Intellectual Property Law eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Intellectual Property Taxation in India: Need for a Comprehensive Policy and Law","authors":"Prof. K. D. Raju","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1166546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1166546","url":null,"abstract":"Taxation of goods, services and income is a concept that has been prevalent for a long time, all over the world. Different categories are taxed with different objectives and purpose. Sometimes economies may want to discourage the use of foreign goods within their countries and consequently therefore the tax on imported goods will be high. However, interestingly, taxing of intellectual property is a recent phenomenon across the globe. Developments in science and technology and rapid communication have made it accessible to every country. In India intellectual property is taxed in many ways, though indirectly. This paper examines various provisions of intellectual property taxation under different legislations in India. It argues that the lack of a comprehensive policy on intellectual property taxation acts as a disincentive to technology transfer and IP creation in India.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114943449","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 Rights - The New Wealth of Knowledge Economy: An Indian Perspective","authors":"V. Kavida, N. Sivakoumar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1159080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1159080","url":null,"abstract":"Intellectual Property, in its literal sense means the things that originate from human brain. This creation of human mind or Intellectual Property is considered to be the most invaluable assets, when compared to movable or immovable property, in knowledge based industries. The industries that have knowledge as its core resource and where the profits are generated mainly through the commercialization of new ideas and innovations are categorized as knowledge industries. The emphasis is not on physical or tangible assets but on intangible knowledge assets. The value of Intellectual Assets determines the rank and competitiveness of the corporate organizations. Wealth generation through creation, production, distribution and consumption of knowledge and knowledge based products are the key characteristics of knowledge economy. The major growth industries such as micro-electronics, biotechnology and telecommunications are 'brain power' industries. These knowledge industries stimulate other industries in turn to become knowledge based. Until recently capital was a scarce commodity. With rapid globalization and easy access to international finance, capital is no longer scarce. It is the Intellectual Assets that are knowledge based, non-replicable, unique and proprietary are increasingly becoming scarce. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Trade Organization (WTO) are the key organizations at international level which sets standards, frames rules and regulations and acts as enforcers of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). The role of WTO is distinct from that of WIPO in respect of enforcement. The strong protection system for Intellectual Property Rights advocated by the WTO has enhanced the value of Intellectual Property Assets in the corporate balance sheet, though hidden hitherto. India is a founder member of GATT and therefore enjoys the same status in WTO also. India had necessary legislations to protect the IPRs even before the advent of TRIPS. India is emerging as the hub of 'knowledge economy' in South Asia. India has proved her strength in Information Technology. The Bio-technology and Pharmaceutical industry are considered to be the next avenues of proving the Knowledge Prowess of India. These industries are attempting to quantify their Intellectual Assets - comprising mostly of Intellectual Property, to enhance their performance. Some Information Technology and Pharmaceutical companies have explicitly valued their portfolio of Intellectual Assets, by appending to their financial statements. The Indian Accounting Standards are also being reformed, to accommodate the value of Intellectual Property in the Accounting Statements.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132283070","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 Failure: A Tragedy of Property","authors":"K. Collins","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1156434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1156434","url":null,"abstract":"This essay reviews and extends the arguments that James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer present in Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Patent Failure raises the bar for contributions to the ongoing debates over both the need for patent reform and the type of patent reform that is needed. Based on an innovative and elegant empirical analysis, Bessen and Meurer defend the counterintuitive position that, outside of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the contemporary patent regime functions as a tax on innovation. In other words, taking a world without any patent protection at all as the baseline, they argue that patents decrease the welfare of the very innovating firms that are today seeking and obtaining patents. To explain this phenomenon, they point to the poor notice of the existence and scope of patent rights that the contemporary patent regime provides to the public. Poor notice, in turn, means that innovating firms bear an unavoidable risk of infringing other innovating firms' patents and bearing the costs of litigation. Bessen and Meurer simply argue that the average benefit that an innovating firm receives from owning its own patents is smaller than the average cost it incurs to fend of allegations of patent infringement. After summarizing and critiquing the book's principal arguments, this Essay extends Bessen and Meurer's analysis by exploring the import of their findings for legal scholarship on property failures. Although they do not themselves articulate this point, Bessen and Meurer enrich the literature on property failures by positing a new model for property failure: a tragedy of property. A tragedy of property is the true mirror image of the tragedy of the commons: it is a rush to ruin that is caused, rather than remedied, by property. An innovating firm receives a private welfare benefit from obtaining and enforcing each additional patent. However, each innovator's self-interested decision to increase his or her own \"herd\" of patents decreases the welfare of innovators as a group because the inter-innovator externalities of patents outweigh the benefits that patent owners internalize. A tragedy of the commons results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of a rival, scarce resource. A tragedy of property results from the inefficient, externality-generating overuse of the institution of property itself.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128989432","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":"Guns and Speech Technologies: How the Right to Bear Arms Affects Copyright Regulations of Speech Technologies","authors":"Edward Lee","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1156526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1156526","url":null,"abstract":"This Essay examines the possible effect the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling in Heller will have on future cases brought under the Free Press Clause. Based on the text and history of the Constitution, the connection between the two Clauses is undeniable, as the Heller Court itself repeatedly suggested. Only two provisions in the entire Constitution protect individual rights to a technology: the Second Amendment's right to bear \"arms\" and the Free Press Clause's right to the freedom of the \"press,\" meaning the printing press. Both rights were viewed, moreover, as preexisting, natural rights to the Framing generation and were separately called the \"palladium of liberty\" during the Framing. Given this historical connection, courts should apply an approach similar to the one in Heller in interpreting the Free Press Clause. Just as the Heller Court held that banning handguns for the purpose of gun control violates the Second Amendment's core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense, courts should find that banning speech technologies for the purpose of copyright control violates the Free Press Clause's core protection of the right to speech technologies for self-expression.