Do IPRs Promote Innovation?

This book examines the contribution which intellectual property rights can make in the struggle for food security in developing countries. The book consists of 11 chapters. Chapter 1 locates intellectual property rights within the armoury of food security policies. Chapter 2 deals with definitional issues and examines the role of intellectual property rights in incentivizing agricultural research and development. Chapter 3 examines the international landscape of intellectual property and the approaches taken to the relationship between intellectual property rights, agricultural biotechnology, access to biological resources, food security and globalization which are taken by the WTO, FAO, CBD and WIPO among the various international and development agencies. Plant variety rights (PVRs) are a specially created form of intellectual property right originally minted to encourage agricultural innovation and Chapter 4 examines the effectiveness of PVRs in a food security context. Agricultural innovation is in part dependent upon access of researchers to the genetic resources of the biodiverse countries of the South. Chapter 5 considers the attempts to construct an international regime to secure this access. The important role of traditional farmers in preserving landraces and cultivars from which improvements can be derived has generated for a call for the recognition of farmers' rights, and this is examined in Chapter 6 together with agitation for the protection of the traditional knowledge which often informs access to the useful genetic resources. Chapter 7 examines the intellectual property implications of the use of genetically modified (GM) crops as a technological solution to food insecurity. The protection of GM crops is achieved through patent protection and Chapter 9 looks at the competition law implications of patent licensing, patent pools and patent thickets. An old intellectual property device that underpinned the commercial development of European agricultural marketing is the geographical indication, and Chapter 8 examines the contribution it might make to achieving food security. Returning to the theme of the role of intellectual property law in incentivizing innovation, Chapter 10 examines its role in promoting agricultural research. The concluding chapter proposes a number of recommendations for action in deploying intellectual property law in the struggle for food security.

Contents: Volume I Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ANTITRUST 1. Wonki Min (2000), 'Telecommunications Regulations: Institutional Structures and Responsibilities' 2. Yoshiko Kurisaki (1995), 'The Changing Role of Telecommunications in the Economy: Globalisation and Its Impact on National Telecommunications Policy' 3. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'International Telecommunications' 4. Peter L. Smith and Bjoern Wellenius (1999), 'Mitigating Regulatory Risk in Telecommunications' 5. Marco C.E.J. Bronckers and Pierre Larouche (1997), 'Telecommunication Services and the World Trade Organization' 6. Lee Tuthill (1996), 'Users' Rights? The Multilateral Rules on Access to Telecommunications' 7. Lee Tuthill (1997), 'The GATS and New Rules for Regulators' 8. Mark Naftel and Lawrence J. Spiwak (2000), 'The WTO and the Reference Paper: An Ostensible Blueprint for Entry' 9. Markus Fredebeul-Krein and Andreas Freytag (1997), 'Telecommunications and WTO Discipline: An Assessment of the WTO Agreement on Telecommunication Services' 10. Timothy Denton (2002), 'Protocol Interfaces Are the New Bottlenecks: What the Internet Means for Telecom Regulation' 11. Rohan Kariyawasam (2005), 'Defining Dominance for Bits and Bytes: A New Layering Theory for Interpreting Significant Market Power?' 12. Sonali Singh (2006), 'The Telmex Dispute at the WTO: Competition Makes a Backdoor Entry' 13. Eleanor M. Fox (2006), 'The WTO's First Antitrust Case - Mexican Telecom: A Sleeping Victory for Trade and Competition' PART II THE CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC INTANGIBLES IN THE WTO 14. Peter Hill (1999), 'Tangibles, Intangibles and Services: A New Taxonomy for the Classification of Output' 15. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'The Classification of Electronic Intangibles in the WTO' 16. Claude E. Barfield (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and the Gats Negotiations' 17. Harald Sander (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and Gats Negotiation (Some Comments on a Paper by Claude E. Barfield)' 18. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2006), 'The Internet, Cross-Border Trade in Services, and the GATS: Lessons from US-Gambling' 19. Federico Ortino (2006), 'Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique' 20. Maria Veronica Perez Asinari (2006), 'Internet Gambling and Betting Services: When the GATS' Rules Are Not Applied Due to the Public Morals/Public Order Exception. What Lessons Can Be Learnt?' Name Index Volume II: Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 1. Heinz Hauser and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2000/2001), 'A Call for the WTO E-Commerce Initiative' 2. Daniel Piazolo (2001), 'Multilateral and European Responses to E-Commerce' 3. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2003), 'The Digital Trade Agenda of the U.S.: Parallel Tracks of Bilateral, Regional and Multinational Liberalization' 4. Michael Hart and Ramesh Chaitoo (1999), 'Electronic Commerce and International Trade Rules' 5. Olivier Cattaneo and Julia Nielson (2002), 'Regulation of Services Traded Electronically' 6. Rosemary Morris (2000), 'Electronic Commerce: A Cluster Approach to the Negotiation of Input Services' PART II INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BILATERALISM AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 7. Keith E. Maskus (1998), 'The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer' 8. Olivier Cattaneo (2003), 'Intellectual Property Rights in the New Economy: Technological Changes and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights' 9. Carlos M. Correa (2000), 'Implications of Intellectual Property Rights for the Access to and Use of Information Technologies in Developing Countries' 10. Peter Drahos (2001), 'Bilateralism in Intellectual Property' PART III DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THE NEW ECONOMY AND THE WTO 11. Sanjeev Dewan, Dale Ganley and Kenneth L. Kraemer (2005), 'Across the Digital Divide: A Cross-Country, Multi-Technology Analysis of the Determinants of IT Penetration' 12. Lars T. Soeftestad and Maung K. Sein (2003), 'ICT and Devolopment: East is East and West is West and the Twain may yet Meet. On the Process of Implementing an ICT-Strategy in the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)' 13. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'Developing Countries and Telecommunications' 14. Peter F. Cowhey and Mikhail M. Kilmenko (2001), 'Implementing Telecommunications Liberalization in Developing Countries after the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services' 15. Arvind Panagariya (2000), 'E-Commerce, WTO and Developing Countries' 16. Catherine L. Mann (2000), 'Electronic Commerce in Developing Countries: Issues for Domestic Policy and WTO Negotiations' 17. David Vivas Eugui (2001), 'Issues on the Relationship Between E-Commerce and Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO: Implications for Developing Countries' Name Index

