drum beating across the globe in this regard, a common agenda concerning a wide variety of issues continues to be elusive to-date. Two diametrically opposite opinions seem to have emerged on most of these issues. These opinions range from extreme opposition to the grant of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) to support for unfettered protection to IPRs. Nevertheless, in some academic circles, it is growingly felt that such extreme viewpoints may be detrimental to the interests of a developing economy like Ghana, particularly in the area of agriculture. In a sense, the existing evidence pertaining to IPRs does not seem to focus adequately on agriculture, which continues to be the primary sector of economic activity in a large number of developing economies

Though every country has enacted laws to protect intellectual property of its citizens, many infringements take place and a majority of them end up in courts of law. The developments in information and communication technologies made the situation grimmer. In tune with the fast changing technological developments, countries like USA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), Australia (Digital Agenda Act), India (Information Technology Act and Communications Convergence Act), Japan, European Union, Malaysia, Singapore etc have taken steps to strengthen the existing copyright legislations to protect intellectual property rights (IPRs). The relevant provisions of the European Union, the American and the Indian developments as well as the international efforts in the copyright have been discussed elsewhere (Lakshmana Moorthy and Karisiddappa, 2001).