Protecting User Interfaces

Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov

This chapter examines the scope of protection to which graphical user interfaces may be eligible under various intellectual property rights: namely, trade marks, unfair-competition laws, design rights, copyright, and patents. It first considers the extent of copyright protection over a software product’s ‘look-and-feel’ elements, with particular emphasis on graphical user interfaces protection under US and EU laws. It then discusses trade-mark, trade-dress, and unfair-competition protection for graphical user interfaces, along with intellectual property rights protection for design patents and registered designs. Finally, it describes the patent protection for graphical user interfaces in the United States and at the European Patent Office.

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M Lybecker

Biopharmaceutical research and development is overwhelmingly focused in the U.S. becasue here it is incentivized and encouraged through a robust intellectual property rights protection environment.  Across the board, the United States provides the most comprehensive, effective intellectual property rights protections for biopharmaceuticals.  As a result, the industry locates here, researches here, and thrives here.  With an acknowledgement of the importance of intellectual property rights as well as the wider benefits of biopharmaceutical research and development, it's tremendously disappointing that the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement fails to deliver sufficient IP protections for biologics.  This article explores the importance of a rigorous intellectual property environemtn for the biopharmaceutical industry through an examination of the importance of data exclusivity provisions.  Such protection is critical as the number, complexity and cost of clinical trials increases.  Technology inevitably evolves faster than the legal architecture that surrounds it.  As technology evolves, making the development of new biologic vaccines and therapies possible, society's commitment to incentivize innovation and protect it must be enshrined in the intellectual property protections of agreements such as the TPP.


Complexity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Tong Chu ◽  
Yu Yu ◽  
Xiaoxue Wang

Based on the oligopoly game theory and the intellectual property rights protection policy, we investigate the complex dynamical behaviors of a mixed duopoly game with quadratic cost. In the new system, a few parameters are improved by considering intellectual property rights protection and the stability conditions of the Nash equilibrium point are discussed in detail. A set of the two-dimensional bifurcation diagrams is demonstrated by using numerical modeling, and these diagrams show abundant complex dynamical behaviors, such as coexistence of attractors, different bifurcation, and fractal structures. These dynamical properties can present the long-run effects of strengthening intellectual property protection.


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus C. Chu ◽  
Zonglai Kou ◽  
Xilin Wang

Abstract This study provides a growth-theoretic analysis of the effects of intellectual property rights on the take-off of an economy from an era of stagnation to a state of sustained economic growth. We incorporate patent protection into a Schumpeterian growth model in which take-off occurs when the population size crosses an endogenous threshold. We find that strengthening patent protection has contrasting effects on economic growth at different stages of development. Specifically, it leads to an earlier take-off but also reduces economic growth in the long run.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Glauco De Vita ◽  
Constantinos Alexiou ◽  
Emmanouil Trachanas ◽  
Yun Luo

PurposeDespite decades of research, the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and foreign direct investment (FDI) remains ambiguous. Using a recently developed patent enforcement index (along with a broader IPR index) and a large sectoral country-to-country FDI dataset, the authors revisit the FDI-IPR relationship by testing the impact of IPRs on UK and US outward FDI (OFDI) flows as well as earnings from outward FDI (EOFDI).Design/methodology/approachThe authors use disaggregated data for up to 9 distinct sectors of economic activity from both the US and UK for OFDI flows and EOFDI, for a panel of up to 42 developed and developing countries over sample periods from 1998 to 2015. The authors employ a panel fixed effects (FE) approach that allows exploiting the longitudinal properties of the data using Driscoll and Kraay's (1998) nonparametric covariance matrix estimator.FindingsThe authors do not find any consistent evidence in support of the hypothesis that countries' strength of IPR protection or enforcement affects inward FDI, or that sector of investment matters. The results prove robust to sensitivity checks that include an alternative broader measure of IPR strength, analyses across sub-samples disaggregated according to the strength of countries' IPRs as well as developing vs developed economies and an extended specification accounting for dynamic effects of the response of FDI to both previous investment levels and IPR (patent) protection.Originality/valueThe authors make use of the largest most granular sectoral country-to-country FDI dataset employed to date in the analysis of the FDI-IPR nexus with disaggregated data for OFDI and EOFDI across up to 9 distinct sectors of economic activity from both the US and UK The authors employ a more sophisticated measure of IPR strength, the patent index proposed by Papageorgiadis et al. (2014), which places emphasis on the effectiveness of enforcement practices as perceived by managers, together with the overall administrative effectiveness and efficiency of the national patent system.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 313-318
Author(s):  
Pekar A.

The article deals with the nature and features of the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization. It is argued that it is inappropriate to distinguish the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization in the structure of intellectual property rights from the right to protection of economic competition. Based on a system analysis of the legislation, scientific literature review, and the practice of its application, the right to protection is classified in an objective and subjective meaning. In its objective meaning, the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization is a component of the right to intellectual property, to protection against unfair competition. The subjective right to protection against the unfair use of the means of individualization is an independent right. The following features of the right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization are identified on the basis of the analysis. The objective right to protection against unfair use of the means of individualization is characterized by a set of civil law rules governing relations in the field of intellectual property rights and economic competition and determining the grounds, forms, procedure and methods of protection of such rights. This right combines two components: the protection of intellectual property rights and economic competition relations. The subjects of this right are economic entities. At the same time, the exercise of the right to protection in connection with the violation of the law on protection against unfair competition ensures the protection of consumers’ rights, as it guarantees them good quality goods on the market. The object of this right is relations in the field of intellectual property rights and economic competition. The subjective right to protection against unfair use of the means of individuation is the use of a provided by law capacity to renew, recognize or award the right to use the means of individualization by an economic entity. Such subjective right is characterized by the following features: it always implies the implementation of active actions, the possibility of choosing the forms and methods of protection. Keywords: means of individualization, unfair use, right to protection, objective right, subjective right, intellectual property rights, unfair competition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document