The role of institutions in mediating the use of intellectual property rights has long been neglected in debates over the economics of intellectual property. In a path-breaking work, Rob Merges studied what he calls "collective rights organizations, " industry groups that collect intellectual property rights from owners and license them as a package. Merges finds that these organizations ease some of the tensions created by strong intellectual property rights by allowing industries to bargain from a property rule into a liability rule. Collective rights organizations thus play a valuable role in facilitating transactions in intellectual property rights. There is another sort of organization that mediates between intellectual property owners and users, however. Standard-setting organizations (SS0s) regularly encounter situations in which one or more companies claim to own proprietary rights that cover a proposed industry standard. The industry cannot adopt the standard without the permission of the intellectual property owner (or owners). Given the importance of SSO rules governing intellectual property rights, there has been surprisingly little treatment of SSOs or their intellectual property rules in the legal literature. My aim in this article is to fill that void. To do so, I have surveyed the intellectual property policies qJ_ dozens of SS0s, primarily but not exclusively in the Antitrust, intellectual property and standard setting organizations

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.A. Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Industry Standard ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Property Owners

Ch.4 Objectives and Principles

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Transfer Of Technology ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Dissemination Of Technology

This chapter looks at the objectives and principles of the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The primary objective of the proponents of the Agreement was to secure the rights of intellectual property owners to exploit their protected assets in the jurisdiction of all parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). They emphasized the role of the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as incentives for innovation, and were keen to leave issues relating to the exploitation of the rights to the discretion of title-holders. In contrast, developing countries feared that a strengthened IPR protection would give too much power to title-holders and limit access to, and transfer of, technology to those countries. Article 7 of the Agreement, based on a proposal submitted by developing countries, represents a compromise between these two positions. It states that IPRs should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Private Ordering ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

The role of institutions in mediating the use of intellectual propertyrights has long been neglected in debates over the economics ofintellectual property. In a path-breaking work, Rob Merges studied what hecalls "collective rights organizations," industry groups that collectintellectual property rights from owners and license them as a package.Merges finds that these organizations ease some of the tensions created bystrong intellectual property rights by allowing industries to bargain froma property rule into a liability rule. Collective rights organizations thusplay a valuable role in facilitating transactions in intellectual propertyrights.There is another sort of organization that mediates between intellectualproperty owners and users, however. Standard-setting organizations (SSOs)regularly encounter situations in which one or more companies claim to ownproprietary rights that cover a proposed industry standard. The industrycannot adopt the standard without the permission of the intellectualproperty owner (or owners).How SSOs respond to those who assert intellectual property rights iscritically important. Whether or not private companies retain intellectualproperty rights in group standards will determine whether a standard is"open" or "closed." It will determine who can sell compliant products, andit may well influence whether the standard adopted in the market is onechosen by a group or one offered by a single company. SSO rules governingintellectual property rights will also affect how standards change astechnology improves.Given the importance of SSO rules governing intellectual property rights,there has been surprisingly little treatment of SSO intellectual propertyrules in the legal literature. My aim in this article is to fill that void.To do so, I have studied the intellectual property policies of dozens ofSSOs, primarily but not exclusively in the computer networking andtelecommunications industries. This is no accident; interface standards aremuch more prevalent in those industries than in other fields. In Part I, Iprovide some background on SSOs themselves, and discuss the value of groupstandard setting in network markets. In Part II, I discuss my empiricalresearch, which demonstrates a remarkable diversity among SSOs even withina given industry in how they treat intellectual property. In Part III, Ianalyze a host of unresolved contract and intellectual property law issuesrelating to the applicability and enforcement of such intellectual propertypolicies. In Part IV, I consider the constraints the antitrust laws placeon SSOs in general, and on their adoption of intellectual property policiesin particular. Part V offers a theory of SSO intellectual property rules asa sort of messy private ordering, allowing companies to bargain in theshadow of patent law in those industries in which it is most important thatthey do so. Finally, in Part VI I offer ideas for how the law can improvethe efficiency of this private ordering process.In the end, I hope to convince the reader of four things. First, SSO rulesgoverning intellectual property fundamentally change the way in which wemust approach the study of intellectual property. It is not enough toconsider IP rights in a vacuum; we must consider them as they are actuallyused in practice. And that means considering how SSO rules affect IPincentives in different industries. Second, there is a remarkable diversityamong SSOs in how they treat IP rights. This diversity is largelyaccidental, and does not reflect conscious competition between differentpolicies. Third, the law is not well designed to take account of the modernrole of SSOs. Antitrust rules may unduly restrict SSOs even when thoseorganizations are serving procompetitive ends. And enforcement of SSO IPrules presents a number of important but unresolved problems of contractand intellectual property law, issues that will need to be resolved if SSOIP rules are to fulfill their promise of solving patent holdup problems.My fourth conclusion is an optimistic one. SSOs are a species of privateordering that may help solve one of the fundamental dilemmas ofintellectual property law: the fact that intellectual property rights seemto promote innovation in some industries but harm innovation in others.SSOs may serve to ameliorate the problems of overlapping intellectualproperty rights in those industries in which IP is most problematic forinnovation, particularly in the semiconductor, software, andtelecommunications fields. The best thing the government can do is toenforce these private ordering agreements and avoid unduly restricting SSOsby overzealous antitrust scrutiny.

Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Energy Services in Africa

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Professor Adebambo Adewopo ◽  
Dr Tobias Schonwetter ◽  
Helen Chuma-Okoro
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Energy Access ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Energy Services ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines the proper role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in achieving access to modern energy services in Africa as part of a broader objective of a pro-development intellectual property agenda for African countries. It discusses the role of intellectual property rights, particularly patents, in consonance with pertinent development questions in Africa connected with the implementation of intellectual property standards, which do not wholly assume that innovation in Africa is dependent on strong intellectual property systems. The chapter examines how existing intellectual property legal landscapes in Africa enhance or impede access to modern energy, and how the law can be directed towards improved energy access in African countries. While suggesting that IPRs could serve an important role in achieving modern energy access, the chapter calls for circumspection in applying IP laws in order not to inhibit access to useful technologies for achieving access to modern energy services.

scholarly journals IPR Law Protection and Enforcement and the Effect on Horizontal Productivity Spillovers from Inward FDI to Domestic Firms: A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danai Christopoulou ◽  
Nikolaos Papageorgiadis ◽  
Chengang Wang ◽  
Georgios Magkonis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Productivity Spillovers ◽  
Domestic Firms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive Effect

AbstractWe study the role of the strength of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law protection and enforcement in influencing horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI to domestic firms in host countries. While most WTO countries adopted strong IPR legislation due to exogenous pressure resulting from the signing of the Trade-Related Aspects of IPR (TRIPS) agreement, public IPR enforcement strength continues to vary significantly between countries. We meta-analyse 49 studies and find that public IPR enforcement strength has a direct positive effect on horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI to domestic firms and a negative moderating effect on the relationship between IPR law protection strength and horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI to domestic firms.

scholarly journals Management Problems in Global Crowdsourcing

2022 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Zhijiang Liu ◽  
Tatyana Sakulyeva ◽  
Alexey Mikheev ◽  
Diana Stepanova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Project Success ◽  
Information Leakage ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
Predominant Role ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Security Guarantees

The study aimed to develop recommendations for the optimization of settings in which the crowdsourcing project takes place. Findings show that crowdfunding projects are hybrid and include the elements of crowdsourcing, crowdsensing, crowdfunding, crowdworking, and crowdsourced recruitment. The predominant role of security guarantees was identified. It turned out that relations irreducible to a simple hierarchy pose many challenges. The results indicate that leading issues include the lack of financial guarantees and the likelihood of information leakage to competitors. Hence, the priority is to manage the exchange of money and information. An interesting finding demonstrates a positive correlation between project success, ethical conduct, and fair distribution of gains. The protection of intellectual property rights was no less important. As it was concluded in the course of analysis, the more successful the project, the more thoroughly it addresses the protection of someone else's intellectual property.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document