Intellectual Property Policy Reform

Intellectual Property Policy Reform

Fostering Innovation and Development

Edited by Christopher Arup and William van Caenegem

This state-of-the-art study argues that reforms to intellectual property (IP) should be based on the ways IP is interacting with new technologies, business models, work patterns and social mores. It identifies emerging IP reform proposals and experiments, indicating first how more rigor and independence can be built into the grant of IP rights so that genuine innovations are recognized. The original contributions then show how IP rights can be utilised, through open source licensing systems and private transfers, to disseminate knowledge. Reforms are recommended. The discussion takes in patents, copyright, trade secrets and relational obligations, considering the design of legislative directives, default principles, administrative practices, contractual terms and licence specifications.

Chapter 8: Intellectual Property, Innovation and Openness

Ulf Petrusson and Caroline Pamp

Subjects: law - academic, intellectual property law


Ulf Petrusson and Caroline Pamp I. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO PROMOTE INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: SETTING THE SCENE When we discuss whether intellectual property has a positive or negative impact on innovation and development, we tend to focus on intellectual property rights (IPRs) regulation. We ask ourselves if patent regulation has an economically positive impact or not. Those of us who have a positive attitude tend to frame the discussion as a discussion of IPR protections as incentives for creativity and innovative activities. We tend to discuss how IPR regulations attract foreign investment and foreign out-sourcing. A conclusion is often that the protection against piracy is a cornerstone of a globalized economy. If we instead are more sceptical towards IPRs, it is more relevant to frame the discussion as a question of whether patent regulation and the other IPRs only work in the interests of the financially strong actors in the industrial world. We tend to discuss the risks that the TRIPs provisions will result in blocking: (1) knowledge sharing and technology transfer, (2) usage of traditional knowledge, (3) research efforts, (4) indigenous innovation, (5) diagnoses, treatments and cures, and (6) ultimately development overall. That we focus on regulation means that if we are critical we will question the IPR regime per se as well as whether the IPR provisions are well balanced. On the level of provisions, we will question the criteria of protectability, the scope, the time period possible to uphold the IPR, the exemptions and the possible remedies (see...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information