DOCSLIB.ORG

Mason Template 1: Title Slide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mason Template 1: Title Slide Economic Rationales for Patents in the Current Context Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D. Professor & Workman Research Scholar University of Illinois Outline • Ex Ante (Traditional) Patent Rationales • Ex Post Patent Rationales – Coordination Value – Signaling – Monetization Value • Private Ordering – Standards – Patent Pools – Non-Traditional Licensing – Patent Pledges Traditional Ex Ante Justifications • Incentive to create • Incentive to invest in R&D • Incentive to finance Ex Ante Rationales-Still Relevant? • Other motivations to invent – First mover advantage – Trade secret protection – Reputational gains/Professional recognition • Patents are an important mechanism to protect technological innovation, even if one of many. Heterogeneous mix needed. • Other reasons to patent – Ex post rationales – Defensive patenting Ex Post Rationales for Patenting • Patents give rights holders control & ability to engage in numerous activities with confidence that their interest is protected • Prospect Theory: Patent rights motivate the holder to continue to invest (commercialize, improve) in the invention • Tragedy of the Commons: Technological innovation is likely to be used inefficiently unless one rights holder has an individual stake in the efficient use of the technology Ex Post Rationale: Coordination in the Value Chain • Patents allow inventors to specialize and collaborate – E.g., University research & TTOs • Especially important in growing number of fields dominated by cumulative technology – E.g., Cell phone components • Modularity is efficient and favored in many sectors Coordination Value & Signaling • Signal to firms--ready for commercialization • Signal to complementary asset holders • Signal to industry/other inventors regarding the status of research • Signal to partners/investors/markets as patents correlate with other less measurable firm attributes (e.g., knowledge capital) Ex Post Rationale – Monetization Value • Patents permit one to assign a value to an intangible asset in a particular market • Licensing • Legal bargaining chip • Appropriation among collaborating rights holders Private Ordering: Standards • Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) – Rights holders contribute their patents towards creation of a standard to be used across the industry. • Very important in fields such as IT where interoperability is crucial. • For example, the LTE Standard LTE Standard Contributors Private Ordering: Patent Pools • Patentees cross-license complementary patents to one another; then offer the pool of patents to others • “In a case involving blocking patents, such an arrangement is the only reasonable method for making the invention available to the public.” Int’l Mfg. Ct. v. Landon • E.g., LTE Standard LTE Standard Licensors • AT&T • China Mobile Communications Corp. • Clear Wireless LLC • Deutsche Telekom AG • DTVG Licensing • Hewlett-Packard Co. • KDDI Corp. • NTT DOCOMO • SK Telecom Co. • Telecom Italia • Telephonica • ZTE Corp. Non–Traditional Licensing • Patents give rights holders the ability to license as they see fit—which can include factors not typically considered in the open market – E.g., Cohen/Boyer patent – E.g., Global Access Licensing Framework Cohen/Boyer Patent “Stanford and the University of California wanted the terms of the license agreement: (a) to be consistent with the public service ideals of the universities; (b) to provide the appropriate incentives to industry to bring genetic engineering technology forward to public use and benefit in an adequate and timely manner; (c) to minimize the potential for biohazardous development; and (d) to provide income for educational and research purposes.” “No genetic engineering research, academic or industrial, was to be inhibited by Stanford’s licensing program.” “Royalty-bearing sales have been divided into four categories: Basic Genetic Products (10% royalty), Bulk Products (1-3%), End products (1/2 – 1%), and Process Improvement Products (10%).” Global Access Licensing Framework “Every university-developed technology with potential for further development into a drug, vaccine, or medical diagnostic should be licensed with a concrete and transparent strategy to make affordable versions available in resource-limited countries for medical care. Licenses are complex and each will be unique. Universities should therefore implement the Global Access Policies that adhere to the following principles…” Patent Pledges • Some firms have pledged not to assert their patents under certain circumstances to facilitate access, develop their own markets, and the