Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:41, 30 July 2014

Intellectual property
Authors' rights Copyleft Copyright Database right Farmers' rights Geographical indication Indigenous intellectual property Industrial design right Integrated circuit layout design protection Moral rights Patent Peasants' rights Plant breeders' rights Plant genetic resources Related rights Supplementary protection certificate Trade dress Trade secret Trademark Utility model
Related topics
Abandonware Artificial intelligence and copyright Brand protection Copyright abolition Copyright troll Criticism of copyright Bioprospecting Biopiracy Idea–expression distinction Limitations and exceptions to copyright Fair dealing Fair use Paraphrasing Right to quote Orphan work Patent troll Pirate Party Public domain Outline of intellectual property Outline of patents Higher categories: Property and Property law
v t e

Intellectual property (IP) is a term for something proprietary that is the creation of the mind and doesn't exist as a physical object. Examples of intellectual property include designs, concepts, software, inventions, formulas, brand names, works of art, or simply ideas.

Intellectual property rights are the legally recognized exclusive rights to intellectual property. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.

Although many of the legal principles governing intellectual property rights have evolved over centuries, it was not until the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used, and not until the late 20th century that it became commonplace in the majority of the world. The British Statute of Anne (1710) and the Statute of Monopolies (1624) are now seen as the origins of copyright and patent law respectively.

History

Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation. When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in 1893, they located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

The organization subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by treaty as an agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention), and it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.

"The history of patents does not begin with inventions, but rather with royal grants by Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603) for monopoly privileges... Approximately 200 years after the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, a patent represents a legal obtained by an inventor providing for exclusive control over the production and sale of his mechanical or scientific invention... the evolution of patents from royal prerogative to common-law doctrine."

The term intellectual property can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." The statement that "discoveries are...property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years." In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.

Until recently, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection possible in order to encourage innovation. Historically, therefore, they were granted only when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope.

The concept's origins can potentially be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist – notably the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author) copyright in the 16th century. In 500 BCE, the government of the Greek state of Sybaris offered one year's patent "to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury".

Types

Common types of intellectual property rights include patents, copyright, industrial design rights, trademarks, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets. There are also more specialized varieties of sui generis exclusive rights, such as circuit design rights (called mask work rights in U.S. law, protected under the Integrated Circuit Topography Act in Canadian law, and in European Union law by Directive 87/54/EEC of 16 December 1986 on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products), plant breeders' rights, plant variety rights, industrial design rights, supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceutical products and database rights (in European law).

Patents

A patent grants an inventor the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing an invention for a limited period of time, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem, which may be a product or a process.

Copyright

A copyright gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.

Industrial design rights

An industrial design right protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian. An industrial design consists of the creation of a shape, configuration or composition of pattern or color, or combination of pattern and color in three-dimensional form containing aesthetic value. An industrial design can be a two- or three-dimensional pattern used to produce a product, industrial commodity or handicraft.

Trademarks

A trademark is a recognizable sign, design or expression which distinguishes products or services of a particular trader from the similar products or services of other traders.

Trade dress

Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.

Trade secrets

A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In the United States, trade secret law is primarily handled at the state level under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which most states have adopted, and a federal law, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes. (The statutory penalties are different for the two offenses.) Trade secret law varies from country to country.

Objectives

The stated objective of most intellectual property law (with the exception of trademarks) is to "Promote progress." By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work. Some commentators have noted that the objective of intellectual property legislators and those who support its implementation appears to be "absolute protection". "If some intellectual property is desirable because it encourages innovation, they reason, more is better. The thinking is that creators will not have sufficient incentive to invent unless they are legally entitled to capture the full social value of their inventions". This absolute protection or full value view treats intellectual property as another type of "real" property, typically adopting its law and rhetoric. Other recent developments in intellectual property law, such as the America Invents Act, stress international harmonization.

Financial incentive

These exclusive rights allow owners of intellectual property to benefit from the property they have created, providing a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in intellectual property, and, in case of patents, pay associated research and development costs. Some commentators, such as David Levine and Michele Boldrin, dispute this justification.

In 2013 the United States Patent & Trademark Office claimed that the worth of intellectual property to the U.S. economy is more than US$5 trillion and creates employment for an estimated 18 million American people. The value of intellectual property is considered similarly high in other developed nations, such as those in the European Union. In the UK, IP has become a recognised asset class for use in pension-led funding and other types of business finance. However, in 2013, the UK Intellectual Property Office stated: “There are millions of intangible business assets whose value is either not being leveraged at all, or only being leveraged inadvertently”.

Economic growth

The WIPO treaty and several related international agreements are premised on the notion that the protection of intellectual property rights is essential to maintaining economic growth. The WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook gives two reasons for intellectual property laws:

One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) states that "effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic growth across all industries and globally".

Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the United States can be traced to intangible assets. "IP-intensive industries" are estimated to generate 72 percent more value added (price minus material cost) per employee than "non-IP-intensive industries".

