The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M. Salzberger
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Physical Property ◽  
Microeconomic Theory ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Commons

This paper focuses on the normative analysis of intellectual property rights, in light of the technological revolution of the Internet and accompanying technologies. After a brief overview of the various philosophical justifications for awarding intellectual property rights, it identifies two major Law and Economics paradigms for the analysis of intellectual property: the incentives paradigm, which is founded upon the public goods analysis of neo-classical microeconomic theory, and the tragedy of the commons literature, which is based on the economic analysis of externalities. The paper raises several points of critique towards both frameworks of analysis and especially towards their inability to point to the desirable extent of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the direction of their reform required as the result of the recent technological revolution. It further criticizes the dominant contemporary Law and Economics writings in this field as shifting to a new proprietary paradigm that pre-assumes information to be an object of property, overlooking its fundamental differences from physical property and focusing on its management rather than on its initial justifications. The paper is concluded with some tentative thoughts on the general notion of “Property Rights” in light of the contemporary approach concerning intellectual property.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PENCATATAN LOGO SEBAGAI CIPTAAN SETELAH BERLAKUNYA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA

NOTARIUS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 118
Author(s):  
Widowati Maria Teresa ◽  
Budi Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Entities

With the enactment of Law Number 28, 2014 About Copyright the creation of art in the form of a logo or distinctive sign is used as a brand in the trade of goods/services or used as a symbol of the organization, entity, or legal entities can not be recorded. Logo that cannot be registered as creation may be registered as trademarks and obtain trademarks protection. Associated with the unregistered logo in the List of Works does not reduce the copyrights protection of the logo, because the protection of the logo as Creation appears declaratively. Consequences of the unlisted logo in the List of Works are logo will not get an official passage on Creation. The government needs to tighten substantive and material checks on all works listed in the field of Intellectual Property Rights and the government may take the initiative to carry out dissemination and counselling accessible to the public especially for business practitioner. Keywords : Logo, Legal Protection, Copyrights AbstrakDengan diberlakukannya Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta, seni lukis yang berupa logo atau tanda pembeda yang digunakan sebagai merek dalam perdagangan barang/jasa atau digunakan sebagai lambang organisasi, badan usaha, atau badan hukum tidak dapat dicatatkan. Logo yang tidak dapat dicatatkan sebagai Ciptaan dapat didaftarkan sebagai Merek dan mendapatkan perlindungan Merek. Terkait dengan tidak dicatatkannya logo dalam Daftar Ciptaan tidak mengurangi perlindungan Hak Cipta atas logo, karena perlindungan logo sebagai Ciptaan muncul secara deklaratif. Konsekuensi dari tidak dapat dicatatkannya logo dalam Daftar Ciptaan adalah Ciptaan logo tidak akan mendapatkan petikan resmi atas Ciptaan. Pemerintah perlu untuk memperketat pemeriksaan substantif maupun materiil terhadap seluruh karya yang didaftarkan di seluruh bidang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan dapat mengambil inisiatif untuk melakukan diseminasi dan penyuluhan yang dapat diakses secara mudah bagi masyarakat pada umumnya dan pelaku bisnis pada khususnya. Kata kunci : Logo, Perlindungan Hukum, Hak Cipta 

An Overview of Intellectual Property Rights and Systems

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Pila
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Values ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
15Th Century ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the nature, aims, and values of intellectual property (IP) rights and systems. It traces the emergence of statutory IP laws in Europe from the 15th century as means of facilitating and rewarding the introduction to the public of certain intangible expressive and informational objects of social value, and the different IP philosophies that they reflect. It then considers the IP rights and systems of European and UK law today, and their vesting of temporary exclusive rights in respect of different categories of ‘intellectual creation’, broadly conceived. The EU is presented as seeking, through its recognition and protection of IP rights, to build on the traditions of its Member States in a manner that is consistent with both its international commitments and its particular economic and social values and aims. The result of this objective is considered, along with certain distinctions of importance to IP rights and systems.

Give Us Back Our Tragedy: Nonrivalry in Intellectual Property Law and Policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 633-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oren Bracha
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Tragedy Of The Commons ◽  
Information Goods ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Distinct Category ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Commons

Abstract Information goods form the most distinct category of nonrival resources in regard to which one person’s ability to use the resource is not lessened by another person’s use. Nonrival goods are not subject to the tragedy of the commons and as a result the most common modern justification for property rights is absent in regard to them. Therefore intellectual property rights, unlike many other property rights, may perform a beneficial function only with respect to the dynamic incentive to produce information goods. With respect to static use of existing information, intellectual property rights serve no beneficial function and always have a negative effect. This fundamental and ostensibly well-understood element of intellectual property theory has important implications for the policy analysis of intellectual property rights compared to other institutional alternatives (including a commons) and for the design of such rights. Because it poses a fundamental challenge to the idea of a uniform theory of property, the assumption of nonrivalry of information has been subjected to attacks by scholars who sought to introduce the tragedy of the commons to this realm and reintegrate intellectual property rights into standard property analysis. Other scholarship rejects the attacks on nonrivalry but often obscures the full implications of this feature of information goods. This article explains the centrality of nonrivalry in the policy analysis of information goods and the challenge it poses to a unified theory built on the concept of the tragedy of the commons. It explains the unfortunate tendency to obscure the full implications of nonrivalry, explores the various attempts to restore a tragedy of the commons framework to the analysis of information goods, and exposes the flaws of these arguments. The article concludes by explaining the implications of the nonrivalry of information goods for a properly understood general theory of property built around the salient positive and normative features of resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document