The Colour of Copyright

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

This chapter investigates the economic role of intellectual property rights in the national and international context and discusses the pros and cons of intellectual property protection for developing countries. It highlights the international dimensions of infringement of intellectual property rights. The chapter explores the use of country case studies and investigates the economic performance and government policies on foreign investment, trade, indigenous development, technology transfer and intellectual property protection of the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand. It focuses on some conclusions on the relationship between economic development and protection of intellectual property rights in developing countries. Some Southeast Asian nations which had adopted more defensive strategies towards intellectual property protection have reassessed their contribution to domestic technological and creative development. The chapter discusses the foundation for the demands, namely infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and semiconductor chip designs in Southeast Asian nations.

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

Intellectual property rights are legal rights that protect intellectual assets, which hold signifi cant value for individuals and even greater importance for the economy and society as a whole. Liability insurance against the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights is becoming increasingly relevant as a mechanism for managing unforeseen risks arising from third-party proprietary claims and from unauthorized use of intellectual property rights. This paper fi rst examines the nature and scope of various intellectual property rights, alongside the advantages of liability insurance in cases of infringement of such rights. It then explores what may constitute the subject-matter of insurance coverage, based on the nature of intellectual property rights, general insurance principles, and contractual frameworks. The aim is to distinguish this specifi c type of liability insurance within the broader context of IP protection. Finally, the paper examines the scope of insurance coverage in relation to specifi c costs incurred when the insured appears as a defendant in legal proceedings, as well as when the insured takes actions to protect and enforce their intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are significant because India is a signatory to TRIPS agreement and member of WTO. Intellectual property rights are the monopoly rights enjoyed by the original creator. It includes exclusive rights allocated to the creator for reaping the profits of his creation by his intellectual wit and innovation. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are the rules which are formed to protect the inventions from being copied by others. This is done in order to protect the economic value of the new creation which is done by the innovator. Granting Patents rights, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets are some of the main forms of IPRs. The awareness about IPRs is essential for the youth so as to develop their entrepreneurial skills which will help them to be the leaders in every field. A field survey on awareness about IPR has conducted for a specified purpose with a definite objective with specific community or target group. It uses questionnaires or interviews so as to assess knowledge of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and its types such as patents, copyrights, trademarks. The purpose of this study is to examine the awareness of intellectual property rights (IPR) among youth i.e. college students. The significance of this study can be understood in two ways. - (i) to sensitize the youth regarding IPRs (ii) to make them understand the role of infringements of IPR. Questionnaire containing 20 questions was designed on various aspects of IPR awareness covering definitions of IPR and its different types -patents, copyrights, trademarks, process of registration of IPR like patents, IPR infringement and its consequences, IPR laws, IPR- mechanism, personal experiences on IPR. The survey gave optimist results about the awareness assessment of the youth about Intellectual Property Rights awareness. Although many of the respondents did not have 100% clarity a bout IPR yet they tried to respond well. However, more conceptual clarity and practical guidance is required to sensitize them about IPR and provide them actual knowledge ab out IPR.