like. – E.g., Google – E.g., Tesla Motors “Google is committed to promoting innovation to further the overall growth and advancement of information technology and believes that Free or Open Source Software is a very important tool for fostering innovation. Google is therefore pledging the free use of certain of its patents in connection with Free or Open Source Software on the “Tesla Motors was created to following terms…” accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.” Conclusions • Traditional justifications still apply in many industries. • Ex post justifications explain how patents define and assign value to an innovation, allowing rights holders to more efficiently license, invent complementary assets, collaborate, and appropriate benefits from their innovation. – Leads to greater interoperability and increased access to technology • We still need patents! For more information… • Stuart J.H. Graham et al., High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1255 (2009). • Petra Moser, Innovation Without Patents: Evidence From World's Fairs, 55 J.L. & ECON. 43 (2012). • Petra Moser, Patents & Innovation: Evidence from Economic History, 37 J. ECON. PERSPECTIVES (2013). • Julien Penin, Patents Versus Ex Post Rewards: A New Look, 34 RESEARCH POLICY 641 (2005). For m For more information... • Thomas Hellmann, The Role of Patents for Bridging the Science to Market Gap, 63 J. ECON. BEHAVIOR & ORG. 624 (2007). • Jay P. Kesan, Intellectual Property Protection & Agricultural Biotechnology: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, 44 AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST 464 (2000). • Mark Lemley, Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property, UC Berkeley, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, No. 144. • Clarisa Long, Patent Signals, 69 U. Chi. L. R. 625 (2002). • Daniel F. Spulber, How Patents Provide the Foundation of the Market for Inventions, Northwestern Sch. L., Law & Econ. Series, No. 14-14. For more information... • F. Scott Kieff, Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions, 85 MINN. L. REV. 697 (2001). • Mark Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights & Standard-Setting Organizations, 90 CAL. L. REV. 1889 (2002). LIAR nomics Coming in 2015 How Similar are Copyrights and Patents? Stan Liebowitz University of Texas - Dallas What is protected by P&C? • Copyright is narrow, the “expression” of ideas. • Does not rule out independent identical creation, although highly improbable. • Patent goes to the first “winner” to file. This punishes other independent creators. Is it fair? Is it efficient? Perhaps it should allow all independent creators to “share” patent? Different holders could be allowed to collude. Economic logic is similar • Provide ownership [“monopoly”] over creative/innovative works. • Ownership allows the possibility of price staying above average cost, allowing creator/innovator to cover costs (including cost of creation) and possibly earn a profit. • Increases in profits presumably increases the number of works/innovations. • Period of ownership is limited. The famous “balance” between incentives and consumption levels. • Some claim the main purpose of patents is to ensure optimal commercialization of the innovation, avoid a “tragedy of the commons” type of problem. The Similar Criticisms of P&C • Based on the similar criticisms of each, you would think they were identical. • The extreme version of criticisms: The Similar Criticisms • Based on the similar criticisms of both, you would think P&C were identical. • The extreme version of criticisms: • Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly The Similar Criticisms • Based on the similar criticisms of both, you would think they were identical. • The extreme version of criticisms: • Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly • Creators/inventors would do it for free. • P&C hinders follow-on creations. Nature of the “Monopoly” created. • EVERY PROPERTY RIGHT PROVIDES A MONOPOLY! • But copyright does not restrict entry. It does not provide an economic monopoly. • Copyright critics tend to whine thoughtlessly about monopoly. • Patents, unlike copyrights, keep out independent creators. Patents can provide a viable monopoly, depending on the breadth of the patent. Are Rewards Needed? • The assumption that higher profits (prices) increase production is not usually controversial. But critics are unwilling to apply it to intellectual products. • After all, don’t inventors, writers, composers, just create for the fun of it? Unlike, say, athletes. – Autonomous creation, according to Plant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fuzzy Software Patent Debate Rages On
