intellectual property rights opinion essay

Intellectual Property and Property Rights

Intellectual Property and Property Rights (Edward Elgar, 2013)

George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 14-31

18 Pages Posted: 22 Jul 2014 Last revised: 7 Aug 2014

Adam Mossoff

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School

Date Written: July 15, 2014

This essay is the introductory chapter to Intellectual Property and Property Rights (Edward Elgar, 2013), which contains some of the leading articles published in recent years on the nature of patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets as property rights. But this essay does not merely review the articles. For the first time in a single essay, it presents the three basic analytical frameworks in which intellectual property rights are defined or justified as property rights – historical, conceptual, and normative. Drawing upon the substantive content of the articles in the volume and beyond, the essay first reviews the two descriptive framings of intellectual property rights, explaining that intellectual property rights historically have been defined and justified as property rights since the eighteenth century and that there are serious analytical reasons why intellectual property is defined conceptually in this way. The essay then explains how these two descriptive bases – the historical account and conceptual definition – provide a foundation for the two normative justifications for intellectual property as property – the utilitarian and labor-desert theories. Ultimately, the essay summarizes the substantive theoretical case for intellectual property as property, and it also briefly summarizes the critique of intellectual property from the perspective of property rights advocates.

Keywords: philosophy, utility, propertization, Locke, Lessig, Jefferson

JEL Classification: K11

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Adam Mossoff (Contact Author)

George mason university - antonin scalia law school ( email ).

3301 Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22201 United States 703-993-9577 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, antonin scalia law school, george mason university, law & economics research paper series.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Legal History eJournal

Intellectual property: empirical studies ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Property, Citizenship, & Social Entrepreneurism eJournal

Property, land use & real estate law ejournal, philosophy of law ejournal, law & society: private law - intellectual property ejournal, law & economics ejournal.

Essays on Intellectual Property Rights

Journal Title

Journal issn, volume title, description, collections.

• < Previous

Home > Robinson College of Business > Computer Information Systems > CIS_DISS > 71

Computer Information Systems Dissertations

Three essays on digital innovation from an intellectual property rights perspective.

Zhitao Yin Follow

Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4991-612X

Date of Award

Degree type.

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Computer Information Systems

First Advisor

Second advisor.

Deepa Varadarajan

Third Advisor

Sean Xin Xu

Fourth Advisor

This dissertation uses the lens of intellectual property rights (IPR) to challenge the Information Systems (IS) field’s conventional view of a patent as a knowledge asset. It shows how IS scholars can leverage the IPR perspective to generate insights into digital innovation and how those insights can inform innovation policy, which establishes the regulatory governance framework for the digital innovation ecosystem.

Essay 1 aims to shift the focus of the literature on the production of digital innovation to the examination of digital patents. It surfaces (a) the critical beneficial influence of patent examiners’ feedback—that is, why the claims of inventors’ past applications have been rejected—on inventors’ success in gaining subsequent digital patents and (b) how that benefit is subject to two key aspects of examiners’ feedback—temporal and technological. Essay 1 therefore informs a debate among scholars and policy makers regarding the expertise of patent examiners in digital patents.

Essays 2 and 3 turn to the value creation of digital innovation, in which patent owners generate rent from their patents at the expense of social welfare. Specifically, Essay 2 joins the discussion on patent thickets—the overlapping of firms’ IPR that may restrict their commercialization of their own inventions—while addressing the formation of patent thickets in the IT industry, in which firms are racing to assemble large patent portfolios. Results indicate that the knowledge spillover to competitors generated by a focal IT firm’s patent disclosure can increase the level of patent thickets. Such impact depends on two key characteristics—the value of the focal firm’s disclosure and the absorptive capacity of that firm’s competitors. Essay 2 therefore uncovers the crucial role of disclosure for the optimal policy design to address patent thickets.

Essay 3 connects with the recent conversation on the role of crowdfunding in democratizing venture capital (VC) financing, while differentiating itself by addressing the IPR threat from a patent assertion entity (PAE), which is in the business of asserting digital patents. Results indicate that state anti-PAE laws are crucial in realizing two crowdfunding benefits: attracting VC investment into the state and diversifying the investments across industries within the state. Essay 3 thus surfaces the critical role that institutional governance of IPR risk plays in achieving crowdfunding benefits.

https://doi.org/10.57709/14924691

Recommended Citation

Yin, Zhitao, "Three Essays on Digital Innovation from an Intellectual Property Rights Perspective." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/14924691

File Upload Confirmation

Since July 16, 2019

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Submit ETD (Thesis/Dissertation)

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

RETHINKING EDUCATION THEFT THROUGH THE LENS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Peter k. yu*.

This Essay problematizes the increased propertization and commodification of education and calls for a rethink of the emergent concept of “education theft” through the lens of intellectual property and human rights. This concept refers to the phenomenon where parents, or legal guardians, enroll children in schools outside their school districts by intentionally violating the residency requirements. The Essay begins by revisiting the debate on intellectual property rights as property rights. It discusses the ill fit between intellectual property law and the traditional property model, the impediments the law has posed to public access to education, and select reforms that have emerged both inside and outside the property regime. The Essay then turns to the debate on property and education in the human rights context. It argues that the norms and practices relating to the human right to education provide important insights into the debate. It also states that the discussion in the human rights forum will help evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of introducing positive rights to foster public access to education. The Essay concludes by applying the insights gleaned from the debate on property and education in the intellectual property and human rights contexts to the phenomenon surrounding so-called “education theft.” Specifically, the Essay calls for the development of a more sophisticated understanding of property rights in their historical and socioeconomic contexts, a careful evaluation of the expediency of criminalizing residency requirement violations, and an exploration of potential technological solutions to address problems raised by these violations.

The full text of this Essay can be found by clicking the PDF link to the left.

* Regents Professor of Law and Communication and Director, Center for Law and Intellectual Property, Texas A&M University. An earlier version of this Essay was presented at the Columbia Law Review Property and Education Symposium. The author is grateful to Professors LaToya Baldwin Clark and Timothy Mulvaney for organizing this Symposium and to Professors Margaret Chon, Rachel Moran, Timothy Mulvaney, Madhavi Sunder, Erika Wilson, other Symposium participants, and the Law Review editors for their valuable comments and suggestions.

