Posts Tagged: "intellectual property rights"

These headlines are further proof that China, long known as and still considered to be a major international contributor to IP theft and piracy issues, has taken steps to rectify these issues in the months since President Xi Jinping publicly stated that “IP infringers will pay a heavy price” last July. A look at China’s economy profile in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 2018 IP Index shows that some of these recent copyright actions directly address certain weaknesses in China’s IP regime. The country received no score whatsoever for the provision of expeditious injunctive-style relief and disabling of copyright infringing content online. While it’s not clear how expeditious the NCA’s video takedown action was, it at least provided injunctive-style relief on behalf of copyright issues. The same holds true for the CAVCA’s karaoke takedown efforts. It’s also possible that at least the NCA’s actions could improve China’s score in another criteria where it ranked poorly, namely the availability of legal measures providing necessary exclusive rights to prevent copyrights on web hosting and streaming platforms.

In his Categorical Imperative, Kant simplifies a moral argument position for an individual by asking a question: if you thought that your position or Statement would be Universal, i.e., applicable to all people, it would have the stance of a Categorical Imperative and thus you must do it. A proposed Categorical Imperative is the following Statement: creators should be protected against the unlawful taking of their creation by others… Allowing the free taking of ideas, content and valuable data, i.e., the fruits of individual intellectual endeavor, would disrupt capitalism in a radical way. The resulting more secretive approach in support of the above free-riding Statement would be akin to a Communist environment where the State owned everything and the citizen owned nothing, i.e., the people “consented” to this.

In a move that recognizes the importance of innovation and IP rights – and the need for diverse audiences to understand how they work – the Canadian government has announced that it is investing $88.3M (CD) to create a new IP strategy that incorporates IP awareness and education.

“Let’s talk a bit about intellectual property rights,” Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of NIST Walter Copan said at the LES Silicon Valley conference on Wednesday, April 25, 2018. “IP rights are American property rights.” This simple, declarative statement by Director Copan was as important as it was direct. These words were spoken on the morning after the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy, which rather than saying patents are a property right instead called patents merely a “government franchise.”

The article in IPWatchdog describing how the United States democratized the patent system, extending the right to own intellectual property to commoners, came to mind after reading two very different papers on patents, innovation and their impact on society.  Apparently the debate over the democratization of the patent system isn’t over.  Some still see inventors as potential threats to the social order requiring close government supervision. The competing perspectives on patenting are reflected in the prominent figures from English history each study cites.

IP-protected innovation is now the principal driver of corporate value and is driving economic growth nationally. Developing an IP portfolio is now a basic requirement even for tech startups that hope to raise early stage financing… A large portion of the market cap of Silicon Valley companies can be directly attributed to intangible – or in other words intellectual property – assets. IP law is the primary tool used to protect the value of that innovation, and as we see from countries without meaningful IP laws there is simply no way to protect innovation absent a strong intellectual property system.

The world of intellectual property law has been abuzz in recent months leading up to oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a case which will determine whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operates in violation of both Article III of the U.S. Constitution and…

The argument that patents are private rights is supported by over two centuries of jurisprudence. Patent rights derive from Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to promote progress by creating laws involving patents and copyrights. The patent bargain exchanges disclosure of new and useful inventions for a limited term exclusive right. The public benefits from the patent bargain in two ways. First, the disclosure enables others to build on the invention. Second, after a twenty year period, the public receives the benefits of the invention for free as the rights flow to the public domain. The patent bargain stimulates incentives to invent, to invest in innovation and to take ex ante risks.

As President Trump embarks on the renegotiation of NAFTA, it is critical that we seize the opportunity to make it the gold standard in intellectual property rights protections… The stakes are tremendous and cannot be ignored.  In total, it is estimated that intellectual-property theft costs the United States approximately $600 billion per year.  A recent New York Times article notes that this is the “greatest transfer of wealth in history”.

An exclusive right is more than a mere right of remuneration – it is the right to control the use and disposition of one’s property, and to deny others access to it. Without the fundamental attribute of exclusivity, we lurch toward a system of compulsory licensing, or a private right of individuals to take another’s property on the promise of mere monetary compensation. Under our Constitution, and particularly the Fifth Amendment, or the Takings Clause, even the government does not possess that right except that it be for some demonstrable public – rather than private — use. Thus, to be true to the express language of our Constitution, and respectful of the limits imposed on the Fifth Amendment, the rights inherent in intellectual property necessarily must include a right to exclude others from the enjoyment of that property.

It’s safe to say that most sectors will undergo significant disruption as a result of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. AI will not only disrupt our business models but it will also disrupt our legal framework for the creation and exploitation of intellectual property (IP) rights, giving rise to new IP challenges for those seeking to develop and deploy new AI systems.

Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Spain’s Minister of Education, Culture and Sport began by explaining talent must always have a price and that it should be rewarded. Believing the fight against anti-piracy should be communicated through the school curriculum so as to reach children at a young age, Méndez de Vigo, added that infringing creator rights should be explained to students as stealing. “We want to raise an anti-piracy generation,” he explained, adding that neither piracy nor stealing are “acceptable in our legal framework.”

The dangers of killer germs and superbugs are not limited to bird flu in China, Ebola in West Africa, Zika in South America and MERS in the Middle East… If we are to have a fighting chance against superbugs and pandemics, we must invest in innovation and safeguard the property rights that incentivize these discoveries. Short-sighted efforts to enervate existing intellectual property rights laws and policies will not only damage incentives to innovate, they may hand a victory to the superbugs.

As we reflect on the one-year anniversary of India’s IPR policy, it is fitting that Indian government leaders are focused on job creation… Ultimately, though, India will be unable to take full advantage of the transformative benefits of a strong IP system unless and until it addresses gaps in its IP laws and regulations.