scholarly journals History Lessons: The Early Development of Intellectual Property Institutions in the United States

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Zorina Khan ◽  
Kenneth L Sokoloff
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technical Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Property System ◽  
Private Market ◽  
Strict Enforcement ◽  
Market For Technology ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. was a pioneer in establishing the world's first modern intellectual property system. That system was distinguished by the provision of broad access to, and strict enforcement of, property rights in new inventions, coupled with the requirement of public disclosure, and it was effective at stimulating the growth of a market for technology and technical change more generally. Far from being static, fundamental modifications were introduced over time in response to changing circumstances. That such adjustments so often proved to be constructive owes partly to a private market being a central feature of the system, and partly to the democratic structure of U.S. institutions.

U.S. Patent/Intellectual Property Law: What Should Engineers Know?

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff E. Schwartz ◽  
Richard T. Girards ◽  
Karen A. Borrelli
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Property System ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Engineers, by the practice of their profession, regularly apply new methods and products to the end of solving old problems. These new methods and products may prove to be both commercially useful and financially valuable. The U.S. intellectual property system can afford such innovations broad protection from old fashioned “poaching” by securing for their creators/inventors powerful legal rights to such innovations.

Measuring Global Inequality

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Yates
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Inequality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
Global Inequality ◽  
Monthly Review ◽  
The World ◽  
Political Structures ◽  
The U.S

It is by now well known that significant and growing economic inequality is a central feature of the U.S. economy, as previous articles in Monthly Review have shown. However, the same is also the case for much of the rest of the world. Inequality arises in other countries for reasons similar to those in the United States, but each nation has its own history, along with widely divergent economic and political structures. Here we will look first at the most recent data on global inequality, and then at its causes and consequences.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

scholarly journals The Intellectual Property Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Investment in Developing Nations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista L. Cox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Property System ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Partnership Agreement

The United States has some of the highest standards of intellectual property protection in the world, though many copyright and patent laws in the United States are limited through balancing provisions that provide exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by the intellectual property system. The United States has engaged in efforts to raise intellectual property standards worldwide through creation of new global norms, such as through negotiations of free trade agreements like the currently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Higher levels of intellectual property protection may be unnecessary to attract investment in developing countries. In fact, increasing intellectual property standards may actually result in negative impacts on development for low- and middle-income countries. This paper examines the role of intellectual property rules in attracting investment for developing countries. It uses the proposals for the TPP's intellectual property chapter as an example on how higher levels of intellectual property enforcement may harm rather than promote investment.

Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamnad Basheer
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Performance ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Suspension Model ◽  
The U.S

The biblical David vs. Goliath paradigm plays out very frequently in international trade disputes. In 2003, a tiny island state, Antigua and Barbuda (hereafter Antigua) took on the United States (hereafter U.S.) in a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute, alleging that the U.S. violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereafter GATS) obligations by effectively foreclosing its borders to overseas internet gambling services. It won at both the panel and the appellate levels. However, to this date, it has been unable to secure compliance by the U.S.This paper considers “cross retaliation" by suspending intellectual property rights under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (hereafter TRIPS) as a viable remedy for developing countries such as Antigua that often find themselves at the receiving end of WTO inconsistent measures maintained by countries that are economically more powerful.Towards this end, it proposes a “Tiered IP suspension model," where certain kinds of Intellectual Property (hereafter IP) are targeted first for suspension before others, depending on the ease of objectively ascertaining the harm caused by the unauthorized use of such IP and/or the potential to induce compliance by the defaulting state. Illustratively, copyrights over sound recordings that have established rates for public performance are targeted first. If working with this tier of IP subject matter does not yield desired results, then the complaining state moves on to other IP where it is relatively more difficult to compute the loss caused to the IP owner (such as pharmaceutical patents) but which may be a more powerful tool to induce compliance. Such a model could be useful for a large number of developing countries, such as India and Brazil, that often find that, despite WTO victories, scofflaw states such as the U.S. and EU fail to comply. Towards this end, this paper offers a very concrete “development" oriented international trade law remedy.

scholarly journals Ground-Level Pressing Issues at the Intersection of AI and IP

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283
Author(s):  
David Kappos ◽  
Asa Kling
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Ground Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Fourth Industrial Revolution ◽  
Property System ◽  
Access To Data ◽  
Immense Potential ◽  
Near Future

Humankind has always sought to solve problems. This impetus has transformed hunters and gatherers into a society beginning to enjoy the fruits of the fourth industrial revolution. As part of the fourth industrial revolution, and the increased computing power accompanying it, the long-theorized concept of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is finally becoming a reality. This raises new issues in myriad fields—from the moral and ethical implications of replacing human activity with machines to who will own inventions created by AI. While these questions are worth exploring, they have already received a fair amount of coverage in popular and theoretical writing. This paper will take a different direction, focusing on the current and near-future issues arising on the ground at the intersection of AI and intellectual property (“IP”). After providing a brief overview of AI, we will analyze legal issues unique to AI, including access to data, patent requirements, open source licenses and trade secrecy. We will then suggest best practices for obtaining and preserving IP protection for AI-related innovations through the United States and European Union IP systems. By addressing these issues, the intellectual property system will be better positioned to do its part in unlocking AI’s immense potential.