INTRODUCTION

In the past few years, courts, policymakers, and commentators have paid considerable attention to how the law engages with education. Later this term, the United States Supreme Court will decide Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College , which addresses whether institutions of higher education can factor race into admissions decisions. 1 1 980 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 142 S. Ct. 895 (2022); see also Yuvraj Joshi, Racial Indirection, 52 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 2495, 2556–67 (2019) (discussing the future of affirmative action that this litigation may have shaped). ... Close Politicians, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials have also actively pushed for increased criminal penalties for enrollment fraud or what they have called “education theft.” 2 2 Kyle Spencer, Can You Steal an Education? Wealthy School Districts Are Cracking Down on “Education Thieves”, Hechinger Rep. (May 18, 2015), https: //hechingerreport.org/can-you-steal-an-education/ [https://perma.cc/HXK5-MQDM]. See generally LaToya Baldwin Clark, Education as Property, 105 Va. L. Rev. 397, 403–21 (2019) [hereinafter Baldwin Clark, Education as Property] (discussing the use of residency, criminal, civil, and education laws to combat the phenomenon of “stealing education”); LaToya Baldwin Clark, Stealing Education, 68 UCLA L. Rev. 566 (2021) [hereinafter Baldwin Clark, Stealing Education] (discussing the phenomenon of “stealing education”); La Darien Harris, Note, The Criminalization of School Choice: Punishing the Poor for the Inequities of Geographic School Districting, 44 J. Legis. 306 (2018) (discussing the criminalization of residency requirement violations). ... Close Invoking property rights to emphasize the conduct’s wrongfulness, 3 3 Cf. Mark A. Lemley, Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 873, 896 (1997) (reviewing James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (1996)) (noting that “‘infringement’ may be a morally neutral term, but ‘theft’ is clearly wrong”). ... Close this label refers to an intentional violation of residency requirements for school enrollment to obtain “a seat in a classroom that the taxpayers . . . have designated for a resident child”—such as when a parent or legal guardian falsifies a nonresident child’s home address. 4 4 Baldwin Clark, Education as Property, supra note 2, at 411; see also id. at 406 & n.47 (listing the statutory provisions that criminalize theft of education); Baldwin Clark, Stealing Education, supra note 2, at 592–98 (discussing those laws); Harris, supra note 2, at 319–27 (discussing laws criminalizing theft of education in Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia). ... Close

In academic literature, Professor LaToya Baldwin Clark wrote a pioneering article entitled Education as Property, which explores the phenomenon of “stealing education” and criticizes local school districts and law enforcement authorities for perpetuating stratification and inequality through surveillance and punishment. 5 5 Baldwin Clark, Education as Property, supra note 2, at 421–24. See generally LaToya Baldwin Clark, Barbed Wire Fences: The Structural Violence of Education Law, 89 U. Chi. L. Rev. 499 (2022) [hereinafter Baldwin Clark, Barbed Wire Fences] (arguing that the structure of U.S. education not only fails to address Black childhood poverty but has also caused tangible harm to poor Black children); Baldwin Clark, Stealing Education, supra note 2 (arguing that laws against “stealing education” contribute to raceclass opportunity hoarding and segregation). ... Close Professor Erika Wilson discusses how the maintenance of predominantly white school districts can generate a process of “social closure” that enables one group to monopolize advantages by closing off opportunities to other groups, usually racialized minorities. 6 6 See Erika K. Wilson, Monopolizing Whiteness, 134 Harv. L. Rev. 2382, 2388–414 (2021). ... Close Professor Rachel Moran laments how increased commodification, segmentation, and stratification have undermined the “democratic promise of higher education.” 7 7 See Rachel F. Moran, City on a Hill: The Democratic Promise of Higher Education, 7 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 73, 75 (2017). ... Close And Professors Michelle Wilde Anderson and Nicole Stelle Garnett have separately written about the changing educational landscapes, covering issues such as school closures and the formation and dissolution of school districts. 8 8 See generally Michelle Wilde Anderson, Making a Regional District: Memphis City Schools Dissolves Into Its Suburbs, 112 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 47 (2012); Margaret F. Brinig & Nicole Stelle Garnett, Catholic Schools and Broken Windows, 9 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 347 (2012); Nicole Stelle Garnett, Disparate Impact, School Closures, and Parental Choice, 2014 U. Chi. Legal F. 289. ... Close

Although intellectual property law seems quite far away from these issues, it is very familiar with the debate on property and education and has much to contribute. Enacted through a constitutional clause that aims to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” 9 9 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. ... Close copyright 10 10 The origin of the U.S. copyright law can be traced back to the English Statute of Anne, which was formally titled “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning.” An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Such Copies, During the Times Therein Mentioned 1710, 8 Ann. c. 19 (Eng.). ... Close and patent laws provide incentives to ensure the development of knowledge, learning materials, and educational technologies. 11 11 See William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law 294–310 (2003) [hereinafter Landes & Posner, Economic Structure] (discussing the economic logic of patent law); William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, 18 J. Legal Stud. 325, 326–33 (1989) [hereinafter Landes & Posner, Economic Analysis] (discussing the basic economics of copyright). ... Close Yet, the continuous expansion of intellectual property rights has greatly reduced public access to education. By enabling rights holders to charge supracompetitive prices—prices that exceed what can be charged in a competitive market—intellectual property rights have made textbooks, research materials, and educational technologies unaffordable. 12 12 See infra text accompanying notes 48–50. ... Close Even well-resourced universities have struggled with increased subscription fees for academic and scientific journals. 13 13 See, e.g., Alex Fox & Jeffrey Brainard, University of California Boycotts Publishing Giant Elsevier Over Journal Costs and Open Access, Science (Feb. 28, 2019), https://www.science.org/content/article/university-california-boycotts-publishing-giant-elsevier-over-journal-costs-and-open [https://perma.cc/E5SW-ZUR3] (reporting the University of California System’s boycott of journal subscriptions from Elsevier due partly to the publisher’s refusal to reduce subscription fees); Ian Sample, Harvard University Says It Can’t Afford Journal Publishers’ Prices, Guardian (Apr. 24, 2012), https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices [https://perma.cc/BD7X-T5XY] (“[A] memo from Harvard’s faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an ‘untenable situation’ at the university by making scholarly interaction ‘fiscally unsustainable’ and ‘academically restrictive’, while drawing profits of 35% or more.”). ... Close In addition, because intellectual property law enables rights holders to decide whether to release the protected products and technologies in local languages or commercially unattractive markets, members of marginalized and disadvantaged communities often do not have ready access to those products and technologies even if they manage to secure the needed economic resources. 14 14 See infra text accompanying notes 63–64. ... Close

This Essay problematizes the increased propertization and commodification of education and calls for a rethink of the emergent concept of “education theft” through the lens of intellectual property and human rights. Part I explores the debate on property and education in the intellectual property context. To foreground the problems raised by property rhetoric in general and the “theft” label in particular, this Part revisits the debate on intellectual property rights as property rights. It discusses the ill fit between intellectual property law and the traditional property model as well as the impediments this law has posed to public access to education. This Part then outlines select reforms advanced by courts, policymakers, and commentators both inside and outside the property regime to improve such access. Because this Essay focuses on education, the discussion of intellectual property rights inevitably gravitates toward copyright law—and, to a lesser extent, patent law. Nevertheless, it is worth keeping in mind that other forms of intellectual property rights can also impede public access to education. 15 15 An example that has received considerable attention during the COVID-19 pandemic is the need for disclosure of tacit knowledge to facilitate the development of vaccines and other health products and technologies. See Peter Lee, New and Heightened Public–Private Quid Pro Quos: Leveraging Public Support to Enhance Private Technical Disclosure, in Intellectual Property, COVID-19, and the Next Pandemic: Diagnosing Problems, Developing Cures (Madhavi Sunder & Sun Haochen eds., forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4058717 [https://perma.cc/2NZC-7SMD]. ... Close

