scholarly journals Analysis of the performance of the brazilian intellectual property system: challenges and perspectives

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cleiton Rodrigues de Vasconcelos ◽  
Daniel Pereira da Silva

The protection of intellectual property (IP) is a crucial area to support the development process of any country, as it is in this context that the biggest strategic disputes are taking place. In recent years Brazil has developed some actions to achieve greater efficiency in the public IP management system, but are we on the right track? The present study seeks to present answers regarding the performance of Brazil and to highlight the advances and challenges regarding the IP system. The methodological approach was structured based on a review in the literature, highlighting the scientific, economic and technological indicators on the development of IP and the main IP objects registered with the Brazilian national intellectual property body (INPI) in the period of 2013 to 2016, in the areas of patents, trademarks, industrial design, computer program, circuit topography, technology contracts and geographical indication.

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Vladimir Samoylov

<p>This study examines and critiques New Zealand intellectual property protection for industrial designs, taking into account that many New Zealand industrial design owners outsource manufacture of their designs to China.   Industrial design, which refers to improving the aesthetics of products to increase their marketability, is evolving conceptually and practically. In New Zealand, copyright and registered design laws each protect, respectively, the visual expression and the “eye appeal” of an original design. As design practices evolve with advances in technology however, it is increasingly evident that industrial design is about more than just visual expression or “eye appeal”. Many designers are not focusing solely on product stylisation and decoration, but on the provision of a more holistic product experience for the consumer.  The development process of industrial designs from concept to marketable product is also changing, with many New Zealand industrial design owners employing increasingly efficient design development strategies. The fast-paced, cost-effective infrastructure of China is often utilised by New Zealand businesses for the manufacture of industrial designs.   This study therefore sought to determine how to appropriately protect New Zealand industrial designs, in light of: a. foreseeable advances in technology; and  b. the fact that many New Zealand industrial designs are manufactured in China.   To answer these questions, this study examined and analysed New Zealand’s copyright and registered design laws, taking into account not only existing protections, but also factors that are likely to be of significant relevance in the future, such as the impact on industrial design from developments in 3D printing and virtual reality.   The Chinese intellectual property regime for industrial designs was also examined because China is a major trading partner and often, as noted, the locus of manufacture.   The study included an empirical investigation, in the form of interviews with designers and design academics as well as legal practitioners specialising in intellectual property law. The input of the interviewees, together with the legal analysis, informed a series of suggestions and recommendations for New Zealand policy and its law-makers regarding how industrial design protection can be improved.  A key finding of this study was that existing legal protections do not appropriately protect increasingly holistic designs, as well as new types of designs emerging from developing fields such as virtual reality. In assessing the appropriateness of protection, the interests of industrial design owners were balanced against the public interest in protecting the public domain. It is suggested that to achieve equilibrium copyright law should be expanded to protect design expressions for all senses. Moreover, new categories of copyright protected works should be introduced to accommodate emerging design. The definition of design in registered design law should also be reconceptualised in order to acknowledge new types of designs and evolving design practices.  Industrial design owners who outsource manufacturing to China can protect their designs via copyright as well as design patent. However, enforcement of intellectual property protection is unsatisfactory in many areas of China. Therefore, New Zealand industrial design owners should also employ non-legal protection strategies. Interviews with successful businesses, in the course of the empirical investigation for this study, revealed that the leveraging of existing relationships of those with already established operations in China, and intentionally splitting an industrial design’s component parts for manufacture among several factories in different locations, are useful strategies to employ.</p>


Author(s):  
Smith Marcus ◽  
Leslie Nico

This chapter examines intellectual property. The governing principles relating to intellectual property are very different from the principles that underlie other choses, like rights under contracts or debts. Like shares, intellectual property rights are characterized by specific statutory rules relating to their creation, as well as to their transfer. Intellectual property rights can be divided under six heads: patents; copyright; moral rights; industrial design rights; trademarks; and confidential information. In each case, the holder of the right is able—by virtue of ownership—to prevent others from doing what they otherwise could do. Each of these intellectual property rights has four different aspects: the intellectual property right itself; rights of action for infringement; validity challenges; and licensing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
Le Thi Thanh Tam ◽  
Hoang Dinh Thai ◽  
Pham Thi Thanh Hai ◽  
Tran Diep Tuan ◽  
Tran Chi Thanh