scholarly journals Feminism and Dualism in Intellectual Property

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
United States Patent ◽  
Property System ◽  
Human Effort ◽  
The Mind ◽  
States Patent

Intellectual property law constitutes one of the primary policy tools by which society influences the development and design of new technologies. However, the underlying philosophical basis for this system of rewards has gone largely unexamined. For example, implicit in the intellectual property system is a strong element of mind/body dualism that informs the incentives for technological development. In copyright, the work created and owned by an author is idealized as an intangible form, which may be embodied or fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The parallel patent law doctrine of inventorship shows an even more striking pattern of dualism. In the United States patent priority is decided primarily on the basis of conception of the invention in the mind of the inventor; the actual building or reduction to practice of the invention is held largely irrelevant.Similarly, both patent and copyright doctrine entail a strong element of nature/culture dualism. In patent law, this manifests as the product of nature doctrine, holding that only the products of human effort are patentable, and not discoveries drawn from nature. In copyright, facts and other natural occurrences are excluded from copyright as being unoriginal, that is, not originating from the creativity of an author. Both systems assume that facts or properties embedded in the fabric of reality can be separated from the human activity that observes and defines such facts and properties.

scholarly journals Bringing the Question of Chinese IPR Enforcement to the WTO Under TRIPS: An Effective Strategy or a Meaningless and Overused Tactic by the U.S.?

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Yun (Jennifer) Yang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Trade Deficit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Growing Economy ◽  
The U.S

China has had a long history of high levels of piracy and counterfeiting. Leaders of China’s Food and Drug Administration have confessed that their pharmaceutical market is immersed in fake and deadly drugs.1 In addition, DVD’s and VCD’s 2 containing pirated versions of Chinese and foreign films or television series are easily found in China’s major cities.3 Since China is the world’s fastest growing economy and the contributor of the largest trade deficit to the United States (U.S.) (U.S. $268 billion in 2008), 4 it is no surprise that the issue of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) counterfeiting and piracy are of national interest to the U.S..

Copyright’s Modest Ontology—Theory and Pragmatism in Eldred v. Ashcroft

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme W. Austin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Ontological Approach ◽  
Cultural Choices ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Law Making

Focusing on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Eldred v. Ashcroft, which held that the U.S. Congress acted constitutionally when it extended copyright terms by twenty years, this article argues that copyright law in the United States for the most part responds to pragmatic imperatives. The article examines the theoretic/pragmatic distinction at an institutional level and argues that intellectual property lawmaking is at its most pragmatic in the legislative realm. While there is greater potential for theoretical concerns to influence intellectual property law-making in the judicial review context, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the Court declined to allow grand intellectual property theories to dictate the freedom Congress enjoys to craft copyright legislation in the light of its rational view of the best (pragmatic) cultural and economic policies. The article concludes that in Eldred v. Ashcroft there can be detected an ontological approach to the “Copyright Clause” in the U.S. Constitution. The Court’s role is to ensure that Congress acts consistently with what copyright “is”; that is, a vehicle for motivating the “creative spark” of authorship. Congress has relatively free rein to determine what copyright should “do”. Moreover, any limitations on what copyright is meant to achieve are certainly not to be determined by theoretical concerns. Even the Court’s ontological approach to copyright law should be regarded as “modest,” however, given the Court’s general deference to the policy and cultural choices legislators make in the copyright field.

scholarly journals Current Intellectual Property Regimes in the U.S. Fail to Protect Fashion Designs

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Nicole Martin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Fashion Industry ◽  
Cheap Labor ◽  
Trade Dress ◽  
Fashion Designers ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
The U.S

The United States does not offer adequate intellectual property protections for designs within the fashion industry. The quick pace and constantly evolving nature of the fashion industry creates obstacles for designers’ ability to obtain lasting protection in their fashion articles. The intellectual property regimes for trademark, trade dress, patent and copyright will be analyzed in the fashion industry context. These intellectual property regimes in the United States do not adequately protect designers in the fashion industry. Small fashion brands and independent designers are often left unprotected by the copying of their designs. Designers “remain vulnerable to knockoff artists who can steal ideas straight off the runway and produce copies before the originals even hit the stores.” Due to the lack of intellectual property protection for fashion designers in the United States, fashion companies and retailers are able to “steal American designs, make low-quality copies in foreign factories with cheap labor and import them into the U.S. to compete with original designs”. This presents a huge concern for young and emerging designers who can be “put out of business before they even had a chance.” Emerging designers are left vulnerable to the threat of copying [1].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document