Part II turns to the debate on property and education in the human rights context. The human rights forum is selected for two reasons. First, the norms and practices relating to the human right to education provide important insights into this debate. In fact, commentators have increasingly called for the use of a right to education—both domestically and internationally—to improve public access to education. 16 16 See infra text accompanying notes 122–126. ... Close Second, the human rights forum is accustomed to clashes between competing interests cloaked in rights, such as the tensions and conflicts between the right to education and the right to the protection of the interests resulting from intellectual productions. 17 17 For the author’s prior work in this area, see generally Peter K. Yu, The Anatomy of the Human Rights Framework for Intellectual Property, 69 SMU L. Rev. 37 (2016) [hereinafter Yu, Anatomy]; Peter K. Yu, Intellectual Property and Human Rights 2.0, 53 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1375 (2019) [hereinafter Yu, Human Rights 2.0]; Peter K. Yu, Intellectual Property and Human Rights in the Nonmultilateral Era, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1045 (2012) [hereinafter Yu, Nonmultilateral Era]; Peter K. Yu, Intellectual Property, Human Rights, and Methodological Reflections, in Handbook of Intellectual Property Research: Lenses, Methods, and Perspectives 182 (Irene Calboli & Maria Lillà Montagnani eds., 2021); Peter K. Yu, Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property Interests in a Human Rights Framework, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1039 (2007) [hereinafter Yu, Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property Interests]. ... Close The discussion in the human rights forum will therefore help evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of a key line of reform advanced in the previous Part—the introduction of positive rights to foster public access to education.

Part III applies the insights gleaned from the debate on property and education in the intellectual property and human rights contexts to the phenomenon surrounding so-called “education theft.” This Part calls for the development of a more sophisticated understanding of property rights in their historical and socioeconomic contexts, a careful evaluation of the expediency of criminalizing residency requirement violations, and an exploration of potential technological solutions to address problems raised by these violations.

Essay on Intellectual Property Rights: Top 5 Essays | Law | Business

In this essay we will discuss about:- 1. Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights 2. Need for Intellectual Property Rights 3. Types 4. Advantages 5. Infringement.

Essay on Intellectual Property Rights

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Essay # 1. Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights:

It is important that one should understand the IP rights which may exist in the context of his/her business and are vigilant in their protection. Each type of IP has different threshold protection requirements, which give, rise to different rights and different terms of protection. The requirements and processes for protecting each type of IP in other countries may differ and specialist advice should be sought.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

There are various forms of IP that require registration for protection, including:

a. Patents:

Patents to protect inventions of new or improved technology.

b. Trade Marks:

Trade Marks to protect a sign or marking used to distinguish the identity or source of goods or services.

c. Industrial Designs:

Industrial Designs to protect the design and/or appearance of articles or produced goods.

d. Plant Breeder’s Rights:

Plant Breeder’s Rights to protect new plant varieties.

Other IP rights that occur automatically upon creation and do not require registration for protection, include:

a. Copyright:

Copyright To protect works of art, music, literature, broadcasts, films, sound recordings and computer programs; and

b. Circuit Layout Rights:

Circuit Layout Rights to protect integrated circuit designs.

Essay # 2. Need for Intellectual Property Rights :

a. To provide incentive towards various creative endeavors of the mind by offering protections;

b. To give such creators official recognition;

c. To create repositories of vital information;

d. To facilitate the growth of both domestic industry or culture, and international trade, through the treaties offering multi-lateral protection.

Essay # 3. Types of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs):

The different types of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are:

1. Copyright.

2. Patents.

3. Trademarks.

4. Trade secrets.

5. Geographical Indications.

6. Industrial Designs.

1. Copyright :

Copyright is the right to stop the copying and distribution of certain categories of work. Copyright protects the following categories of published and unpublished works for specified periods of time.

The categories of works protected by copyright and relevant examples include:

a. Literary Works:

Literary Works (for example, emails and newspaper articles).

b. Dramatic Works:

Dramatic Works (for example, plays).

c. Musical Works:

Musical Works (for example, songs, musical scores and soundtracks).

d. Artistic Works:

Artistic Works (for example, paintings, photographs and images).

Films (for example, videos and cinematic performances).

f. Sound Recordings:

Sound Recordings (for example, oral history tapes and recorded lectures).

g. Broadcasts:

Broadcasts (for example, TV and radio).

h. Typographic Works :

Sound Recordings (for example, the arrangement of websites and translations).

A copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.

The copyright holder has the exclusive right to the following with his/her work:

a. To reproduce the work.

b. To prepare derivative works.

c. To sell, lend, distribute copies or transfer ownership.

d. To perform the work publicly.

e. To display the copyrighted work publicly.

To qualify for protection, the work must be original (meaning ‘not copied’), be recorded in a permanent form, and the author must be a qualifying person. Copyright protection does not depend on registration but arises automatically once the work is created. Copyright protection lasts for a long time, generally speaking for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. Copyright does not protect ideas; it will protect them once they are fixed in material or tangible form.

For example, an idea for a story will not be protected by copyright, once the idea is transferred into writing, and then it will be protected by copyright. Another example: many authors write textbooks on physics covering various aspects like mechanics, heat, optics etc. Even though these topics are covered in several books by different authors, each author will have a copyright on the book written by him/her, provided the book is not a copy of some other book published earlier.

2. Patent :

A patent is an exclusive right granted by a country to the owner of an invention to make, use, manufacture and market the invention, provided the invention satisfies certain conditions stipulated in the law. Exclusive right implies that no one else can make, use, manufacture or market the invention without the consent of the patent holder.

The protection secured by the registration of a patent is commonly limited in time, usually 20 years. At the end of the period of protection, the patented invention is said to be within the public domain (i.e., available for anyone to exploit).

The applicant for the protection of an invention is usually the inventor or his successor in title. Inventions have to be registered with the government. A patent registration process can take more than one year, and if it is granted, the inventor gains the legal right to exclude anyone else from manufacturing or marketing it.

Conditions for Granting a Patent:

For an invention to be protected by a patent, it must:

a. Meet the criteria of novelty.

b. Involve an inventive step and;

c. Be capable of industrial application.

