scholarly journals Is Creative Commons a Panacea for Managing Digital Humanities Intellectual Property Rights?

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Ding
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Academic Librarians ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
The Us

Digital humanities is an academic field applying computational methods to explore topics and questions in the humanities field. Digital humanities projects, as a result, consist of a variety of creative works different from those in traditional humanities disciplines. Born to provide free, simple ways to grant permissions to creative works, Creative Commons (CC) licenses have become top options for many digital humanities scholars to handle intellectual property rights in the US. However, there are limitations of using CC licenses that are sometimes unknown by scholars and academic librarians. By analyzing case studies and influential lawsuits about intellectual property rights in the digital age, this article advocates for a critical perspective of copyright education and provides academic librarians with specific recommendations about advising digital humanities scholars to use CC licenses with four limitations in mind: 1) the pitfall of a free license; 2) the risk of irrevocability; 3) the ambiguity of NonCommercial and NonDerivative licenses; 4) the dilemma of ShareAlike and the open movement.

scholarly journals Does intellectual property rights protection affect UK and US outward FDI and earnings from FDI? A sectoral analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Glauco De Vita ◽  
Constantinos Alexiou ◽  
Emmanouil Trachanas ◽  
Yun Luo
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Outward Fdi ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
The Us ◽  
Disaggregated Data ◽  
The Impact

PurposeDespite decades of research, the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and foreign direct investment (FDI) remains ambiguous. Using a recently developed patent enforcement index (along with a broader IPR index) and a large sectoral country-to-country FDI dataset, the authors revisit the FDI-IPR relationship by testing the impact of IPRs on UK and US outward FDI (OFDI) flows as well as earnings from outward FDI (EOFDI).Design/methodology/approachThe authors use disaggregated data for up to 9 distinct sectors of economic activity from both the US and UK for OFDI flows and EOFDI, for a panel of up to 42 developed and developing countries over sample periods from 1998 to 2015. The authors employ a panel fixed effects (FE) approach that allows exploiting the longitudinal properties of the data using Driscoll and Kraay's (1998) nonparametric covariance matrix estimator.FindingsThe authors do not find any consistent evidence in support of the hypothesis that countries' strength of IPR protection or enforcement affects inward FDI, or that sector of investment matters. The results prove robust to sensitivity checks that include an alternative broader measure of IPR strength, analyses across sub-samples disaggregated according to the strength of countries' IPRs as well as developing vs developed economies and an extended specification accounting for dynamic effects of the response of FDI to both previous investment levels and IPR (patent) protection.Originality/valueThe authors make use of the largest most granular sectoral country-to-country FDI dataset employed to date in the analysis of the FDI-IPR nexus with disaggregated data for OFDI and EOFDI across up to 9 distinct sectors of economic activity from both the US and UK The authors employ a more sophisticated measure of IPR strength, the patent index proposed by Papageorgiadis et al. (2014), which places emphasis on the effectiveness of enforcement practices as perceived by managers, together with the overall administrative effectiveness and efficiency of the national patent system.

Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights

Biotechnology ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1944-1965
Author(s):  
Mercedes Campi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Plant Breeding ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Growth Rates ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Adoption Rate ◽  
The Us ◽  
Open Debate

As a contribution to the open debate regarding the effect of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) on innovation, this chapter postulates that the adoption of strong IPRs is not a necessary condition to foster innovation in the plant breeding industry. The chapter studies the evolution of the soybean breeding industry in the US and Argentina and shows that regardless the level of intellectual property protection, if there is an attractive and profitable market, firms may search for different appropriability strategies rather than changing their innovative behavior. The chapter finds that the growth rates of new soybean varieties are similar in both countries and the adoption rate is faster in Argentina where the IPRs system is weaker.

scholarly journals Activating Actavis in Europe – the proposal of a ‘structured effects-based’ analysis for pay-for-delay settlements

Legal Studies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven Gallasch
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Innovative Process ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Innovative Drugs

