ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Amateur or Professional? A New Look at 19th Century Patentees in Norway","authors":"B. Basberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2071153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2071153","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses Norwegian 19th century patentees. A special focus is on the affiliation or relationship of the patentees to the manufacturing industries, business and the wider economy. A main question is whether the inventors were what might be called ‘amateurs’ working independently, or ‘professionals’ working closer to firms or institutions. A main finding is that even the individual patentees, that comprised the majority of all patentees, had strong associations with industry, and the distinction between ‘professionals’ and ‘amateurs’ is not all that useful.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"408 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122733683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An American Tale: The Unclear Territorial Application of the First Sale Rule in United States Copyright Law (and Its Impact on International Trade)","authors":"Irene Calboli","doi":"10.4337/9781781953396.00010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781953396.00010","url":null,"abstract":"This Chapter addresses a hotly debated topic in copyright law in the United States: the intricate relationship among Sections 106, 109(a), and 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act and the impact of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Quality King and Costco on the application of the first sale rule with respect to gray market products and international trade. The Chapter proceeds as follows. Part II describes the scope of copyright protection and the copyright first sale rule in the United States. In particular, Part II outlines the provisions of Sections 106, 109(a), and 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, and addresses the controversy surrounding the interpretation of, and the interplay among these provisions. Part III recounts the Supreme Court’s attempts to resolve the conflicting judicial interpretation in this area first in Quality King v. L’anza in 1998 and later in Costco v. Omega in 2010. Notably, Part III highlights the Supreme Court’s failure to clarify the territorial application of Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act and the continuing uncertainty that surrounds the first sale rule in copyright law in the United States. Part IV concludes the Chapter and surveys an even more problematic decision that has been issued by the Second Circuit in John Wiley & Sons v. Kirtsaeng in 2011, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Costco. Ultimately, Part IV underscores the urgent need for the Supreme Court or Congress to resolve the ambiguity that continues to dominate the relationship between copyright protection, the first sale rule, and international trade in the United States.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134289745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trade Mark Cluttering: An Exploratory Report","authors":"Georg von Graevenitz, C. Greenhalgh, C. Helmers, Philipp Schautschick","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2710618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2710618","url":null,"abstract":"This report explores the problem of \"cluttering\" of trade mark registers. The report consists of two parts:The first presents a conceptual discussion of “cluttering” of trade mark registers.The second part provides an exploratory empirical analysis of trade mark applications at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the European trade mark office (OHIM).This part contains results of a descriptive and an econometric analysis.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126703381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recent Research on the Economics of Patents","authors":"Bronwyn H Hall, D. Harhoff","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ECONOMICS-080511-111008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ECONOMICS-080511-111008","url":null,"abstract":"This review surveys recent research on the economics of patents. The topics covered include theoretical and empirical evidence on patents as incentives for innovation, the effectiveness of patents for invention disclosure, patent valuation, and the design of patent systems. We also look at some current policy areas, including software and business method patents, university patenting, and the growth in patent litigation.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117278151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Multinational Technology and Intellectual Property Management - Is There Global Convergence and/or Specialisation?","authors":"O. Granstrand, Marcus Holgersson","doi":"10.1504/IJTM.2014.059931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2014.059931","url":null,"abstract":"The paper gives various indications of market and technology diversification as well as of global market and technology convergence (rather than specialization) in the context of managerial, legal and economic convergence. The results show that different countries focus on a wider but increasingly similar set of markets for R&D outputs in form of patents, which implies increasing intra-national market diversification and inter-national market convergence. The results also show that different countries focus on a wider but increasingly similar set of technologies that are patented, which implies increasing intra-national technology diversification and inter-national technology convergence. In addition, intellectual property (IP) legal convergence takes place as newly industrialized countries (NICs) have strengthened their IP regimes in compliance with TRIPS and subsequently do so in the context of their indigenous innovation policies. Asian NICs have significantly increased their international patenting and supply of patented inventions. Altogether, this puts new demands across countries on multinational technology and innovation management skills, and in particular multinational IP management skills.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127829411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Role of Early Career Factors in Academic Patenting","authors":"Cornelia Lawson, Valerio Sterzi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2221231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2221231","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the characteristics of persistent academic inventors and how they are influenced by their personal attributes, PhD institution, and first invention. Using a novel dataset on 555 UK academic inventors, we find that the quality of the first invention is the best predictor for subsequent participation in the patenting process. We further find evidence for a positive training effect whereby researchers that were trained at universities that had already established commercialisation units have a higher propensity to patent persistently. In addition, researchers that gained first patenting experience in industry are able to benefit from stronger knowledge flows and receive more citations than their purely academic peers.