An invention is conventionally considered to be novel if it is unknown or unavailable to others prior to the date of application for the patent. That is, the invention must not be anticipated by prior art. Prior art is usually taken to comprise everything disclosed to the public, anywhere in the world by prior publication in a tangible form or in the subject country by oral disclosure, or by use in any way prior to the filing of the patent application.

An invention is said to involve an inventive step if, having regard to the prior art, it would not have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art. In other words, the invention must involve a creative advance on existing knowledge.

An invention shall be considered as industrially applicable where it can be made or used in any kind of industry. In other words a patent will not be granted if it is not useful.

3. Trademark :

Trademarks provide exclusive rights to use distinctive signs, such as symbols, colours, letters, shapes or names to identify the producer of a product, and protect its associated reputation. A trademark can be a combination of words, phrases, symbols, logos, designs, images or devices, used by an individual, legal entity or business organization to distinguish their products from that of others. For example, one can identify the products of Nike, Reebok etc. through their logo, which is embossed on their products.

Trademarks can be registered, which gives the holder the exclusive right to use them. Once registered, trademarks are protected legally and the owners can sue persons who use their trademarks. Trademark protection lasts for 10 years after registration and, like patents, can be renewed.

If a company creates a symbol or name it wishes to use exclusively, it can simply attach the trademark symbol. This effectively marks the territory and gives the company room to prosecute if other companies attempt to use the same symbol for their own purposes.

4. Trade Secret :

Trade secrets are the designs, practice, formulas, instrument, processes, recipes, patterns or ideas, which are used by a company to gain economic advantage over its competitors. The owner of a trade secret does not possess any right over anyone who gains access to that secret independently, but he can prevent the use of trade secret by anyone who has learned it through the owner.

It differs from other types of intellectual property, because it is the responsibility of the owner to keep the secret and it is not protected through government policies. Once the trade secret is leaked, any person can use it.

Examples of trade secrets can be formulas for products, such as the formula for Coca-Cola; compilations of information that provide a business with a competitive advantage, such as a database listing customers; and even advertising strategies and distribution processes. Unlike patents, trade secrets are protected for unlimited period of time, and witho ut any procedural formalities.

5. Geographical Indications :

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that is solely due to the place of origin. A geographical indication merely tells that a product is produced in a certain place and has certain characteristics, which are due to the place of production.

All producers who make their products in a place designated by the geographical indications and share the same qualities can use it. For example, food products sometimes have qualities that derive from their place of production and local environmental factors. Some countries separately protect, geographical indication for goods such as French cognac or Scotch whiskey.

There are two terms used in the context of geographical indication: appellation of origin and indication of source. Indication of source on a product merely indicates that the product originates in the place indicated. Appellation of origin indicates not only the place of origin but also the essential quality link between the product and the area of its origin; e.g., Kolhapuri chappals from Kolhapur, India. Geographical indications can have indefinite life provided these are renewed after a stipulated time specified in the law by paying official fees.

6. Industrial Design :

An industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article; it may consist of three-dimensional features such as shape or surface, or of two- dimensional features such as patterns, lines or colour. The design serves as a tool for product differentiation and lures customers by enhanced visual appeal.

It becomes a kind of intellectual property to be protected. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of products of industry or handicraft: watches, jewellery, fashion and other luxury items, industrial and medical implements, house ware, furniture, electrical appliances, vehicles and architectural structures, textile designs, toys etc.

The design right owner has the exclusive right to stop anyone else from reproducing the design (that is, copying it) by making articles to it for commercial purposes, and the right to stop anyone else dealing in infringing copies of the design by way of trade.

The person who has an industrial design right has the exclusive right to make or sell any objects in which the design is applicable. The right is conferred for a period of 10 to 25 years. For registration, a design needs to be new and original, though the notion of these qualities may vary from country to country.

Essay # 4. Advantages of Intellectual Property Rights :

Intellectual Property (IP) is an umbrella term that covers copyright, patents, trademarks, designs, circuit layout rights, and trade secrets. Each of these terms covers a different type of property that is made up of knowledge.

Some of the advantages of IPRs are:

a. Intellectual property rights help in providing exclusive rights to creator or inventor, thereby induces them to distribute and share information and data instead of keeping it confidential.

b. It provides legal protection and offers them incentive of their work.

c. Rights granted under the intellectual property act helps in socio and economic development.

Essay # 5. Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights :

An intellectual property infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. Generally speaking, the use of a patented invention, copyrighted work, or trademark without the authorization of the IP owner constitutes infringement.

The IP owner may initiate a civil action against an alleged infringer for a violation of any of the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, copyright, or trademark. Depending on the type of intellectual property involved, one may have a variety of ways to respond to violations.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are dealt with by administrative procedures and legal proceedings. In terms of civil liabilities, the infringer may be ordered to stop the infringing act, eradicate the damage done, make public apologies or compensate for damages. In terms of administrative measures and criminal liabilities, they include warnings, orders to stop the infringing act, confiscation of unlawful gains, fines, and compensation for damages.

In all cases of intellectual property violation, negotiation is the simplest and cheapest possible remedy. Sometimes, intellectual property violations occur as the result of innocent mistakes. A simple phone call or friendly letter notifying the perpetrator might be enough to resolve the problem. Litigation is also an option.

As previously mentioned, copyright, patent, and trademark violations are actionable in the federal court system. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is another means of resolving these issues. There are two general types of ADR, mediation and arbitration. Mediation is a process where the parties mutually reach an agreement with the help of a facilitator. Arbitration involves a third party determining the outcome of a dispute.

Intellectual property infringement can be:

1. Copyright Infringement.

2. Patent Infringement.

3. Trademark Infringement.

1. Copyright Infringement :

Copyright gives the creator of the work the right to reproduce the work, make copies, translate, adapt, sell or give on hire and communicate the work to public. Any of these activities done without the consent of the author or his assignee is considered infringement of the copyright.

There is a provision of ‘fair use’ in the law, which allows copyrighted work to be used for teaching and research and development. In other words making one photocopy of a book for teaching students may not be considered an infringement, but making many photocopies for commercial purposes would be considered an infringement.

The copyright act provides several civil remedies for infringement, including the possibility of obtaining injunctive relief, actual damages suffered by the copyright owner due to the infringement, statutory damages, and costs.

2. Patent Infringement :

Patents play an important role in economic development by encouraging technology transfer and investment, research and development, and the discovery of new technologies. Violations of patent laws are known as patent infringement. Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder.

If a defendant is found guilty of patent infringement in a lawsuit brought by the patent holder, the remedies available to the patent holder includes an injunction to cease and prohibit the offending activity by the defendant, damages to compensate for the infringement, and even attorney fees. The law only provides civil remedies in the event of patent infringement; there are no criminal sanctions.

3. Trade Marks Infringement :

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attaching to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees (provided that such authorization was within the scope of the license).