Striking the right balance between the protection of competition law and intellectual property rights is of utmost importance, especially in the pharmaceutical sector; affordable generic drugs are as important as new innovative drugs. Pay-for-delay settlements take place at exactly this intersection. They end patent infringement litigation but, at the same time, delay entry of generic drugs by means of a substantial payment from the brand company to the generic. Whereas the US Supreme Court opted for a rule of reason approach that requires an analysis of the potential anticompetitive effects, the European Commission regarded such settlements as restriction by object, finding an infringement without the need for an effects-based analysis. This approach is criticised and a novel ‘structured effects-based’ approach is proposed allowing the authority to effectively scrutinise such settlements while striking the right balance in order to protect the innovative process and the exercise of intellectual property rights.

Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights

2016 ◽  
pp. 334-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercedes Campi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Plant Breeding ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Growth Rates ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Adoption Rate ◽  
The Us ◽  
Open Debate

As a contribution to the open debate regarding the effect of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) on innovation, this chapter postulates that the adoption of strong IPRs is not a necessary condition to foster innovation in the plant breeding industry. The chapter studies the evolution of the soybean breeding industry in the US and Argentina and shows that regardless the level of intellectual property protection, if there is an attractive and profitable market, firms may search for different appropriability strategies rather than changing their innovative behavior. The chapter finds that the growth rates of new soybean varieties are similar in both countries and the adoption rate is faster in Argentina where the IPRs system is weaker.

Beyond Trade War: Reevaluating Intellectual Property Bilateralism in the US–China Context

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-76
Author(s):  
Carrie Shu Shang ◽  
Wei Shen
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
China Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Organization Framework

ABSTRACT The Economic and Trade Agreement between the USA and the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter the ‘Phase One Agreement’) concluded in January 2020 leaves many important questions unanswered. This article goes beyond narrow textualist approaches and seeks to conceptualize the current trade tension by providing an alternative narrative with a focus on China’s post–Trade War commitments to higher intellectual property rights standards. In particular, it focuses on the bilateral interaction between the USA and China during and shortly after the Trade War and how the interaction impacts China’s legal changes from a transnational law perspective. It further argues that US-reinforced intellectual property rights rules have potentially paved the way for further US–China trade and investment talks. However, in order to better maintain a long-term balance between preservation of policymaking autonomy and regulation of protectionist measures, an approach better aligned with the World Trade Organization framework needs to be pursued.

scholarly journals Recent Development of the Intellectual Property Rights System in China and Challenges Ahead

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Can Huang
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Time Span ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Us ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Ipr Protection

As Peng, Ahlstrom, Carraher, and Shi (2017) rightly noted, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection in a country is not static. It evolves over time. Peng et al. (this issue) revealed through their historical analysis that during the 19th century, the US was not a leading IPR advocate but a leading IPR violator. It was only when indigenous inventors, authors, and organizations of the US emerged and demanded protection of their IPR in foreign countries in the late 19th century that the US passed the International Copyright Act (the Chace Act) in 1891 to extend IPR protection to foreign works. The US case illustrated that a country's IPR system as an institution evolves as its economy and society develop. If we examine this evolution over a relatively long time span, the change can be quite dramatic. Therefore, when reviewing a country's IPR system, an important question to be asked is in which direction the country's IPR system evolves.

Ch.8 Industrial Designs

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
The Us

This chapter focuses on industrial designs, which are generally defined as features of ornamentation applied to an article. They consist of the shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament—or a combination thereof—of a product that gives it eye-appeal. Industrial designs normally exclude those designs determined solely by their utilitarian function on an article. The protection of industrial designs is addressed in the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement by only two Articles. Article 25 defines the requirements for protection, and Article 26 the extent of exclusive rights and the admissible exceptions. This scant treatment reflects the fact that the protection of industrial designs had a low priority in the TRIPS negotiations for the US and other countries, except perhaps the European Communities (EC), which aimed at enhancing such protection, of particular value, for instance, for fashion industries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document