Search results

Although a large number of Arab countries are members of the World Trade Organisation and the Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, most of these countries were unable to structure a national intellectual property protection regime which takes into consideration their development plans. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the history of Arab countries' participation in multilateral trade and intellectual property negotiations and calls for the maximum utilisation by these countries of the intellectual property policy space available to them under international law.

The paper draws from the texts of international agreements and from the available literature on intellectual property. The paper also makes use of various international reports and studies on intellectual property and development.

The paper argues that due to the minimal participation and involvement by Arab countries in international trade and intellectual property negotiations, officials in these countries lacked deep knowledge and understanding about the technical and legal issues engulfing the regulation and implementation of intellectual property. The paper finds that those countries mostly active in negotiations were more able to capitalise on the system and to benefit from the available policy space in terms of national development. Finally, the paper provides recommendations aimed towards enhancing the policy space and utilising intellectual property for development purposes.

These findings are important for policy makers, officials and those interested in understanding the relation between intellectual property protection and development and how developing and Arab countries would be able to maximize the benefits from the international protection regime.

Observes that variances in standards for and interpretations of intellectual property rights (IPR) around the globe remain one of the great challenges for marketers and stakeholders of the marketing paradigm. Attempts to distil the issues surrounding IPR and its protection, and to examine the phenomenon of IPR violations within a framework of social dilemmas. In so doing, describes and provides examples for some of the problems associated with IPR violations. Contends that much work is still to be done, if it is hoped to implement a global system for IPR protection that serves the best long‐term interests for the largest number of society’s stakeholders. Concludes with opportunities for further research.

This paper examines the evolution of Intellectual Property (IP) commercialization in historical perspective. IP Law imposes an incentive structure that determines the extent of societal investment in those assets. From their inception at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, IP has expanded due to the introduction of new technologies. Property rights allocation over these assets has traditionally been assigned to governments centralizing the recognition of such property. For a long period of time, government intervention was critical to allow IP commercialization; hence, the political economy of IP was dictated by the prevailing ideology of policymakers in favor or against market transactions. The resulting clash of ideologies has marked the position of developing countries seeking exclusions from open IP commercialization to obtain temporary relief from foreign competition of technology producing countries, as well as that of industrialized countries, seeking to export their technologies overseas. The emergence of blockchain technology, as a decentralized transaction exchange protocol that makes intermediary centralized institutions (i.e. governments) certifying IP irrelevant over a large portion of intellectual property (i.e., trade secrets and copyrights) will create revolutionary institutions facilitating IP commercialization, such as NFTs. We examine this historical evolution in the context of legal institutions governing intellectual property transactions and technology transfer.

Intellectual property rights and competition policy are intimately related. In this chapter I survey the economic literature analyzing the interaction between intellectual property law and competition law and how the boundary between these two policies is drawn in practice. Recognizing that intellectual property rights and competition law can interact in many different ways, the presentation focuses on several key issues. The economic literature on the interaction between competition law and intellectual property rights shows that these regulatory systems are consistent in terms of basic principles. Significant tensions exist, however, and it is difficult to balance IPR and competition law in practice. The significant differences in approach between the United States and the European Union simply reflect the underlying reality that efforts to achieve a sensible balance do not result in policy harmonization.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of intellectual property justifications and the basics of intellectual property law.

The paper examines intellectual property rights, discussing such areas as: copyright protection, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and common and current misconceptions.

Overprotection can be as damaging as underprotection because of the harm to the intellectual commons. The ideal property rights regime is one that prudently seeks balance.

Advises that the goal of the legal system should be the provision of just enough protection to reward creative workers for their labor and to spur future innovation. At the same time, it is necessary to avoid overly strong protection that will deplete the intellectual commons or unduly restrict its expansion, and thereby fail to promote social welfare.