Infringement may occur when one party, the ‘infringer’, uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.

An owner of a trademark may commence legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registration. Trademark infringements carry civil penalties such as injunctions prohibiting continued violations and/or monetary damages.

Related Articles:

• Essay on Intellectual Property | Law | Business
• Term Paper on Intellectual Property Rights | Law | Business Management
• Intellectual Property Rights: Frequently Asked Questions | Business Law
• Rights and Duties of Partners | Business Management

We use cookies

Privacy overview.

How to Write an Essay on the Importance of Intellectual Property Rights: Key Examples

Writing an essay on the importance of intellectual property rights can be a fascinating endeavor. These rights greatly influence creativity, innovation, and economic growth. To create a compelling essay, you’ll need to understand the principles behind intellectual property (IP) rights, present sound arguments, and use robust examples. This guide provides valuable tips and detailed examples to enhance your essay skills.

• What are Intellectual Property Rights?

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are legal protections for creations of the mind, like inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, and images used in commerce. These rights enable creators to profit from their work and prevent others from using it without permission. Understanding the basics of IPR is crucial before diving into why they are important.

Common Types of Intellectual Property Rights

• Patents: Protection for inventions, allowing the patent holder exclusive rights to use, make, or sell the invention for a set period.
• Copyrights: Covers literary, artistic, and musical works, granting the creator exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, or display their work.
• Trademarks: Protects brand names, logos, and symbols that distinguish goods or services.
• Trade Secrets: Protects confidential business information from being disclosed or used without permission.
• Why are Intellectual Property Rights Important?

1. Encouragement of Innovation

IPR incentivize innovation by granting creators exclusive rights to their inventions or works. This exclusivity ensures that inventors can benefit from their endeavors without the fear of immediate replication and loss of profitability.

2. Economic Growth

By protecting IP, countries can foster industries such as pharmaceuticals, technology, and entertainment. Strong IP laws attract foreign investments and drive economic growth by fostering a competitive environment.

3. Cultural Development

Protecting intellectual property encourages the creation of cultural goods and services like music, films, and literature. Artists and creators can derive financial benefits from their work, further promoting cultural enrichment.

4. Consumer Protection

Trademarks and patents ensure that consumers receive high-quality goods and services. For example, patented medicines have undergone rigorous testing, and trademarked goods have a reputation to uphold, ensuring reliability.

• Planning Your Essay on Intellectual Property Rights

Before you start writing, it’s essential to plan your essay. A well-structured essay has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Here’s a roadmap:

Introduction

• Hook: Start with an engaging statement or quote on intellectual property.
• Thesis Statement: Clearly state why intellectual property rights are important.
• Preview: Briefly outline the main points that will be covered.

Body Paragraphs

Each paragraph should focus on a single argument. Here’s a breakdown:

• Explanation: Discuss how IP rights provide financial incentives for inventors.
• Example: Mention a famous inventor who benefited from patent protection.
• Evidence: Cite studies showing increased innovation in countries with strong IP laws.
• Explanation: Analyze how IP rights contribute to economic development.
• Example: Provide examples of industries that thrive due to strong IP protections (e.g., the tech industry in Silicon Valley).
• Evidence: Present data on GDP growth correlating with IP law enforcement.
• Explanation: Explain how copyright laws support the arts.
• Example: Highlight cases where artists’ rights were upheld, promoting further creative work.
• Evidence: Refer to studies or statistics on cultural contributions driven by IP rights.
• Explanation: Discuss the role of trademarks in ensuring product quality.
• Example: Mention cases where trademark violations led to consumer harm.
• Evidence: Show research on the impact of counterfeit goods in markets with weak IP laws.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

A robust essay also considers opposing viewpoints. Address common arguments against IP rights and provide counterarguments:

• Criticism: Some argue IPR can hinder access to knowledge or life-saving medications.
• Rebuttal: Discuss licensing agreements and compulsory licenses to balance innovation with accessibility.
• Summary: Recap the main points discussed in the essay.
• Restate Thesis: Reinforce why intellectual property rights are essential.
• Closing Thought: End with a thought-provoking statement or future outlook on IP rights.
• Three Typical Essay Examples on Intellectual Property Rights

To bring everything into perspective, here are three types of essays you can write on the importance of intellectual property rights:

1. Argumentative Essay

Title: *The Necessity of Intellectual Property Rights in Promoting Innovation*

Thesis: Intellectual property rights are vital for promoting innovation as they provide the necessary financial incentives and protections for inventors and creators.

• Introduction: Definition of IP rights, thesis statement.
• Body: Encouragement of innovation, economic growth, cultural development, consumer protection.
• Counterarguments: Address common criticisms, rebuttals.
• Conclusion: Summary of points, restate thesis, closing thought.

2. Expository Essay

Title: *Understanding the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Today’s Society*

Thesis: Intellectual property rights play a crucial role in modern society by fostering creativity, economic stability, and cultural growth.

• Introduction: Introduction to IP rights, thesis statement.
• Body: Different types of IP rights, their roles and benefits.
• Conclusion: Recap of main points, importance of IP rights in society.

3. Analytical Essay

Title: *Analyzing the Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Economic Development*

Thesis: Strong intellectual property rights contribute significantly to economic development by attracting foreign investment, fostering innovation, and creating job opportunities.

• Introduction: Overview of IP rights and their significance, thesis statement.
• Body: Economic theories related to IP rights, case studies of countries with strong vs. weak IP laws, analysis of data on economic growth and IP enforcement.
• Conclusion: Summary of findings, restatement of thesis, implications for future policymaking.
• Writing Tips for Your Essay
• Research Thoroughly: Ensure you use credible sources to support your arguments.
• Use Real-World Examples: Practical examples make your essay more relatable and convincing.
• Be Clear and Concise: Avoid jargon and complicated sentences; clarity is key.
• Proofread: Correct grammar and spelling mistakes to ensure professionalism.
• Stay Engaged: Use a conversational tone, and inject a little humor where appropriate to keep readers hooked.

Writing an essay on the importance of intellectual property rights offers an excellent opportunity to delve into significant issues affecting innovation, economic growth, cultural development, and consumer protection. By following the roadmap and using the provided examples, you’ll be well-prepared to craft a compelling and insightful essay. Remember to research thoroughly, use real-life examples, and proofread your work to ensure it stands out.

How to Write an Essay on the Importance of Honesty: 3 Best Examples

Honesty is more than just a virtue; it's essential in all aspects of life. Learn how to craft a powerful essay on the importance of honesty with these exemplary examples and tips.

How to Write an Essay on The Importance of Teamwork: 3 Best Examples

Teamwork is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, deeply ingrained in every sphere of life, whether in the workplace, school, or community. The keyword here is 'importance of teamwork essay example.' In this article, we will explore some tips and provide examples to help you write an exemplary essay on the importance of teamwork. Grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and let's delve into the world of teamwork.