Emerging economies are facing problems in the administration and compliance with intellectual property protection in their countries. The IP term is now much more familiar to the public, but it is not well understood completely in a lawful way. The public is misinformed (or, at best, under-informed) about IP leading to higher levels of infringement as well as reducing the use and value of IP. Our study aimed to determine the level of perceptions, awareness, and behavior (PAB) on IP Protection of the medical technology students with the cross-sectional on-line survey on 795 students by electronic European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) questionnaire. The overall level of PAB was very high, greater than three quarters. The demographic factors related significantly to right PAB on IP protection were sex (female higher than male) and residency (other cities higher than Ho Chi Minh City). Only the awareness had the covariance with the behavior in structural equation modeling (SEM) model with a significant coefficient of 0.55. We should focus on an education program to increase the right awareness, then it would improve the right behavior on intellectual property protection in students who are living in the emerging countries.


Yuridika ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 445
Author(s):  
Sigit Nugroho ◽  
Derita Praptirahayu ◽  
Mieke Yustia Ayu Ratna Sari

Fair dealing is one of the important elements in the Industrial Design Legislation. Because of that, it is significant to analyze the concept of fair dealing which can be understood by the society to achieve fairness in the protection of industrial design works. Under industrial design, the concept of fair dealing means that industrial design can be used by other parties for education and research purposes as long as it does not prejudice the interests of industrial design right holders. The purpose of this study is to analyze the value of fairness in the concept of fair dealing in industrial design law, so that it can be used as guidelines for the right holders and the public so they not violate the Industrial Design Law and this Law can also be used to advance the welfare of society. This study is normative legal research by using statute and conceptual approaches. While material used for this study are primary and secondary legal materials. This study found that fairness in the fair dealing in the protection of industrial design can be achieved in the form of fulfilment of balance rights between the designer’s right and society. Fairness for both is if between the right holder and society have the opportunities to use and enjoy available industrial design. Industrial design rights holders have limited monopoly rights and the public has the opportunity to use the results of industrial design in a limited manner for their welfare. This is in line with what Aristotle said that justice is given in accordance with values or propriety that is not the same.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-502
Author(s):  
Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim ◽  
◽  
Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair ◽  
Anida Mahmood ◽  
Rohazar Wati Zuallcobley ◽  
...  

This article reports a study that aims to formulate an outbound open innovation strategy for the exploitation of publicly funded research intellectual property in Malaysia. The outbound open innovation strategy is proposed due to the inability of the existing intellectual property commercialization strategy of Malaysian public universities to optimize the exploitation of publicly funded research intellectual property. The current strategy assumes that the best exploitation route is by way of commercialization to enable the public universities to monetize the publicly funded research intellectual property. This strategy creates a legal barrier since publicly funded research intellectual property is locked up behind proprietary rights and a rigid licensing regime. In contrast, outbound open innovation strategy allows publicly funded research intellectual property to be exploited through permissive licensing. This study employs a mixed-methods approach involving semi-structured interviews and survey questionnaires with technology licensing officers of Malaysian public universities. The output of this study is an outbound open innovation strategy which connects innovation to the intellectual property system and improves the socio-economic impact of publicly funded research intellectual property.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
ega yuliani

AbstractIntellectual Property Rights are rights derived from the work, initiative and creativity in the form of a real man. Intellectual Property rights consist of privately owned property and Industry. Patents are part of Intellectual Property Rights in Industry. Patents are granted the right of the government and is exclusive. Exclusive rights of patent holders is the production of a patented item, usage and sales of goods and deeds relating to the import and sale of such goods store. Legal protection of intellectual property rights in the patent field ketetentuan regulated in Law Number 14 of 2001. In chapter 8, paragraph (1) time protection for 20 years from the date of receipt and can not be extended. And Article 9 set period of patent protection for simple for 10 (ten) years and can not be extended. Protection of intellectual property rights is no guarantee to the public to respect the right of initiative and the reaction and to provide protection will upload their work. The higher appreciation of the intellectual property rights of a nation then the future will be better.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Hansen