Numerous studies predict that developing countries with low human capital may not benefit from the strengthening of intellectual property rights. The authors extend an influential theoretical framework to highlight the role of intellectual property rights in the process of innovation and structural change. The resulting theory is consistent with a stylized fact that appears in the data, namely that countries with poor intellectual-property protection may accumulate human capital without a corresponding increase in research and development investment as a share of national income. The model predicts that without minimum intellectual-property protection, additional education may result in more imitation rather than innovation. The preponderance of the econometric evidence presented in this paper suggests that interactions between human capital and intellectual property rights determine global patterns of research and development effort, and intellectual property rights tend to raise the effect of education on the incidence of research and development.

Intellectual property rights-–copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and related rights-–have become increasingly important with the advent of increased international trade, global and knowledge-based economy and fast developing technology. A strong intellectual property rights regime is necessary in order to attract foreign trade and direct investments. For this reason, the protection of intellectual property rights has become an_x000D_ important negotiating item in all FTAs which the United States has entered into. In view of the proposed RP-US FTA negotiations, this paper seeks to determine whether the_x000D_ existing intellectual property regime in the Philippines provides adequate and sufficient legal protection of intellectual property rights. It also seeks to determine whether the administrative and judicial processes are adequate and speedy and acceptable in the enforcement and protection of said rights in the light of FTAs already entered into by the United States with other countries, in general, and with Singapore, in particular, which will be the benchmark for the RP-US FTA. Other relevant issues in the protection of intellectual property rights such as the annual review of ountries by the United States Trade Representative in relation to Special 301 of the U.S. Trade Law; piracy of optical media, including books and pharmaceuticals; and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) are also discussed. The author proposes certain provisions to be added to the Intellectual Property Code; sustained, consistent and stricter implementation of intellectual property laws including more efforts at curbing piracy; and more importantly, a strong political will and a strong determination to strengthen intellectual property rights, as necessary to make the IPR regime up to par with U.S. and international.

Intellectual Property Rights and Green Technologies from Rio to Rio: An Impossible Dialogue?

Keywords: objects of intellectual property rights, trademark, utility model, copyrightand/or related rights, industrial design, unregistered industrial design, utilitymodel, commercial name The law of the fashion industry is a branch of law that regulates publicrelations arising in connection with activities related to products of the light andcosmetic industries. Creative products, such as fashion designs expressed in products,may be protected as intellectual property rights. A design solution embodied in a particularproduct may be protected by one or more intellectual property institutions.Design solutions in the field of fashion are not directly defined in the legislation,but their properties are reflected in the features of various objects of intellectual propertyrights. The design solution embodied in the product may include copyright, industrialdesign, utility model, trademark, geographical indication, trade name. However,if the product contains several objects of intellectual property rights at once, theauthor currently registers not all, but one/two due to the cost of registration (obtaininga certificate or patent). There is an example of a bag given in the article, whichshows how protection for an industrial design and a trademark can be received immediately.But there is no procedure for providing protection by design solutions.For comprehensive protection of a design solution in the system of cross-borderprotection of intellectual property rights, foremost it is necessary to introduce the conceptof «design solution» by law. Furthermore, since design solutions in the fashion industryare seasonal and short-term, the law should give «accelerated preferentialtreatment» to design solutions in the fashion industry. This means that, after a designdecision is registered, it is protected for one year. After one year, the designerspay the fees to officially register the intellectual property rights. This way, the designerscan understand the relevance and purchasing power of the goods and avoid payinghigh fees to register intellectual property rights.