30 ‘In Conclusion’ Synonyms and How To Use Them Write Better Essays

A strong closing section is essential for any essay. Whether you’re writing an argumentative essay, an exposition, or a narrative essay, the conclusion needs to be one of the most impactful parts of your writing. If you’re looking at ‘in conclusion’ synonyms, then you likely need some help with crafting an impactful summary section.

Breadcrumbs

What’s yours isn’t mine: ai and intellectual property.

Kathleen Day, lecturer of finance, business communication and law and ethics at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, shares how artificial intelligence may violate intellectual property law.

Computers that think and feel as humans do still belong to the future. But astounding advances in AI have given it the ability to write papers on everything from Hamlet to quantum physics, and also to drive our cars, and aid in medical research and diagnosis. 

Computer programmers of generative AI feed machines thousands of examples—pictures of the human face, works of visual art, literature—and ask computers to detect patterns they can use to produce something similar. This trial and error is how machines learn to generate images and documents that are increasingly hard to distinguish from work created by humans. The question is: When computers detect patterns from copyrighted material, does what they generate amount to plagiarism, and thus a violation of intellectual property law?

What is at stake?

We all benefit from new drugs, improved procedures, and the myriad of other advances AI has helped deliver. But what if the people whose work led to these breakthroughs lack the incentive to keep producing groundbreaking research? If AI uses their intellectual property without permission or compensation, they may have less incentive to produce more. That halts progress for everyone, and, paradoxically, for AI itself, as the well of examples computers analyze could dry up. 

Failure to protect intellectual property can discourage writers, artists, and other creators from producing new work and could hinder the existing fountain of human creativity—the very thing computers use to learn to mimic us.

Diminishing returns

Because this genie can’t be put back in the bottle, generative AI will become ever more pervasive. So how can we protect intellectual property?

Ongoing intellectual property lawsuits will help settle legal questions, but even if the AI programmers win, their headache could persist. They already worry they are running out of new material to use to teach AI computers, which leads to reusing material – specifically using AI-generated products to teach AI. That creates a synthetic base of examples that rely on technology without human review or intervention, creating the potential to yield increasingly poor learning outcomes.

Optimizing AI for ethical use

To iron out the problems so that we can use AI to its fullest potential, we must address the issue of intellectual property rights to ensure creators – from writers to artists to researchers – will continue to share their work for all to learn from and enjoy. 

In the meantime, how can you use generative AI ethically? Here are some tips:

•  Always disclose when you use AI, whether you’re writing an email, completing an assignment, or submitting a project at work.
• Triple-check any AI results for plagiarism by verifying the sources it used and citing any of that information used in your own work. 
•  Be cautious about false information and “AI hallucinations” – a phenomenon that happens when AI generates outputs based on insufficient or biased data, incorrect modeling assumptions, or even bad actors intentionally manipulating material.  Don’t believe everything AI generates, and be sure to check that the information came from multiple, reliable sources. 

We’re living in a time that will be remembered as the new age of artificial intelligence. Young professionals are pioneering a new territory as more uses for the technology are uncovered. But as with any new product that hits the market, it is always best to be cautious. 

Authored by Kathleen Day, MBA, MS

A business author and journalist, Kathleen Day, MBA, MS, is a full-time lecturer at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School with a specialty in financial crises and how they spread; in corporate governance; and in business communication, particularly during crises. In addition to financial crises, her interests include the related topics of corporate governance, particularly the history of the corporate form; government regulation and oversight; lobbying and campaign finance; ethics; crisis communication; antitrust; and the application of artificial intelligence, including in finance.  

Media Inquiry

Discover related content.

• Mickey Mouse heads to the public domain, but...
• Malpractice concerns impact physician...
• AI for health equity: navigating the future of...

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Science & Technology

Make Your Note

Intellectual Property Rights

• 02 Aug 2019
• 14 min read
• GS Paper - 2
• GS Paper - 3
• Government Policies & Interventions
• Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)

What are Intellectual Property Rights?

• Intellectual property rights (IPR) are the rights given to persons over the creations of their minds: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names and images used in commerce. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time.
• These rights are outlined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for the right to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from authorship of scientific, literary or artistic productions.
• The importance of intellectual property was first recognized in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) . Both treaties are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) .

Intellectual property rights are customarily divided into two main areas:

(i) Copyright and rights related to copyright:

• The rights of authors of literary and artistic works (such as books and other writings, musical compositions, paintings, sculpture, computer programs and films) are protected by copyright, for a minimum period of 50 years after the death of the author .

(ii) Industrial property:  Industrial property can be divided into two main areas:

• Trademarks distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
• Geographical Indications (GIs) identify a good as originating in a place where a given characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
• The protection of such distinctive signs aims to stimulate and ensure fair competition and to protect consumers, by enabling them to make informed choices between various goods and services.
• The protection may last indefinitely, provided the sign in question continues to be distinctive.
• Industrial designs and trade secrets: Other types of industrial property are protected primarily to stimulate innovation, design and the creation of technology . In this category fall inventions (protected by patents ), industrial designs and trade secrets .

What is the need of IPR?

The progress and well-being of humanity rest on its capacity to create and invent new works in the areas of technology and culture.

• Encourages innovation: The legal protection of new creations encourages the commitment of additional resources for further innovation.
• Economic growth: The promotion and protection of intellectual property spurs economic growth, creates new jobs and industries, and enhances the quality and enjoyment of life.
• Safeguard the rights of creators: IPR is required to safeguard creators and other producers of their intellectual commodity, goods and services by granting them certain time-limited rights to control the use made of the manufactured goods.
• It promotes innovation and creativity and ensures ease of doing business .
• It facilitates the transfer of technology in the form of foreign direct investment, joint ventures and licensing.

India and IPR

• India is a member of the World Trade Organisation and committed to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement) .
• India is also a member of World Intellectual Property Organization, a body responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property rights throughout the world.
• Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure
• Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
• Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization
• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
• Patent Cooperation Treaty
• Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks- Madrid Protocol
• Washington Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of Integrated Circuits
• Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol
• Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms
• Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities.