In recent years, developing nations have pushed for international copyright and other intellectual property regimes to expand protection over the cultural heritage and collective knowledge of particular indigenous groups. These “traditional knowledge” protections have been justified by factors like economic protection, equity in intellectual property ownership, cultural protection, and economic development. These motivating factors are a far cry from the underpinnings of traditional Western intellectual property law - and in particular, U.S. copyright law - which focuses on incentivizing the creation of new content for the promotion of “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” Because of these differing justifications, traditional knowledge protections at the international level have generated some degree of friction between the developed and the developing world. So far, much of the debate focuses on the “political” and “real” costs and benefits of traditional knowledge rights, but there is little discussion of the legal consequences of current protections. Given the underlying ideological conflict, some legal dissension is likely to occur regarding enforcement and protection of traditional knowledge rights. This paper examines “positive” traditional knowledge protections, which provide copyright-like rights over content, including the right exclude, license, and profit from these works. In many cases these protections regulate works that Western eyes would view as in the public domain. Initiatives to provide international protection for traditional knowledge expressions have blithely proceeded without much regard for the potential consequences under existing international law. This paper makes the point that at least some existing traditional knowledge protections not only conflict with IP-policy norms of the United States and the European Community, but also that these protections violate the very terms of TRIPS and GATT. As work toward international protection of traditional knowledge progresses, policy makers should be aware of these legal incompatibilities and how they evidence the deep conflict between expansive traditional knowledge protections and Western IP policy.Cite as David R. Hansen, Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Trade Barriers and the Public Domain, 58 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 757 (2011)


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Fadel Zulkarnain

AbstractIntellectual Property Rights are rights derived from the work, initiative and creativity in the form of a real man. Intellectual Property rights consist of privately owned property and Industry. Patents are part of Intellectual Property Rights in Industry. Patents are granted the right of the government and is exclusive. Exclusive rights of patent holders is the production of a patented item, usage and sales of goods and deeds relating to the import and sale of such goods store. Legal protection of intellectual property rights in the patent field ketetentuan regulated in Law Number 14 of 2001. In chapter 8, paragraph (1) time protection for 20 years from the date of receipt and can not be extended. And Article 9 set period of patent protection for simple for 10 (ten) years and can not be extended. Protection of intellectual property rights is no guarantee to the public to respect the right of initiative and the reaction and to provide protection will upload their work. The higher appreciation of the intellectual property rights of a nation then the future will be better. Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights, Patent Protection


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Vladimir Samoylov

<p>This study examines and critiques New Zealand intellectual property protection for industrial designs, taking into account that many New Zealand industrial design owners outsource manufacture of their designs to China.   Industrial design, which refers to improving the aesthetics of products to increase their marketability, is evolving conceptually and practically. In New Zealand, copyright and registered design laws each protect, respectively, the visual expression and the “eye appeal” of an original design. As design practices evolve with advances in technology however, it is increasingly evident that industrial design is about more than just visual expression or “eye appeal”. Many designers are not focusing solely on product stylisation and decoration, but on the provision of a more holistic product experience for the consumer.  The development process of industrial designs from concept to marketable product is also changing, with many New Zealand industrial design owners employing increasingly efficient design development strategies. The fast-paced, cost-effective infrastructure of China is often utilised by New Zealand businesses for the manufacture of industrial designs.   This study therefore sought to determine how to appropriately protect New Zealand industrial designs, in light of: a. foreseeable advances in technology; and  b. the fact that many New Zealand industrial designs are manufactured in China.   To answer these questions, this study examined and analysed New Zealand’s copyright and registered design laws, taking into account not only existing protections, but also factors that are likely to be of significant relevance in the future, such as the impact on industrial design from developments in 3D printing and virtual reality.   The Chinese intellectual property regime for industrial designs was also examined because China is a major trading partner and often, as noted, the locus of manufacture.   The study included an empirical investigation, in the form of interviews with designers and design academics as well as legal practitioners specialising in intellectual property law. The input of the interviewees, together with the legal analysis, informed a series of suggestions and recommendations for New Zealand policy and its law-makers regarding how industrial design protection can be improved.  A key finding of this study was that existing legal protections do not appropriately protect increasingly holistic designs, as well as new types of designs emerging from developing fields such as virtual reality. In assessing the appropriateness of protection, the interests of industrial design owners were balanced against the public interest in protecting the public domain. It is suggested that to achieve equilibrium copyright law should be expanded to protect design expressions for all senses. Moreover, new categories of copyright protected works should be introduced to accommodate emerging design. The definition of design in registered design law should also be reconceptualised in order to acknowledge new types of designs and evolving design practices.  Industrial design owners who outsource manufacturing to China can protect their designs via copyright as well as design patent. However, enforcement of intellectual property protection is unsatisfactory in many areas of China. Therefore, New Zealand industrial design owners should also employ non-legal protection strategies. Interviews with successful businesses, in the course of the empirical investigation for this study, revealed that the leveraging of existing relationships of those with already established operations in China, and intentionally splitting an industrial design’s component parts for manufacture among several factories in different locations, are useful strategies to employ.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document