INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MODEL IN ENTERPRISES: A TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVE

2011 ◽  
Vol 08 (02) ◽  
pp. 253-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
YONG CAO ◽  
LI ZHAO
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Management Model ◽  
Property Management ◽  
Life Cycle Perspective ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Technology Life Cycle ◽  
The One ◽  
Ip Management

The cyclicality, fluctuation, and periodicity of the technology requires the dynamic management of the intellectual property (IP) in enterprises. Unfortunately, companies do not connect the management of their IP to the underlying technology life cycle (TLC), and companies do not change the management of IP in different stages of the TLC. Anyway, most companies use one-size-fits-all method to manage all kinds of IP and different technologies. The purpose of this research is to arouse the attention on TLC characteristics of IP management research in academic and business fields. An IP management model is proposed to deal with the one-size-fits-all issue from the perspective of TLC which manifests the importance of phase characteristics of the technology in IP management. This paper indicates that the IP management strategy should vary with the periods of TLC. Likewise, the results from a case study about Motorola's IP management on global system for mobile (GSM) communications have primarily tested the feasibility and validity of IP management model.

scholarly journals A Typology of Intellectual Property Management for Public Health Innovation and Access: Design Considerations for Policymakers§

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antony Taubman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Property Management ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Legal Mechanism ◽  
Health Research And Development ◽  
Ip Management

This paper seeks to set the practical discipline of public interest intellectual property (IP) management in public health into its broader policy context. The most immediate and direct impact of IP systems on public welfare results not from international standards nor from national legislation – though these norms are fundamentally important - but rather from the accumulated impact of numerous practical choices whether or not to seek IP protection; where and where not; and how any exclusive rights are deployed, by whom, and to what end. IP management is the essentially practical exercise of limited exclusive rights over protected subject matter, the judicious use of those rights to leverage outcomes that advance an institution's or a firm's objectives. Exclusive rights are used to construct and define knowledge-based relationships, to leverage access to technology and other necessary resources, and to enhance market-based incentives. IP management choices range across a broad spectrum, spanning public domain strategies, open or exclusive licensing, and strong exclusivity. The idea of ‘exclusive rights’, as a specific legal mechanism, can run counter to expectations of greater openness and accessibility, but actual outcomes will depend very much on how these mechanisms are used in practice. For public interest or public sector institutions concerned with health research and development, particularly the development of new medicines, IP management choices can be just as critical as they are for private firms, although a predominant institutional concentration on advancing direct public interest objectives may lead to significantly different approaches in weighing and exercising practical choices for IP management: even so, a private sector approach should not be conflated with exclusivity as an end in itself, nor need public interest IP management eschew all leverage over IP. This paper offers a tentative framework for a richer typology of those choices, to give a sense of practical options available and the factors that might guide their application, but without advocating any particular approach.

Policy Space for Intellectual Property Management: Contrasting Multilateral and Regional-Bilateral Arrangements

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Shadlen
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Property Management ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
The World ◽  
Development Objectives ◽  
Ip Management

Global governance in intellectual property (IP) has changed dramaticallyin the last two decades. What was once principally an instrument of nationalpolicy is now increasingly subject to international disciplines. I contrast the newrestrictions placed on IP management that developing countries accept as partiesto the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) with the constraints they face as membersof Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements (RBTAs) with the United States. Ihighlight the areas where countries retain opportunities for policy innovationdespite their WTO obligations and provide examples of how some countries haveintroduced and retained measures that tailor IP management to local conditionsand needs, all while meeting the new TRIPS obligations. Moreover, I show howthese opportunities are circumscribed by RBTAs across all dimensions of patentpolicy, countries that are parties to such RBTAs have significantly less autonomy intheir management of IP. In sum, the proliferation of RBTAs presents the greatestthreat to countries’ capacities to manage IP for development objectives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document