National IPR Policy

• The National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy 2016 was adopted in May 2016 as a vision document to guide future development of IPRs in the country.
• It’s clarion call is “Creative India; Innovative India” .
• It encompasses and brings to a single platform all IPRs, taking into account all inter-linkages and thus aims to create and exploit synergies between all forms of intellectual property (IP), concerned statutes and agencies.
• It sets in place an institutional mechanism for implementation , monitoring and review. It aims to incorporate and adapt global best practices to the Indian scenario.
• Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, has been appointed as the nodal department to coordinate, guide and oversee the implementation and future development of IPRs in India.
• The ‘Cell for IPR Promotion & Management (CIPAM)’ , setup under the aegis of DIPP, is to be the single point of reference for implementation of the objectives of the National IPR Policy.
• India’s IPR regime is in compliance with the WTO's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) .
• IPR Awareness: Outreach and Promotion - To create public awareness about the economic, social and cultural benefits of IPRs among all sections of society.
• Generation of IPRs - To stimulate the generation of IPRs.
• Legal and Legislative Framework - To have strong and effective IPR laws, which balance the interests of rights owners with larger public interest.
• Administration and Management - To modernize and strengthen service-oriented IPR administration.
• Commercialization of IPRs - Get value for IPRs through commercialization.
• Enforcement and Adjudication - To strengthen the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IPR infringements.
• Human Capital Development - To strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IPRs.

Achievements under new IPR policy

• Improvement in GII Ranking: India’s rank in the Global Innovation Index (GII) issued by WIPO has improved from 81st in 2015 to 52nd place in 2019.
• Strengthening of institutional mechanism regarding IP protection and promotion.
• Automatic issuance of electronically generated patent and trademark certificates has also been introduced.
• Increase in Patent and trademark Filings: Patent filings have increased by nearly 7% in the first 8 months of 2018-19 vis-à-vis the corresponding period of 2017-18. Trademark filings have increased by nearly 28% in this duration.
• IP Process Re-engineering Patent Rules, 2003 have been amended to streamline processes and make them more user friendly. Revamped Trade Marks Rules have been notified in 2017.
• Creating IPR Awareness : IPR Awareness programs have been conducted in academic institutions, including rural schools through satellite communication, and for industry, police, customs and judiciary.
• Technology and Innovation Support Centres (TISCs): In conjunction with WIPO, TISCs have been established in various institutions across different states.

Issues in India’s IPR regime

• This means that the Indian Patent Act does not allow evergreening of patents .
• This has been a cause of concern to the pharma companies. Section 3(d) was instrumental in the Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejecting the patent for Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate).
• CL is the grant of permission by the government to entities to use, manufacture, import or sell a patented invention without the patent-owner’s consent. Patents Act in India deals with CL.
• CL is permitted under the WTO’s TRIPS (IPR) Agreement provided conditions such as ‘national emergencies, other circumstances of extreme urgency and anti-competitive practices’ are fulfilled.
• In its latest Special 301 report released by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the US termed India as “one of the world’s most challenging major economies" with respect to protection and enforcement of IP.
• Data Exclusivity: Foreign investors and MNCs allege that Indian law does not protect against unfair commercial use of test data or other data submitted to the government during the application for market approval of pharmaceutical or agro-chemical products. For this they demand a Data Exclusivity law.
• Enforcement of the Copyright act is weak, and piracy of copyrighted materials is widespread.

Way Forward

• Promoting an environment of innovations in schools. The academic curricula need to be rebooted.
• A proper resolution mechanism for resolving IPR related issues is needed.
• India will be unable to take full advantage of the transformative benefits of a strong IP system unless and until it addresses gaps in its IP laws and regulations.
• More awareness is needed about the creation, protection and enforcement of IPRs to encourage the Indian industry not only to innovate but also to protect and enforce their innovations.
• India has made a number of changes in its IPR regime to increase efficiency and has cut down the time required to issue patents.The culture of innovation is taking centre stage in the country. India is well poised to focus on R&D. This has been reflected in its improved ranking in Global Innovation Index over the years.
• Government’s effort to strengthen National IPR policy, IP appellate tribunal, e-governance and commitment to abide by the TRIPS agreement of WTO in letter and spirit will help in improving perception of India globally.
• An efficient and equitable intellectual property system can help all countries to realize intellectual property’s potential as a catalyst for economic development and social & cultural well-being.

For Mind Map

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property

Copyright & permissions

Recommend to librarian

Your Details

Privacy Policy

Librarian Details

Download leaflet

• Hardback Availability: In Stock List £99.00 Member £89.10

eBook options

Available for individuals to buy from these websites

Or recommend to your institution to acquire on Elgar online

• Buy as part of an eBook subject collection - flexible options available
• Downloading and printing allowed
• No limits on concurrent user access, ideal for course use

Join our mailing list

Law - academic, latest publications.

A Research Agenda for Cultural Heritage Law

Lucas Lixinski

Member price

Judicially Crafted Property Rights in Valuable Intangibles

Apostolos G. Chronopoulos

Hanns Ullrich, Peter Drahos, Gustavo Ghidini

EU Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights Essay (Critical Writing)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Resolving the tensions between Privacy and Intellectual Property Interests

The digital dilemma, ethical aspects of the decss decryption program, reference list.

The article begins by giving background information on two related cases; the Verizon vs. RIAA case and the MGM vs. Grockster case. The appeal process in the Verizon case according to the author was ruled in favor of the privacy rights of users of P2P networks while appeal processes in MGM case was ruled in favor of property rights holders.

According to the author the decreasing public domain in extending the extent of copyright of any copyrightable material is infringed by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Grodzinsky & Tavani 2005, 243). However, Jessica Litman offers a suggestion of possible distribution models that could help expand file-sharing. One such distribution model is the iTune which is compatible with Apple’s MP3 player, the ipod and although this may create distribution monopoly, it is aimed at curbing illegal file-sharing activities.

The other one is the On Demand Distribution (OD2) majorly popular in Europe. Lastly, Litman suggested the application of streaming media which usually applies on the internet radio. Streaming media would help resolve video as well as audio streaming problems (Litman 2003, 219-221). The author also suggests the distribution of Non-DRM information.

Helen Nissenbaum through her theory of Contextual Integrity Theory tries to explain issues surrounding individual privacy concerning P2P networks. Nissenbaum theory of privacy believes that there are aspects of information that have to shape or limit information flow as well as our roles in the information flow. She distinguishes between norms of appropriateness; and distribution.

She asserts that appropriateness of information has to be analyzed before being presented to the public. The author concludes by comparing the protection of privacy rights to that of the university system where not even the student’s parent is allowed to access the child’s information without his or her permission.

The author argues that the advancements in ICT especially the computers networks, the internet, distribution models and the web has increased file-sharing tremendously. However it has also made it almost impossible to protect new technology. He therefore feels that both the intellectual property rights and the privacy rights could be better protected if Nissebaum’s privacy approach and more distribution models could be adopted.

The author expresses his opinion by first showing that not even the courts have been able to effectively deal with controversies surrounding file-sharing. He discusses the technical as well as the theoretical options available and finally gives an ideal example of how the controversies could be resolved.

The Digital Dilemma is documented by Randall Davies who is a professor in the Department of Computer Science at MIT in Cambridge, MA. The Digital Dilemma is taken from the “Communications of the ACM” of February 2001; vol. 44 No. 283.

Davis is concerned about how intellectual property and the final benefits of their creation could be preserved. He recognizes that the combination of computer networks, the web as well as infrastructure-information which is in digital format has both many advantages and disadvantages.

