Browse by title

You are looking at 81 - 90 of 840 items :

  • Intellectual Property Law x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Edited by Duncan Matthews and Herbert Zech

This content is available to you

Edited by Gustavo Ghidini, Hanns Ullrich and Peter Drahos

This content is available to you

Keith E. Maskus

Despite centuries of patent protection and policy reforms, solid evidence that exclusive rights induce significant increases in innovation and technology diffusion remains elusive. This lacuna is unfortunate, for it permits pro- and anti-patent observers to make strong claims in the absence of systematic evidence. This article analyses why this situation persists, emphasizing the extreme complexity of the patent–innovation relationship and noting that shortcomings in available statistics are a key barrier to overcoming the problem. Evidence to date that patent protection encourages innovation and growth is mixed and context-specific. While there are stronger indications that it facilitates technology transfer, this conclusion must be heavily qualified. Economists have yet to tackle more difficult questions, relating to public goods provision, which could inform thinking about patents and development. Suggestions are offered regarding how to improve data and analysis in this critical area. Key Words Patents, innovation, economic development, statistical evidence

This content is available to you

Edited by Gustavo Ghidini, Hanns Ullrich and Peter Drahos

This content is available to you

Edited by Gustavo Ghidini, Hanns Ullrich and Peter Drahos

This content is available to you

Edited by Gustavo Ghidini, Hanns Ullrich and Peter Drahos

This content is available to you

Edited by Duncan Matthews and Herbert Zech

This content is available to you

Michael A Becker

On 5 October 2016, the International Court of Justice upheld preliminary objections to its jurisdiction in three separate cases relating to nuclear disarmament brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands. India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom – the three respondent States – argued that the absence of a dispute with the Marshall Islands when the cases were filed meant that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims. In each case, a narrow majority of the Court agreed. These judgments brought to a halt the legal actions mounted by the tiny Marshall Islands against three nuclear powers. They also consolidated a trend in the Court's approach to the determination of whether a dispute exists for the purpose of the exercise of jurisdiction. In addition, the judgments sparked debate over whether individual judges cast their votes in line with the preferences of their home governments or sought to protect the interests of powerful States. This article provides an overview of the proceedings and the parties’ claims (Part 2). It then analyses the Court's reasoning with respect to whether a dispute was present (Part 3) and explains how the Court's approach to the ‘dispute requirement’, a means to protect the judicial function, has taken a wrong turn (Part 4). The article next challenges the proposition that the voting record in the Nuclear Disarmament judgments should be interpreted to support the proposition that judges vote in accordance with national interest (Part 5) before offering some concluding thoughts on the wisdom of the decision by the Marshall Islands to bring these cases, which invoked claims that may not have been amenable to judicial solutions (Part 6).