Does the utility model law offer a robust ecosystem promoting innovation? Is it viable for a country to introduce a second-tier patent law on the basis that the defects of the patent system can be solved? This chapter considers the normative rationales for protecting subpatentable innovation by analysing the concept of utility model across several jurisdictions and through multiple timelines. The Chinese, German and South Korean experiences show that utility model protection may enhance the behaviour of SMEs within developing economies and develop the innovative capacity of economies at specific stages of their development. However, the Japanese and Australian case studies show that once national innovative capacities have been reached, the disadvantages of utility models outweigh the perceived advantages. The empirical evidence gathered in a multitude of studies suggest that the task of modelling an optimal utility model regime will be a highly complex and futile task.
This chapter starts from a dilemma. The zeitgeist of this century and the foreseeable future is not only to celebrate humanity’s cultural heritage but to also preserve and maintain it for future generations, whilst ensuring its current accessibility to the public. This task is vested in libraries, museums, archives and other memory institutions – collectively known as cultural heritage institutions (CHIs). But ownership rights are not clear. The question who own the orphans arises, and with it the issue of property in digital cultural heritage assets. Keywords: orphan works, cultural heritage, property in digital cultural assets, preservation, digitisation