The Experts below are selected from a list of 160050 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Abdalaziz Alfarraj - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intellectual property Protection in Emerging Economies and Trade Related intellectual property Rights
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Abdalaziz AlfarrajAbstract:In a perfect competition market system, there is no firm with market power, differentiated products, and there are no restrictions on entry or exit. However, economists have argued that knowledge serves as the competitive advantage in a perfect market. Such knowledge is used in the production of superior products, better methods of production, and gaining information that other organizations lack. Firms obtain knowledge through engaging in research and development. They require incentives to engage in research and development activities with the aim of creating knowledge or technologies that offer them a superior competitive advantage. Different countries have legal instruments that aim to protect such knowledge, known as intellectual properties. intellectual property instruments include patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets. intellectual property protection enables organizations to undertake research and development with certainty that they will recoup their costs and obtain financial benefits. intellectual property protection is important to emerging economies because it helps in the creation of new knowledge, broad sharing of knowledge, and promotes economic growth. Economic growth is through increased foreign direct investments, transfers of innovations, creation of new enterprises, and lowering transaction costs in trade. However, intellectual property protection also has negative impacts on emerging economies. It increases the market power of the rights owners, which impacts competition and pricing of products. It also leads to labor displacements in the short-term as people in newly protected sectors become temporarily unemployed. It could also deter foreign direct investment because foreign firms may prefer licensing instead of direct investment. intellectual property protection may raise the cost of domestic innovation. Emerging economies may also experience problems in the administration and enforcement of protection in their countries. The benefits of intellectual property protection can be enhanced through the creation of an environment that favors economic growth. Emerging economies can obtain the benefits of intellectual property protections through an enactment of competitive policies, promotion of competitive practices, and increase the ability to utilize intellectual property protection.
Edwin L C Lai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
international protection of intellectual property
The American Economic Review, 2004Co-Authors: Gene M Grossman, Edwin L C LaiAbstract:We study the incentives that governments have to protect intellectual property in a trading world economy. We consider a world economy with ongoing innovation in two countries that differ in market size and in their capacities for innovation. After describing the determination of national patent policies in a non-cooperative regime of patent protection, we ask, Why is intellectual property better protected in the North than in the South? We also study international patent agreements by deriving the properties of an efficient global regime of patent protection and asking whether harmonization of patent policies is necessary or sufficient for global efficiency.(JEL O34, F13) During the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the United States and several European countries expressed strong dissatisfaction with what they deemed to be inadequate protection of intellectual property in many developing countries. The developed countries made the upgrading of intellectual property rights (IPRs) one of their highest priorities for the Uruguay Round of trade talks. Their efforts bore fruit in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of intellectual property Rights (TRIPs), which was approved as part of the Final Act of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs establishes minimum standards of protection for several categories of intellectual property. For example, in the area of new technology, it essentially harmonizes
Elizabeth F. Judge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intellectual property Law as an Internal Limit on intellectual property Rights and Autonomous Source of Liability for intellectual property Owners
2007Co-Authors: Elizabeth F. JudgeAbstract:This article considers the interplay between intellectual property rights and classic property rights raised by Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada and advances the idea that intellectual property law can serve as its own source of liability for intellectual property owners. This article suggests a theoretical framework to support the idea that intellectual property law, and patent law, in particular, are an autonomous source of liability for intellectual property owners and intellectual property law itself is a source of internal limits on intellectual property rights. It develops the conceptual advantages of demarcating physical and intellectual properties and allocating rights and responsibilities based on the respective property sphere, using the exhaustion doctrine under intellectual property law as illustration. It then turns to develop a theoretical basis to derive continuing duties on the patentee based on patent law through a Hohfeldian framework, in which the grant of a positive limited term monopoly right entails a corresponding duty on the patentee. While the orthodox version of patent law constructs it as a bargain between the patentee and the public, in which the quid pro quo (or Hohfeldian duty) for the patentee is public disclosure, under the theory introduced here of intellectual property as an autonomous source of rights and duties, the reciprocal duties corresponding to the patent rights could be more far reaching than public disclosure. The paper serves as a prolegomena to a detailed matrix of those rights and duties within intellectual property law and introduces the theoretical basis for establishing such internal limits within intellectual property. This matrix of rights and duties under intellectual property law could set up patent law as an alternative legal framework to tort law to address harms caused by inventions.
