Scholars debate whether intellectual property is truly property and the lessons learned about property rights in traditional property should be applied to property rights in inventions and other intellectual property.As we know, Intellectual property protects applications of ideas and information that are of commercial value. Intellectual property rights are like any other property rights– they allow the creator, or owner, of a patent, trademark, or copyright to benefit from his or her own work or investment. Talking about the term property, the law conceptualizes property as rights to things, as legal relationships between people with respect to objects. There was a recent inclusions done within the definition of property, those are: Company shares; Intellectual property (copyright, trademarks, patents) and Medical science- contentious area. But still in what ways might we expect patent rights to perform similarly to rights in tangible property? In brief; Property rights provide incentive to invest, to trade, and to finance. Similar economic benefits are ascribed to patents. Patents provide incentives to invest in research and development and other innovative effort. Patents also provide incentives to invest in the commercialization and further development of an invention, and for investors to invest in companies holding patents. In my research I will get into the depth of this debate.Today, scholars and courts believe that logic mandates that patents are defined differently from real property-patents must secure only a right to exclude. In my research paper I will also deal with the relation between patent right and property right that in real fact the patents can be held as property also look into the ownership or possession as well as the infringements of each right and its penalties under the laws. But still this is the ongoing debate where in present century the patents relation with the real property and how this is an under-appreciated factor contributing to the increasingly tumultuous debates over patent doctrine.
{"title":"Are Patents Property","authors":"Tabrez Ahmad, Rajasmita Das","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1981681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1981681","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars debate whether intellectual property is truly property and the lessons learned about property rights in traditional property should be applied to property rights in inventions and other intellectual property.As we know, Intellectual property protects applications of ideas and information that are of commercial value. Intellectual property rights are like any other property rights– they allow the creator, or owner, of a patent, trademark, or copyright to benefit from his or her own work or investment. Talking about the term property, the law conceptualizes property as rights to things, as legal relationships between people with respect to objects. There was a recent inclusions done within the definition of property, those are: Company shares; Intellectual property (copyright, trademarks, patents) and Medical science- contentious area. But still in what ways might we expect patent rights to perform similarly to rights in tangible property? In brief; Property rights provide incentive to invest, to trade, and to finance. Similar economic benefits are ascribed to patents. Patents provide incentives to invest in research and development and other innovative effort. Patents also provide incentives to invest in the commercialization and further development of an invention, and for investors to invest in companies holding patents. In my research I will get into the depth of this debate.Today, scholars and courts believe that logic mandates that patents are defined differently from real property-patents must secure only a right to exclude. In my research paper I will also deal with the relation between patent right and property right that in real fact the patents can be held as property also look into the ownership or possession as well as the infringements of each right and its penalties under the laws. But still this is the ongoing debate where in present century the patents relation with the real property and how this is an under-appreciated factor contributing to the increasingly tumultuous debates over patent doctrine.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133739574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A critical overview of the theoretical and empirical economic literature on copyright and unauthorised copying. This report aims to identify gaps in evidence and options for further research.
{"title":"The Economics of Copyright and Digitalisation -- A Report on the Literature and the Need for Further Research","authors":"Christian Handke","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2707153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2707153","url":null,"abstract":"A critical overview of the theoretical and empirical economic literature on copyright and unauthorised copying. This report aims to identify gaps in evidence and options for further research.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129046537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Patents on software and business methods appear to have a pivotal position in today's economy, yet they have remained a policy backwater in which scope of patentable subject matter has expanded without legislative input. This is changing as Europe struggles with patent reform. A push by the European Commission to validate and promote software patents has been opposed by many companies and professionals, and especially the open source community. In this process, it has become clear that Europe opposes the broad non-technical patents on business methods that are now available in the U.S., signaling a major rift in international standards of patentability. Recent hearings held by competition agencies in the U.S. show severe problems of overpatenting that extend beyond software to much of the ICT sector. These problems have been ignored by the Commission, which despite a pro forma effort to address economic issues, clearly feels more comfortable framing the issue in legal terms. In outlining what a properly developed policy framework would look like, the paper stresses the need to understand why software is different from other technologies, why the disclosure function of the patent system is failing, the build-up of risk and uncertainty and its effect on industry structure, and the international political economy of information process patents.
{"title":"Information Process Patents in the U.S. And Europe: Policy Avoidance and Policy Divergence","authors":"B. Kahin","doi":"10.5210/fm.v8i3.1036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v8i3.1036","url":null,"abstract":"Patents on software and business methods appear to have a pivotal position in today's economy, yet they have remained a policy backwater in which scope of patentable subject matter has expanded without legislative input. This is changing as Europe struggles with patent reform. A push by the European Commission to validate and promote software patents has been opposed by many companies and professionals, and especially the open source community. In this process, it has become clear that Europe opposes the broad non-technical patents on business methods that are now available in the U.S., signaling a major rift in international standards of patentability.\u0000\u0000Recent hearings held by competition agencies in the U.S. show severe problems of overpatenting that extend beyond software to much of the ICT sector. These problems have been ignored by the Commission, which despite a pro forma effort to address economic issues, clearly feels more comfortable framing the issue in legal terms. In outlining what a properly developed policy framework would look like, the paper stresses the need to understand why software is different from other technologies, why the disclosure function of the patent system is failing, the build-up of risk and uncertainty and its effect on industry structure, and the international political economy of information process patents.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130280321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：