Trade in counterfeit products has been expanding continuously. The emergence of the internet, the process of globalisation as well as the increase of digitalisation have enabled counterfeit products to infiltrate legitimate supply chains, causing harm not only to national economies but also to holders of intellectual property rights (IPR). In this chapter, we analyse the possible solutions that holders of IP rights and their legal representatives have in their fight against the online sale of counterfeit products. To elaborate on this issue, first, we explain the legislation on an international level for IPR protection and its specific characteristics. We explain the conventions on the protection of IPR that are governed by the World Intellectual Protection Organisation (WIPO) and the provisions of the TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement governed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We also analyse the national legislative procedure of protecting and enforcing IPR in North Macedonia to explain a possible solution to fight online counterfeit trade. As a case study of this chapter, we explain the work of the Online Enforcement Programme of REACT as a not-for-profit organisation with over 30 years of experience in the fight against counterfeit trade and the challenges that they have in fighting against the online sale of counterfeit products. Since IP law is territorial in its nature as a conclusion, we suggest that a more centralised approach is needed in the fight against the online sale of counterfeit products.

As firms turn their innovation activities toward collaborating with external partners, they face additional challenges in managing their knowledge. While different modes of intellectual property right regimes are applied in closed innovation systems, there seems to be tension between the concepts of “open innovation” and “intellectual property rights”. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how firms best manage knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes.

Following a mixed methods approach, the authors review relevant literature at the intersection of knowledge management, intellectual property rights, strategic management of intellectual property rights and the open innovation process. The authors identify success drivers through the lenses of – but not limited to – intellectual property rights and classify them in five distinct groups. Expending the view on open innovation beyond its modus operandi, the authors develop the Open Innovation Life Cycle, covering three stages and three levels of the open innovation process. The authors apply their findings to a case study in the pharmaceutical industry.

The authors provide four key contributions. First, existing literature yields inconclusive results concerning the enabling or disabling function of intellectual property rights in open innovation processes, but the majority of scholars detect an ambivalent relation. Second, they identify and classify success drivers of successful knowledge management via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Third, they advance literature on open innovation beyond its modus operandi to include three stages and three levels. Fourth, they test their findings to a case study and show how management leverages knowledge by properly using intellectual property rights in open innovation.

The findings support firms in managing knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation processes. Management should account for the peculiarities of open innovation preparation and open innovation termination to prevent unintentional knowledge drain.

This is one of the first studies to view open innovation as a process beyond its modus operandi by considering the preparations for and termination of open innovation activities. It also addresses the levels involved in managing knowledge via intellectual property rights in open innovation from individual (personal) to project and firm level.

This chapter provides an overview of five modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

This chapter provides an overview of the five main modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and designs – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

This paper aims to examine the effect of national culture on the capacity of small and medium‐sized biotechnology enterprises to protect their intellectual assets by analysing the mediator role of environmental scanning behaviour. The extent to which environmental scanning behaviour helps firms to protect their intellectual assets is investigated, and the effects of national cultural values on environmental scanning behaviour are analysed.

The hypotheses are tested with survey data from 123 biotechnology SMEs located in 14 countries.

Environmental scanning appears to be an important step in the intellectual property strategy, as it enhances the firm's capacity to protect its intellectual assets. Nevertheless, the results show that firms located in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, high power distance and low individualism do more scanning, whereas the capacity to protect intellectual assets is perceived as being more important in firms located in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, low power distance and high individualism.

Certain limitations should be noted. For instance, the research is based on cross‐sectional data, which provide limited insight into the temporal aspects of dynamic environments.

The study has important implications for practitioners. It demonstrates that, in international working relationships, cultural values have a direct effect on environmental scanning behaviour, and hence an indirect effect on intellectual property (IP) protection capability. Given the strategic importance of scanning and IP for innovative firms, the results could help managers to make strategic decisions, specifically in R&D internationalization through decentralization or partnership.

Although few studies have empirically analysed the role of environmental scanning in a particular domain, such as intellectual property strategic management, or adopted a comparative cross‐cultural design to do so, this paper investigates the role of environmental scanning in intellectual property strategy from a cross‐cultural perspective.