    OPINION The Fuzzy Software Patent Debate Rages On By Heather J. Meeker LinuxInsider 02/23/05 5:00 AM PT Once upon a time, we intellectual property lawyers got to live peacefully in our ivory towers. Now it seems that intellectual property policy issues have become fraught with partisan rhetoric. Most open-source promoters are against software patents. Most corporate spokesmen side with patents, period, whether they cover software or not. But it is worth looking beyond the rhetoric. The European Commission recently tolled the death knell for the EU Software Patent Directive, or more precisely, the "Directive on the Patentability of Computer- Implemented Inventions." Like most Americans, I am fairly clueless about the EU political process, and I wouldn't presume to write about exactly how it was killed. But the decision may have been swayed by an eleventh-hour public relations pitch against the directive by open-source spokesmen from the United States. On that aspect, I will add my two cents. A delegation of open-source leaders, led by Linus Torvalds, published an "Appeal" at softwarepatents.com, calling software patents "dangerous to the economy at large, and particularly to the European economy." Look Beyond the Rhetoric Leaders of the open-source software movement have long been harsh critics of software patents. The GPL [license] itself says, "any free program is threatened constantly by software patents." The appeal contends that copyright provides adequate protection for the creations of software authors. The Appeal advocated reliance on copyright law, rather than patent law, for the protection of software. Not long afterward, in late January, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee recommended scrapping the pending directive, extending the debate until at least the end From www.linuxinsider.com/story/40676.html 1 April 2011 of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Software Is Wrong
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 Article 7 2007 Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong Peter D. Junger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter D. Junger, Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong, 58 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 333 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol58/iss2/7 This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. MANUSCRIPT* YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE: PATENTING SOFTWARE IS WRONG PeterD. Jungert INTRODUCTION Until the invention of programmable' digital computers around the time of World War II, no one had imagined-and probably no one could have imagined-that methods of solving mathematical . Editor'sNote: This article is the final known manuscript of Professor PeterJunger. We present this piece to you as a tribute to Professor Junger and for your own enjoyment. This piece was not, at the time of ProfessorJunger 's passing, submitted to any Law Review or legal journal.Accordingly, Case Western Reserve University Law Review is publishing this piece as it was last edited by Professor Junger, with the following exceptions: we have formatted the document for printing, and corrected obvious typographical errors. Footnotes have been updated to the best of our ability, but without Professor Junger's input, you may find some errors.
    [Show full text]
  • A Symposium for John Perry Barlow
    DUKE LAW & TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Volume 18, Special Symposium Issue August 2019 Special Editor: James Boyle THE PAST AND FUTURE OF THE INTERNET: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow Duke University School of Law Duke Law and Technology Review Fall 2019–Spring 2020 Editor-in-Chief YOOJEONG JAYE HAN Managing Editor ROBERT HARTSMITH Chief Executive Editors MICHELLE JACKSON ELENA ‘ELLIE’ SCIALABBA Senior Research Editors JENNA MAZZELLA DALTON POWELL Special Projects Editor JOSEPH CAPUTO Technical Editor JEROME HUGHES Content Editors JOHN BALLETTA ROSHAN PATEL JACOB TAKA WALL ANN DU JASON WASSERMAN Staff Editors ARKADIY ‘DAVID’ ALOYTS ANDREW LINDSAY MOHAMED SATTI JONATHAN B. BASS LINDSAY MARTIN ANTHONY SEVERIN KEVIN CERGOL CHARLES MATULA LUCA TOMASI MICHAEL CHEN DANIEL MUNOZ EMILY TRIBULSKI YUNA CHOI TREVOR NICHOLS CHARLIE TRUSLOW TIM DILL ANDRES PACIUC JOHN W. TURANCHIK PERRY FELDMAN GERARDO PARRAGA MADELEINE WAMSLEY DENISE GO NEHAL PATEL SIQI WANG ZACHARY GRIFFIN MARQUIS J. PULLEN TITUS R. WILLIS CHARLES ‘CHASE’ HAMILTON ANDREA RODRIGUEZ BOUTROS ZIXUAN XIAO DAVID KIM ZAYNAB SALEM CARRIE YANG MAX KING SHAREEF M. SALFITY TOM YU SAMUEL LEWIS TIANYE ZHANG Journals Advisor Faculty Advisor Journals Coordinator JENNIFER BEHRENS JAMES BOYLE KRISTI KUMPOST TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors’ Biographies ................................................................................ i. John Perry Barlow Photograph ............................................................... vi. The Past and Future of the Internet: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow James Boyle