He acknowledges that infrastructure-information presents many challenges which include pragmatics of implementing the laws to prevent individuals from easily breaking the law; as well as the need to review some of the laws that are obstacles to innovations. He recognizes that the society has to adjust to the new ways and therefore it is essential that new business models as well as new intellectual property issues are developed. These have to include economics of information, psychology as well as sociology issues.

The copyright owners and the law enforcers are not able to control reproduction by individuals due to the great access to computers, the widespread digital information as well as infrastructure. The author therefore suggests that selling rather than licensing would better help distribute information economically.

He states that although some companies have used encryption, licensing and other technologies to help them protect intellectual property rights, these have not been able to be effective and sustainable. The author explains that by reducing the prices of the products; producing high volume; and also always improving the quality of the products, it is possible to limit reproduction.

The author argues that the advancements in information technology have come with both benefits and demerits. It has improved the quality, quantity as well as access of various forms of digital information. However, he feels that the development of digital information, the web and the spread of computer networks have even made it more difficult to control copying, thus making protection of intellectual property almost impossible. He argues that private behavior has grown to supersede intellectual property holders.

According to him the problem can be solved by applying technological protection mechanisms, reviewing the laws governing copyright and by adopting innovative business models. The author argues out his case by trying to show the economic logistics behind reproduction to both the intellectual property holders and the privacy owners.

The article is written by Robert Vaagan of Oslo University College and Wallace Koehler of Valdosta State University.

According to the authors, there are several major court rulings which have been very controversial as regards to intellectual property rights and public access rights.

The young Norwegian hacker who was found guilty of Content Scrambling of the protection on the DVDs and was sentenced in 2000 was later acquitted of the charges in 2003 by both the Oslo Municipal Court and the Borgarting appellate court citing no wrong doing. On the other hand, Dmittry Skyarov, a Russian was charged in the US for developing a program that could crack Adobe’s eBook Reader; his employer, ElcomSoft was also charged; however, they were found not guilty by the court.

The authors are of the view that no one is in a position to distinguish the extent of intellectual property rights and privacy rights. It is even more difficult to protect intellectual property rights as each country has its own laws governing information ethics. Companies therefore ensure protection of their intellectual property rights through the use of anti-copying measures like copy bars which some people view that as unethical. The authors agree that piracy is a big threat to innovations.

The authors therefore suggest that it is important to produce cheap version of the products which could be sold to poor countries to reduce piracy as Microsoft plans to do for XP Windows to be sold in Thailand, Malaysia as well as Indonesia (Petreley 2003).

The authors are concerned that the advancements in ICT has made it possible for consumers to develop software for cracking the copy bar codes and even to spread the knowledge to other consumers.

This has made very difficult to protect intellectual property and also discourages new innovations as the courts are also not able to identify the limit of intellectual property owners and public access rights. The authors present their opinion by discussing related cases that have encouraged cracking and hacking and uses them to show the damages these have innovations.

Grodzinsky, F., S., & Tavani, H., T., 2005, P2P networks and the Verizon v. RIAA case: Implications for personal privacy and intellectual property. Ethics and Information Technology , 7 (4): 243-250. New York: Springer.

Litman, J., 2003, Ethical Disobedience: Ethics and Information Technology , 5 (4): 217-223. New York: Springer.

Petreley, N., 2003, Debunking the Linux-Windows market-share myth . Linux World. Web.

• Tangible and Intellectual Property of IT
• Ethics Considerations in Intellectual Property Valuations
• Has the digital age rendered copyright obsolete?
• Copyright Law in UAE
• Insignia of Painting Reproduction
• Media in Representing of Intellectual Property
• Intellectual Property and E-Business
• How the Law Limits Academic Freedom?
• Personal Information Use and Identity Theft
• Copyright and Democratic Governance
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 23). Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-vs-public-rights/

"Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights." IvyPanda , 23 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-vs-public-rights/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights'. 23 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights." April 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-vs-public-rights/.

1. IvyPanda . "Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights." April 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-vs-public-rights/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Intellectual Property Rights vs. Public Rights." April 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-vs-public-rights/.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Intellectual property rights are monopoly rights that grant their holders the temporary privilege for the exclusive exploitation of the income rights from cultural expressions and inventions. There must be good reasons for a society to grant such privileges to some of its individuals, and therefore the proponents of these rights have provided three widely accepted justifications to defend the interwoven global intellectual property rights regime we have in place today.

To argue for the abolition of intellectual property rights we have to challenge all three justifications. Therefore we have discussed whether a creator or inventor can be considered as the owner of an expression or an innovation because he is the individual who created or invented something. We have seen that two components are usually mentioned as justifications for such individual ownership. First, the natural law based justification which, based on self-ownership and Lockean appropriation theories, states that the creator is the owner of his creation because he has put his own labour into his work. In analysing the property concept with John Christman’s distinction between control and income rights, we have seen that the amount of labour one puts into a product is not connected to the surplus one may generate on a market. This does not mean that a seller on a market has not merited his profit, but one cannot say that he deserves it because of his labour. And we have also discussed that control rights do not make much sense for abstract objects, as they are not scarce and do not diminish or lose value when they are used.

Second, the justification by personality rights, which is on one hand based on the concept from Immanuel Kant that expressions are extensions of one’s personality, and on the other hand that ideas are owned by the self-owner like his talents, skills or body parts are owned by him. With the help of Richard Dawkins’ concept of the meme and Daniel Dennett’s multiple drafts model, we have seen that it may be possible that we as individuals are not active agents in the creative process but rather hosts for the replication of memes, which create, through variation, selection and heredity, the building blocks for the cultural evolution we can witness when we observe the development of cultural expressions. Ludwik Fleck’s concept of the thought collective was another theoretical framework for a discussion of the interpersonal aspects of creative processes. All in all, we have seen that it is far from evident that an individual can be considered as the owner of the ideas and expressions which emerge from his brain and therefore the natural law and personality-based justifications are contested.

Utilitarians would assert that, even if we accept that the creative process is a collective process it is still useful to grant these monopoly rights to creators and inventors, as with these incentives more innovation would happen than without, which is better for all and better for the worst off. I have replied to this important argument, and we have seen that different comparative economic studies have revealed that there is probably more innovation in societies without intellectual property law compared to societies with such laws in place.

We have also seen that for free market proponents monopoly rights are hardly to be justified, as they are based on state interference, and that even egalitarians could subscribe to the abolition of intellectual property rights, as they do not contribute to more equality.

There are many good reasons to question the justifications for intellectual property rights and therefore it is time to start the political discussion about the abolition of these rights to create a world in which intellectual property is common property.

This work ( Intellectual Property Is Common Property by Andreas Von Gunten) is free of known copyright restrictions.