Dominance in the market gives businesses many advantages, enabling them to change business dynamics and influence customer choices. This dominance, while used improperly, can damage clients via way of means of stifling competition and innovation. The distinct rights that intellectual property rights deliver authors and inventors over their works, on the alternative hand, lead them to critical equipment for selling innovation. Abuse of dominance and Intellectual Property rights are associated while dominant corporations make the most of their intellectual property rights to stifle competition. This article attempts to examines the feasible reasons of the subject matter, which includes inflated licensing charges, unwarranted litigation, and patent hold-up tactics. The interplay among abuse of dominance with intellectual property rights (IPR) marks a pivotal factor withinside the improvement of competition law. This article captures the essence of this complicated connection and affords a window into its complicated dynamics. It further attempts to emphasise the critical factor of convergence among those fields: the sensitive stability among selling innovation and retaining marketplace opposition receives disenchanted while dominant groups use their intellectual property rights to impede competition. Such abuse of IPR might also additionally take many unique forms, from extortionate licensing charges to pointless court cases meant to save your competition from coming into the marketplace. Case studies that function an examples from across the globe provide important insights into the rational consequences of intellectual property rights violations. The difficulties in finding the appropriate stability are demonstrated by notable instances such as the legal actions related to Qualcomm's SEP and Microsoft's antitrust actions in the EU. Emerging technologies in the virtual age, like as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, raises new concerns about supremacy and intellectual property rights. One example of an increasing burden in 5G technology is Standard-essential patents (SEPs). Using well-known case studies and international regulatory reactions, this article also attempts to provide a brief discussion of the issues and headaches associated with the abuse of dominance within the framework of intellectual property rights. Strict regulatory scrutiny is necessary to prevent dominant marketplace contributors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The conflict between preventing anti-competitive behaviour and promoting innovation through intellectual property rights safety is a fundamental dilemma. Finding a balance between the two needs is essential if one is to sell innovation and keep markets competitive. In this regard, the author attempts to highlight how crucial it is to handle the junction between rights to intellectual property and abuse of dominance in an appropriate manner. It draws attention to the necessity of prudent legislation that preserves innovative incentives while maintaining sincere competition. In order to fully utilize intellectual property rights for the goodness of society, it is imperative to achieve this delicate balance. In a global economic system that is rapidly changing, legislators, lawyers, corporations, and students must all comprehend and navigate the intricate relationship between abuse of power and intellectual property rights. This article lays the groundwork for additional investigation and debate in the article by offering a concise yet comprehensive synopsis of the key traits and problems in this intricate field.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

This study comprehensively analyses the legal and regulatory frameworks governing intellectual property rights (IPRs) in Sri Lanka, with a particular focus on the Sri Lankan Intellectual Property Act, No. 36 of 2003. This Act is the primary legislation governing the acquisition, management and enforcement of intellectual property. The analysis elucidates the foundational elements of this Act, including its alignment with international conventions such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Previous studies identify several critical deficiencies within the current legal landscape, especially when compared to the more dynamic intellectual property regimes of developed nations. These shortcomings encompass challenges in enforcement, ambiguities in patentability standards, and an urgent need for adaptation to address the complexities introduced by emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence-generated content. The discussion underscores that the Act, while robust for its time, faces increasing pressure to evolve to remain effective in a rapidly changing global technological environment. This study proposes necessary amendments and strategic adjustments to enhance the safeguarding of intellectual property rights against infringement and intellectual theft, ensuring Sri Lanka's framework remains relevant and equitable in the digital era.