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122529317","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":"Dedicating Copyright to the Public Domain","authors":"Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00707.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00707.x","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores whether authors can dedicate their copyright to the public domain. Such dedications are becoming increasingly relevant as authors now see the expansion of the public domain as value in itself. This is facilitated by organisations providing pro forma documents for dedicating works to the public domain. However, there has been no real consideration of what, if any, legal effect a dedication to the public might have. This article suggests that such dedications are no more than copyright licences which, in English and US law at least, can be revoked at will. This means that users of such works must rely on estoppel alone to enforce any dedication to the public domain.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"76 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123223869","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 Continuing Vitality of Music Performance Rights Organizations","authors":"R. Merges","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1266870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1266870","url":null,"abstract":"Some commentators see the need for major changes in the legal and institutional framework surrounding the music industry. Some proposals call for revising or eliminating performing rights organizations (PROs), which have for many years now represented the interests of songwriters in their dealings with broadcasters and other companies that distribute music to the public. This paper argues that despite major changes in the technology and business of music distribution, the traditional allocation of IP rights to songwriters, and the continued existence of active PROs, remain vital and important features of the music industry. Separate copyrights for songwriters promote the continued viability of songwriting as an independent creative profession. And PROs are uniquely suited to represent songwriters in negotiations and dealings with other players in the music industry.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133299238","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":"On the Optimal Novelty Requirement in Patent Protection","authors":"K. Kultti, Antti T. Miettunen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1098850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1098850","url":null,"abstract":"Novelty value is one of the legal requirements for a patentable innovation but it has been given relatively little attention in the literature. It is often abstracted away by assuming that any innovation is patentable. We study the optimal novelty requirement in a model where ideas are scarce, and where turning an idea into an innovation requires resources. We show that all innovations should not be patentable but it is optimal to have a non-zero novelty requirement. The equilibrium investment in R&D is an inverse-U-shaped function of the novelty requirement.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126166440","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":"Modernizing Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine","authors":"C. Cotropia","doi":"10.15779/Z388D5D","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z388D5D","url":null,"abstract":"Since its inception, the inequitable conduct doctrine, which requires the inventor to disclose to the Patent Office all information relevant to the patentability of the invention at issue, has received tremendous attention from the judiciary, the Patent Office, the bar, and scholars. Many scholars have also written on the Patent Office's failure to properly exam patent applications and the resulting negative impact on society from the Office's issuance of \"bad patents.\" Surprisingly, however, no one has fully linked these two discussions and, in turn, performed a fundamental, theoretical analysis of the inequitable conduct doctrine in light of the utilitarian theory that underlies American patent law. This Article fills this gap by developing such a conceptual framework with which to evaluate the inequitable conduct doctrine and identify its capacity to reform the patent system. The Article then applies this framework to suggest reforms that enhance the doctrine's ability to improve patent quality, while restraining the inherent tendency to overcomply by overloading the Patent Office with information. This new conceptual framework is important in two ways. First, it has immediate use in both evaluating proposed changes to the doctrine, such as those in the pending Patent Reform Act, and suggesting others. Second, the framework is a building block to be used in future scholarship on the inequitable conduct doctrine and, more generally, the ever-present movement to reform the patent system.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"226 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126868148","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":"Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup","authors":"Bruce H. Kobayashi, Joshua D. Wright","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1357189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1357189","url":null,"abstract":"In Credit Suisse v. Billing, the Court held that the securities law implicitly precludes the application of the antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in that case. The Court considered several factors, including the availability and competence of other laws to regulate unwanted behavior, and the potential that application of the antitrust laws would result in “unusually serious mistakes.” This paper examines whether similar considerations suggest restraint when applying the antitrust laws to conduct that is normally regulated by state and other federal laws. In particular, we examine the use of the antitrust laws to regulate the problem of patent holdup of members of standard setting organizations. Although some have suggested that this conduct illustrates a gap in the current enforcement of the antitrust laws, our analysis finds that such conduct would be better evaluated under the federal patent laws and state contract laws.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115645533","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":"Duration of Patent Protection: Does One Size Fit All?","authors":"A. Christie, Fiona Rotstein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1012214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1012214","url":null,"abstract":"The patent system has a 'one size' approach to duration of protection, in that all inventions are entitled to the same maximum period of grant: 20 years. This paper seeks to answer the question whether this 'one size' approach 'fits all' inventions. It does so by determining if the duration of protection is within the reasonable bounds of what might be considered optimal, when account is taken of the economic theory on duration, patentees' practices regarding renewal of their patents and the legal features of the current system. It finds that the system on duration of patent protection currently in operation matches closely to what would be considered optimal.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131002938","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}