-
intellectual property Law as an Internal Limit on intellectual property Rights and Autonomous Source of Liability for intellectual property Owners
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 2007Co-Authors: Elizabeth F. JudgeAbstract:This article considers the interplay between intellectual property rights and classic property rights raised by Hoffman v. Monsanto (2005) and advances the idea that intellectual property law can serve as an autonomous source of liability for intellectual property owners. The article develops the conceptual advantages of demarcating physical and intellectual properties and allocating rights and responsibilities based on the respective property sphere. It introduces a theoretical Hohfeldian framework, in which the grant of a positive limited-term monopoly right entails a corresponding duty, to establish intellectual property law as a source of internal limits on intellectual property rights. The article is a prolegomena to a detailed matrix of those rights and duties within intellectual property law. This matrix could support patentee duties that go beyond public disclosure of the invention and could establish patent law as an alternative legal framework to tort law to address harms caused by inventions.
Gene M Grossman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
international protection of intellectual property
The American Economic Review, 2004Co-Authors: Gene M Grossman, Edwin L C LaiAbstract:We study the incentives that governments have to protect intellectual property in a trading world economy. We consider a world economy with ongoing innovation in two countries that differ in market size and in their capacities for innovation. After describing the determination of national patent policies in a non-cooperative regime of patent protection, we ask, Why is intellectual property better protected in the North than in the South? We also study international patent agreements by deriving the properties of an efficient global regime of patent protection and asking whether harmonization of patent policies is necessary or sufficient for global efficiency.(JEL O34, F13) During the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the United States and several European countries expressed strong dissatisfaction with what they deemed to be inadequate protection of intellectual property in many developing countries. The developed countries made the upgrading of intellectual property rights (IPRs) one of their highest priorities for the Uruguay Round of trade talks. Their efforts bore fruit in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of intellectual property Rights (TRIPs), which was approved as part of the Final Act of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs establishes minimum standards of protection for several categories of intellectual property. For example, in the area of new technology, it essentially harmonizes
Laurence R. Helfer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intellectual property and Human Rights - intellectual property and Human Rights
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2017Co-Authors: Laurence R. HelferAbstract:Contents: Acknowledgements Introduction Laurence R. Helfer PART I REDISCOVERING THE HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF CREATORS' RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 1. Peter K. Yu (2007), 'Reconceptualizing intellectual property Interests in a Human Rights Framework' PART II CLARIFYING AMBIGUOUS OR UNDERDEVELOPED LEGAL NORMS 2. Laurence R. Helfer (2007), 'Toward a Human Rights Framework for intellectual property' 3. Audrey R. Chapman (2009), 'Towards an Understanding of the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Applications' 4. Margaret Chon (2007), 'intellectual property "From Below": Copyright and Capability for Education' 5. Graeme W. Austin and Amy G. Zavidow (2008), 'Copyright Law Reform Through a Human Rights Lens' 6. Hans Morten Haugen (2008), 'Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions' 7. Christophe Geiger (2006), '"Constitutionalising" intellectual property Law? The Influence of Fundamental Rights on intellectual property in the European Union' PART III ADVOCATING THE RECOGNITION OF NEW LEGAL NORMS 8. Rosemary J. Coombe (1998), 'intellectual property, Human Rights and Sovereignty: New Dilemmas in International Law Posed by the Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge and the Conservation of Biodiversity' 9. Alicia Ely Yamin (2003), 'Not Just A Tragedy: Access to Medications as a Right Under International Law' 10. Molly Beutz Land (2009), 'Protecting Rights Online' 11. Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan (2009), 'Time for a Paradigm Shift? Exploring Maximum Standards in International intellectual property Protection' PART IV INSTITUTIONAL AND STRATEGIC ISSUES 12. Laurence R. Helfer (2004), 'Regime Shifting: The TRIPS Agreement and New Dynamics of International intellectual property Lawmaking' 13. Peter K. Yu (2012), 'intellectual property and Human Rights in the Nonmultilateral Era' 14. Lisa Forman (2008), '"Rights" and Wrongs: What Utility for the Right to Health in Reforming Trade Rules on Medicines?' PART V CRITICAL OR CAUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES 15. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss (2010), 'Patents and Human Rights: Where is the Paradox?' 16. Laurence R. Helfer (2008), 'The New Innovation Frontier? intellectual property and the European Court of Human Rights' 17. Thomas W. Pogge (2005), 'Human Rights and Global Health: A Research Program'
