Dynamic Analysis of Intellectual Property: Theory, Evidence and Policy

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dynamic Analysis ◽  
Property Theory

Intellectual Property: Theory, Privilege, and Pragmatism

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Definition Of

In the most general terms, this article focuses on the tension between competing justifications of intellectual property. Section I examines the nature and definition of economic pragmatism and argues that, while economic pragmatism comes in many flavors, each is either unstable or self-defeating. Section II advances the view that Anglo-American systems of intellectual property have both theoretical and pragmatic features. In Section III a sketch of a theory is offered--a theory that may limit applications of economic pragmatism and provide the foundation for copyright, patent, and trade secret institutions. To be justified--to warrant coercion on a worldwide scale--systems of intellectual property should be grounded in theory. Intellectual property rights are, in essence, no different than our rights to life, liberty, and tangible property. Intellectual property rights are neither pure social constructions nor bargains without foundations.

An IP Lawyer Walks Into a Bar

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Schruers
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Alcoholic Beverages ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
Market Strategies ◽  
Made In ◽  
Innovation Incentives

Matt Schruers demonstrates that from their earliest days as delivery mechanisms for medicines, to the era of patent elixirs, to today’s resurgence of craft cocktails, alcoholic beverages have been fruitful ground for innovation. Although cocktail recipes are unprotected by copyright or patent law, new cocktail recipes are far from scarce, despite the fact that these inventions can be freely copied and used by competitors. While culinary creations are regulated through informal norms, innovation in the mixological arts is driven by market strategies, in particular by cross-financing the investments made in easily copied information. Cocktails are often devised and sold as services, rather than products, as well as promotion for the spirits they contain. As this chapter colorfully illustrates, classic intellectual property theory often fails to account for market-based innovation incentives.

GENESIS OF THE CONCEPT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-12
Author(s):  
N. A. Vitchkovskiy ◽  
◽  
V. A. Osipov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Dialectical Opposition

The growing importance of intellectual property as an economic asset raises the issue of the content of intellectual property in the scientific discussions and the identification of scientific prerequisites for the formation and development of the intellectual property theory. The paper aims at the improvement of the conceptual and theoretical views on the economic category of intellectual property through establishing the dialectical interrelation with the concept of property. The authors propose considering intellectual property as a materially expressed result of the mental (intellectual) activity of a person, which invests its creator (author) or legal entities with the exclusive right for it, and it is confirmed by the relevant officially issued protection documents (patents or certificates) or statutory prescribed copyright norms. The research revealed the dichotomous nature of intellectual property. The study of property and intellectual property categories allowed establishing their dialectical opposition in terms of materiality and possibility of copying a legal object, the urgency and territorial limitation of property rights, and, most important, the dynamics of value in the process of consumption. However, the property and intellectual property categories also have a dialectical unity, which is not noted in the scientific literature. It is expressed in the mechanism of origin of property rights (in both cases, they are related to the problem of limited resources resulting in the necessity to choose the variant of an asset use), and in the mechanism of application of these rights, associated with the presence of both the right and the restrictions of this right, as well as liabilities of a copyright holder.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property In the Cathedral

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
Liability Rules

A variety of commentators have called for the increased application of liability rules, including compulsory licenses, to intellectual property. Such arguments are well taken, but unfortunately stop short of advocating the full range of potential intellectual property entitlement allocations. Property theory offers a range of allocative structures, including reverse liability rules and "put"-type entitlements that could be beneficially applied to intellectual property. This paper describes several such rules and argues for their consideration in the canon of intellectual property entitlements.

scholarly journals Non-Linear Innovation

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Shur-Ofry
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Multidisciplinary Research ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
Science And Art ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Cultural Preference ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cumulative Innovation ◽  
Property Regime

Contemporary intellectual property theory concentrates on the cumulative and incremental nature of innovation and creation. A prevalent image depicts authors and inventors as “standing on the shoulders of giants.” This article focuses on a different type of innovation that has been largely overlooked by intellectual property theory and doctrine: innovation in the domains of science and art that breaks with convention, disputes existing paradigms, and “steps off” giants’ shoulders. I term it “non-linear innovation”. Drawing on multidisciplinary research ranging from the history of science, through network analysis of radical inventions, to studies of creativity, this article illuminates an embedded socio-cultural preference for incremental and linear novelty over paradigm-changing innovation. It then inquires whether intellectual property doctrine reflects this bias and whether the intellectual property regime can better foster non-linear innovation. The examination yields a series of counterintuitive recommendations concerning numerous patent and copyright law doctrines. More broadly, the analysis indicates that neither the “shoulders of giants” metaphor nor the opposite image of the “lone genius” adequately capture the dynamics of non-linear innovation. It further suggests that expanding intellectual property’s narrative of progress to accommodate non-linear innovation, alongside cumulative innovation, could significantly contribute to the ecosystem of innovation and creation.

Dynamic Analysis of Intellectual Property

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dynamic Analysis ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Dynamic Approach

This chapter proposes a dynamic approach to IP analysis that assesses the effects of changes in the strength of IP rights by anticipating firms’ ability to adopt alternative non-IP mechanisms for capturing returns on innovation. Some of the most powerful non-IP alternatives are the economies of scale, financing capacities, and accumulated goodwill that are inherent to older, larger, and more integrated entities. By contrast, these non-IP alternatives are generally unavailable to younger, smaller, and less integrated entities. These entity-specific differences in adopting non-IP alternatives imply that changes in the strength of IP rights can have significantly different effects on different entity types as a function of age, size, and level of integration. Critically, weak- or zero-IP regimes can advantage large incumbents by compelling exit or deterring entry by smaller and less integrated firms that cannot sufficiently monetize R&D investments in the absence of reasonably secure IP protections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document