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis Innovation Dynamics in Open Source Software
    Master thesis Innovation dynamics in open source software Author: Name: Remco Bloemen Student number: 0109150 Email: [email protected] Telephone: +316 11 88 66 71 Supervisors and advisors: Name: prof. dr. Stefan Kuhlmann Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 3353 Office: Ravelijn RA 4410 (STEPS) Name: dr. Chintan Amrit Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 4064 Office: Ravelijn RA 3410 (IEBIS) Name: dr. Gonzalo Ord´o~nez{Matamoros Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 53 489 3348 Office: Ravelijn RA 4333 (STEPS) 1 Abstract Open source software development is a major driver of software innovation, yet it has thus far received little attention from innovation research. One of the reasons is that conventional methods such as survey based studies or patent co-citation analysis do not work in the open source communities. In this thesis it will be shown that open source development is very accessible to study, due to its open nature, but it requires special tools. In particular, this thesis introduces the method of dependency graph analysis to study open source software devel- opment on the grandest scale. A proof of concept application of this method is done and has delivered many significant and interesting results. Contents 1 Open source software 6 1.1 The open source licenses . 8 1.2 Commercial involvement in open source . 9 1.3 Opens source development . 10 1.4 The intellectual property debates . 12 1.4.1 The software patent debate . 13 1.4.2 The open source blind spot . 15 1.5 Litterature search on network analysis in software development .
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs
    Ekonomi och samhälle Economics and Society Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr 246 Rosa Maria Ballardini Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs Developments, Challenges, and Pressures for Change Helsinki 2012 < Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Programs: Developments, Challenges, and Pressures for Change Key words: computer programs, software, intellectual property law, patents, copyright, open source software © Hanken School of Economics & Rosa Maria Ballardini, 2012 Rosa Maria Ballardini Hanken School of Economics Department of Accounting and Commercial Law P.O.Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland ONM VIR EN Hanken School of Economics N TA E L IC L A D B R E O ISBN 978-952-232-173-2 (printed ) L N ISBN 978-952-232-174-9 (PDF) ISSN-L 0424-7256 ISSN 0424-7256 (printed) 441 002 ISSN 2242-699X (PDF) Printed matter Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki 2012 i PREFACE While growing up in a small, remote village in the Italian Alps, I could not help but dream about exotic destinations and faraway lands. Back then I never imagined myself embarking on a journey that would eventually materialize into a PhD project at a Finnish University. However, the greatest travels are often those without clear destinations or meticulous planning, and as it turns out this has been one of my best voyages. On this journey, I’ve drifted and sailed. Thankfully, I’ve benefited from the guidance and support of many. First and foremost, the vast academic experience and accommodating personalities of my supervisors have been crucial for developing both the research and the independent thinking skills necessary for any doctoral project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Software Patent Debate Andre´S Guadamuz Gonza´Lez*
    Jnl. Intellectual Property Law and Practice Advance Access published January 10, 2006 _____________________ | | | | Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice ARTICLE | 1of11 | The software patent debate Andre´s Guadamuz Gonza´lez* It was never the object of patent laws to grant a mono- poly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade Key issues of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary The recent demise of the proposed Directive on progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate cre- Computer-Implemented Inventions has over- ation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct shadowed its complex background and the than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculat- interplay of conflicting interests that it brought ive schemers who make it their business to watch the into play. advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam Copyright (which already protects all software) in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them and patent law (which protects much software to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of in the United States but relatively little else- the arts. where) both have their strengths and weak- US Supreme Court, Atlantic Works v Brady, 1882 nesses as legal rights. Little evidence has, however, been adduced as to the incentive effect of either of these legal regimes. 