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127450942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patent Pools and the Direction of Innovation - Evidence from the 19th-Century Sewing Machine Industry","authors":"Ryan Lampe, Petra Moser","doi":"10.3386/W17573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W17573","url":null,"abstract":"Patent pools allow a group of firms to combine their patents as if they were a single firm. Theoretical models predict that pools encourage innovation in pool technologies, albeit at the cost of innovation in substitutes. Empirical evidence is scarce because modern pools are too recent to allow empirical analyses. This article examines data on patents and innovations by new firms for a historical pool in the sewing machine industry (1856-1877) to examine effects on innovation. Contrary to theoretical predictions, this analysis suggests that pools may discourage innovation in pool technologies and shift R&D towards technologically inferior substitutes.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"192 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126962937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intellectual Property Protection and Firm Innovation","authors":"Yoni Pruzansky, Liad Wagman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2583524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2583524","url":null,"abstract":"This paper studies the question of whether and how an employee innovator should commercialize an innovation, when doing so within the firm is less costly than pursuing an outside venture, but risks expropriation by the firm. We show that a weaker chance of expropriation, interpreted as the firm`s ability to protect internally developed intellectual property, can facilitate commercialization of innovations.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125775389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patent 'Hold-Up,' Infringement Remedies, and the Operation of Standards-Setting Organizations: How the FTC’s Ill-Advised Campaign Against Innovators Threatens Incentives","authors":"R. Brooks","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1923735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1923735","url":null,"abstract":"In March 2011 the FTC issued a report entitled “The Evolving IP Marketplace” (the “Report”). In this Report, the FTC assumes as fact that the IP marketplace suffers a pervasive problem of “patent hold-up” in which patentees take advantage of the “sunk costs” of infringers to extract excessive royalties from licensees, and proposes to “fix” that supposed problem by weakening the remedies available against an infringer that does not voluntarily take a license. Instead, the FTC’s recommendations would disrupt and discourage voluntary licensing, discourage investment in innovation, and damage both industry participants and consumers. The FTC proposes that damages for patent infringement be limited to the “incremental value” provided by the patent over the “next best alternative,” and that courts calculating damages should fix the “hypothetical negotiation” at a time before the infringer has made any investments specific to the infringement, rather than at the time of first infringement (as under current law). In the case of standardized technologies, the FTC contends that the “hypothetical negotiation” should always be fixed prior to the adoption of the relevant standard. The Report also recommends further narrowing the cases in which an injunction could be obtained against an infringer. Following issuance of the Report, the FTC conducted a public workshop concerning patents and standards in June of 2011, and solicited public comment, receiving comment from a large number of industry participants of varying interests, as well as standards-setting organizations (“SSOs”), academics, industry analysts, and others. Issues of patent remedies and incentives for innovation are often dealt with in the academic literature as a matter of pure economic theory, using radically simplified economic models in a vacuum of empirical information. For this paper, in sharp contrast, we reviewed the entire record from the FTC workshop and public comment, and analyze the FTC’s recommendations in light of the real-world facts and perspectives provided by the commentators. We conclude that the FTC’s starting assumption that there is a systemic “patent hold-up” problem is empirically unfounded, and that indeed the great weight of industry comment says that there is not. In standardized industries in particular, SSOs uniformly report that their existing licensing policies have avoided any hold-up problems. We further conclude that the recommendation to cap patent damages by an “incremental value” measure is both theoretically incorrect and impossible for courts to apply, and that any attempt to do so would severely discourage investment in innovation. We also find that the proposal to move the time of a “hypothetical negotiation” analysis is misguided, and would encourage infringement at the expense of the voluntary negotiation of licenses - a value-destroying shift that again would discourage investment and damage consumers as well as industry participants. Finally, we find ","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130254318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the UK Market Sector","authors":"Shikeb Farooqui, P. Goodridge, J. Haskel","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2710615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2710615","url":null,"abstract":"This report estimates:(a) The level of UK market sector investment in knowledge assets protected by Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and(b) The impact of investment in those assets via their contribution to labour productivity growth in the UK market sector. Estimates for investment and the stock of IPR capital are based on previous work and includes new estimates for investment in artistic originals, funded by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and featured in the accompanying report.We also comment on additional spending on IP-protected goods that do not represent investments, although the coverage of this category is far from complete. Our main findings are:1) On average, between 2000 and 2008, 48% of knowledge investment in the UK market sector was protected by IPRs 2) The majority of IPR investment is on assets protected by copyright and design rights 3) In 2008 approximately 62% of the stock of knowledge assets in the UK market sector was protected by IPRs4) On average, between 1990 and 2008, 10.6% of growth in labour productivity was due to growth in capital deepening of IPR-protected assets. Comparable figures for ICT equipment and knowledge capital not protected by IPRs are 11.1% and 10.3% respectively.","PeriodicalId":177397,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128036080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}