scholarly journals Protecting the Industrial Designs of Today and the Future

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>

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>


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.


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.


Author(s):  
Hideyasu Sasaki

In this chapter, we discuss the issues on patent and trade secret issues on digital libraries, especially patentable parameter-setting components which are implemented as computer-related inventions in digital libraries. In addition, we discuss the directions for embedding and protecting numerical parametric information as a trade secret in the patentable parameter-setting components performing retrieval operations of digital libraries with the future of intellectual property protection in the multimedia digital libraries. The scope of this chapter is restricted within the current standard of the U.S. laws and cases in transnational transaction and licensing of intellectual properties regarding the digital library.


2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Beauregard ◽  
Gaelle Beauregard

Telemedicine is a new field and many health-care providers are developing their own products with the help of industry. Most practitioners are novices in the legal tools necessary to protect their own work with regard to any future commercialization. To summarize these issues for the telemedicine practitioner, a review of intellectual property protection has been performed. Intellectual property can be protected by tools such as copyrights, patents, non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, integrated circuit topographies and industrial design. Knowledge of the intellectual property background should allow telemedicine providers to protect their own work when working with industry.


1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Friedman

The intellectual property protection differences between countries is a contentious issue. Countries with strong innovation systems (technology producers) often favor strong intellectual property protection because it motivates innovation by granting innovators temporary market exclusivity for their new, nonobvious and useful inventions; countries with less-developed innovation systems (technology consumers) often prefer weaker patent protection, as it enables them to access inventions developed elsewhere without having to pay licensing or manufacturing fees that may be beyond their capacity (or desire) to pay. Although the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement does provide governments the right to use patented technologies without authorization, this compulsory licensing is limited to cases of ‘national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency’. Furthermore, there is often disagreement on what constitutes a national emergency or circumstance of extreme urgency. The central question underlying TRIPS claims or unauthorized use of patents is that of their greater impact on a country's industry and economy.A common rationale for unlicensed patent use is that improving their citizen's health is a national priority, so governments ought to produce high-value drugs domestically, without license if necessary, to serve their national interests. Price controls can be seen as a less-extreme version of unlicensed use as, instead of denying innovators profits from domestic sales, price controls give governments greater power in dictating terms. The downside of these strategies, however, is that they can deprive countries of patented technologies; several years ago AstraZeneca responded to pressures from the New Zealand government to lower prices for Zoladex by announcing that they would simply stop selling the drug in that market. Domestic industries can also be affected; Novartis recently bypassed the appeals courts in India and responded to the Indian patent office's decision not to grant its patent for Glivec (sold as Gleevec in the United States) by announcing that it would redirect hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D investments to other countries.India and New Zealand are not alone. There are plenty of other examples of drug companies threatening to withdraw drugs or R&D investments from other developed and developing countries. The common theme in these battles is that these decisions can have broader impacts than the individual products or patents involved. While licensing decisions are often based on individual drugs or individual diseases, they can signal to companies that a given country represents a poor market and can discourage a company from domestic R&D investments or developing of drugs for endemic conditions. The result is that near-term benefits are exchanged for long-term deficits.Although simple logic suggests that all countries – developing and developed – should offer the strongest intellectual property protection possible, that solution is rarely practical for economic reasons, and it deprives government-backed health-care systems a valuable bargaining tool. So, the battle between countries and drug manufacturers will likely continue, using patents, price controls, R&D investment and other levers. What is of particular interest is how the dynamics change as countries transition from being technology consumers to technology producers (or, possibly, the reverse). As countries that were once broad technology consumers develop technology-innovation capacity and find it increasingly favorable to strengthen their patent laws, how can they strengthen these laws while protecting legacy companies and their domestic interests in areas in which they are still net technology consumers? Additionally, as low wage-cost countries face competition from each other, how can they motivate foreign investment in a way that promotes the growth of domestic companies? Furthermore, how much leverage can countries with large markets wield?


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 168781401983683
Author(s):  
Weihong Huang ◽  
Renfa Li ◽  
Jianbo Xu ◽  
Yin Huang ◽  
Osama Hosam

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document