1. Introduction The decision to withdraw the proposed Direc- The approval procedure of the proposed Directive tive does not mean that the issues addressed on the Patentability of Computer-implemented in it and the interests affected by it have been Inventions1 (the CII Directive) has sparked a heated resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Day After the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: Who Won the Battle and When Shall the War End? Konstantinos Fotinopoulos *
    Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2007 The day after the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: who won the battle and when shall the war end? Konstantinos Fotinopoulos * Abstract This article follows the debate about the patentability of software after the demise of the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, particularly exploring the misconception that software is not patentable in Europe, and the belief that this places the local software industry at a competitive disadvantage and that it is a less attractive place for investment compared to the US and Japan. The article assesses whether there is indeed a need for a change in law or in practice and if so, to ascertain the path that Europe should follow. DOI: 10.2966/scrip.040207.180 © Konstantinos Fotinopoulos 2007. This work is licensed through SCRIPT-ed Open Licence (SOL) . * Ilias Fotinopoulos & Associates Law Office, Athens, Greece, [email protected] SCRIPT-ed (2007) 4:2 181 “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” 1 Bill Gates “There is evidence, in the shape of the mass of US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out. But not otherwise.” Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1371. 1. Introduction The demise of the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions 2 in July 2005 3 signaled the end of one of the most intense lobbying and activist battles in recent years in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of the Patentability of Computer Software Under the Trips Agreement: the U.S., the E.U., and Turkey
    Ankara Law Review Vol.4 No.1 (Summer 2007), pp.43-81 A Comparative Analysis Of The Patentability Of Computer Software Under The Trips Agreement: The U.S., The E.U., And Turkey Talat KAYA1 ABSTRACT The question of how to protect new intellectual creations, which emerged as a consequence of the developments in information technologies, brings about substantial debate. Undoubtedly, one of the most controversial issues in this area is the matter of which form of intellectual property protection is appropriate for computer programs. Although copyrights and patents are the two possible intellectual property forms under which computer programs might be protected, countries take different attitudes in this field depending on their level of advancement in the sector. The current international consensus on this subject is that copyright protection provided under TRIPS Agreement is most appropriate. Nevertheless, since there is no provision in the TRIPs agreement that prevents the patentability of computer programs, these creations could also be a subject matter of patents. ÖZET Bilgi teknolojilerinde yaşanan gelişmeler sonrasında ortaya çıkan yeni bir takım fikri ürünlerin nasıl korunacağı sorusu bir takım tartışmaları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu alanda en çok tartışılan konulardan bir tanesi şüphesiz bilgisayar 1 Foreign Trade Expert, Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministry for Foreign Trade. Graduated from Ankara University School of Law in 1998 and received a Master of Laws (LL.M.) Degree from Vanderbilt University, USA in 2005. Currently, working as a Junior Counsel under the Secondment Programme for Trade Lawyers of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL). This article is an updated version of the author‟s Master‟s thesis that had been available online under the name “Patentability of Computer Software under the TRIPS Agreement and its Applications in the U.S., the EU, and Turkey.” 44 Ankara Law Review Vol.4 No.1 programlarının hangi fikri mülkiyet çeşidi altında korunacağı hususudur.
    [Show full text]
  • Tilburg University Breaking and Remaking Law and Technology Dizon
    Tilburg University Breaking and remaking law and technology Dizon, Michael Publication date: 2016 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Dizon, M. (2016). Breaking and remaking law and technology: A socio-techno-legal study of hacking. [s.n.]. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 27. sep. 2021 B REAKING AND R EMAKING L AW AND TECHNOL OGY A Socio-Techno-Legal Study of Hacking MICHAEL ANTHONY C. DIZON B REAKING AND R EMAKING L AW AND TECHNOL OGY A Socio-Techno-Legal Study of Hacking Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rec- tor magnificus, prof.dr. E.H.L. Aarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Universiteit op dinsdag 28 juni 2016 om 16.15 uur door MICHAEL ANTHONY CO DIZON geboren op 13 juni 1975 te Quezon City, Filipijnen Promotores: prof.dr.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages
    White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INTERNET POLICY TASK FORCE January 2016 Message from Secretary Penny Pritzker Since the founding of our nation, the United States has recognized the importance of copyright in encouraging creative expression by incentivizing people to produce and share the works that contribute to America’s leading role as a cultural and economic powerhouse. Our copyright system plays a critical role in promoting and disseminating works of authorship and provides diverse benefits for large and small businesses, consumers, authors, artists, and workers in the information, entertainment, and technology sectors. A healthy copyright system strikes important balances between rights and exceptions— delineating what is protectable and what is not, determining which types of uses require permission or payment, and establishing appropriate frameworks to effectively protect rights and foster creativity and innovation. These balances must be reviewed regularly to ensure they continue to function well as a foundation for America’s culture and economy. The Internet has transformed the world by introducing new ways for people to communicate, create, innovate, and conduct business in the global digital economy. The goals of our national copyright policy and our global Internet policy should work in tandem. The U.S. Department of Commerce has played a key role in addressing Internet policy-related issues since it launched the Internet Policy Task Force in April 2010. Two years ago, the Task Force published a Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity and Innovation in the Digital Economy—the most comprehensive assessment of digital copyright policy issued by any Administration since 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Anomaly of Existing Intellectual Property Protection for Software
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Saskatchewan's Research Archive UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN Anomaly of Existing Intellectual Property Protection for Software A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws (L.L.M) in the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Molla Mekonen Abey Copyright Molla Mekonen Abey, May, 2017. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Deans of the Colleges in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Dean College of Law University of Saskatchewan 15 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A6Canada OR Dean College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies University of Saskatchewan 105 Administration Place Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A2 Canada i ABSTRACT The digital sphere, “cyberspace,” is growing by leaps and bounds.
    [Show full text]
  • “BRICS” Compulsory Licensing and IT Interoperability Frameworks†
    KOGAN (DO NOT DELETE) 1/31/2012 9:56 AM Commercial High Technology Innovations Face Uncertain Future Amid Emerging “BRICS” Compulsory Licensing and IT Interoperability Frameworks† LAWRENCE A. KOGAN* † © 2011 Lawrence A. Kogan. * Lawrence A. Kogan is founder and Managing Attorney of The Kogan Law Group, P.C., a New York City–based multidisciplinary professional services firm specialized in identifying and addressing emerging regulatory, policy and trade risks posed to multinational company assets, operations and supply-chains. He is President/Director of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a Princeton, NJ-based nonprofit legal research, analytics and educational organization admitted as an ad hoc observer to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP). This Article was inspired by the side-bar event the author convened in Geneva, Switzerland on October 12, 2010 during the 15th Session of the WIPO SCP entitled, Can Government Intervention Sustain Economic Incentive, Technological Innovation, and Capital Flows?. The flyer, handout materials and Précis of the side-bar event are accessible online at the ITSSD at http://www.itssd.org/ITSSD %20October%2012,%202010%20WIPO%20SCP%20side-bar%20event%20flyer.pdf; http://www.itssd.org/ITSSD%20WIPO%20SCP%20Side-bar%20Geneva%2010-12- 10%20-%20Handout%20Materials.pdf; and http://www. itssd.org/ITSSD%20WIPO%20 SCP%20Side-bar%20Geneva%2010-12-10%20Precis%20Final.pdf. This Article was also inspired by the author’s participation at the SCP’s 15th plenary session (Oct. 11–15, 2010). See Draft Report prepared by the Secretariat of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 15th Session, World Intellectual Property Organization (SCP/15/6/PROV.) (Dec.
    [Show full text]