A joint research project of the WIPO and the United Nations University measuring the impact of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening of the IP system and subsequent economic growth."

Economists have also shown that IP can be a disincentive to innovation when that innovation is drastic. IP makes excludable non-rival intellectual products that were previously non-excludable. This creates economic inefficiency as long as the monopoly is held. A disincentive to direct resources toward innovation can occur when monopoly profits are less than the overall welfare improvement to society. This situation can be seen as a market failure, and an issue of appropriability.

Morality

According to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author". Although the relationship between intellectual property and human rights is a complex one, there are moral arguments for intellectual property.

The arguments that justify intellectual property fall into three major categories. Personality theorists believe intellectual property is an extension of an individual. Utilitarians believe that intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation. Lockeans argue that intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work.

Various moral justifications for private property can be used to argue in favor of the morality of intellectual property, such as:

1. Natural Rights/Justice Argument: this argument is based on Locke’s idea that a person has a natural right over the labour and/or products which is produced by his/her body. Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind, it is possible to apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for people to misuse another's ideas. Locke's argument for intellectual property is based upon the idea that laborers have the right to control that which they create. They argue that we own our bodies which are the laborers, this right of ownership extends to what we create. Thus, intellectual property ensures this right when it comes to production.
2. Utilitarian-Pragmatic Argument: according to this rationale, a society that protects private property is more effective and prosperous than societies that do not. Innovation and invention in 19th century America has been said to be attributed to the development of the patent system. By providing innovators with "durable and tangible return on their investment of time, labor, and other resources", intellectual property rights seek to maximize social utility. The presumption is that they promote public welfare by encouraging the "creation, production, and distribution of intellectual works". Utilitarians argue that without intellectual property there would be a lack of incentive to produce new ideas. Systems of protection such as Intellectual property optimize social utility.
3. "Personality" Argument: this argument is based on a quote from Hegel: "Every man has the right to turn his will upon a thing or make the thing an object of his will, that is to say, to set aside the mere thing and recreate it as his own". European intellectual property law is shaped by this notion that ideas are an "extension of oneself and of one’s personality". Personality theorists argue that by being a creator of something one is inherently at risk and vulnerable for having their ideas and designs stolen and/or altered. Intellectual property protects these moral claims that have to do with personality.

Lysander Spooner (1855) argues "that a man has a natural and absolute right—and if a natural and absolute, then necessarily a perpetual, right—of property, in the ideas, of which he is the discoverer or creator; that his right of property, in ideas, is intrinsically the same as, and stands on identically the same grounds with, his right of property in material things; that no distinction, of principle, exists between the two cases".

Writer Ayn Rand argued in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that the protection of intellectual property is essentially a moral issue. The belief is that the human mind itself is the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property. To violate intellectual property is therefore no different morally than violating other property rights which compromises the very processes of survival and therefore constitutes an immoral act.

Infringement, misappropriation, and enforcement

Unauthorized use of intellectual property rights, called "infringement" with respect to patents, copyright, and trademarks, and "misappropriation" with respect to trade secrets, may be a breach of civil law or criminal law, depending on the type of intellectual property, jurisdiction, and the nature of the action.

Patent infringement typically is caused by using or selling a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. The scope of the patented invention or the extent of protection is defined in the claims of the granted patent. There is safe harbor in many jurisdictions to use a patented invention for research. This safe harbor does not exist in the US unless the research is done for purely philosophical purposes, or in order to gather data in order to prepare an application for regulatory approval of a drug. In general, patent infringement cases are handled under civil law (e.g., in the United States) but several jurisdictions incorporate infringement in criminal law also (for example, Argentina, China, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea).

Copyright infringement is reproducing, distributing, displaying or performing a work, or to make derivative works, without permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator. It is often called "piracy". While copyright is created the instance a work is fixed, generally the copyright holder can only get money damages if the owner registers the copyright. Enforcement of copyright is generally the responsibility of the copyright holder. The ACTA trade agreement, signed in May 2011 by the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and the EU, requires that its parties add criminal penalties, including incarceration and fines, for copyright and trademark infringement, and obligated the parties to active police for infringement. There is a safe harbor to use copyrighted works under the fair use doctrine.

Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses a trademark that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services of the other party. As with copyright, there are common law rights protecting a trademark, but registering a trademark provides legal advantages for enforcement. Infringement can be addressed by civil litigation and, in several jurisdictions, under criminal law. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services and ACTA amplified the penalties.

Trade secret misappropriation is different from violations of other intellectual property laws, since by definition trade secrets are secret, while patents and registered copyrights and trademarks are publicly available. In the United States, trade secrets are protected under state law, and states have nearly universally adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The United States also has federal law in the form of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes. (The statutory penalties are different for the two offenses.) In Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, confidentiality and trade secrets are regarded as an equitable right rather than a property right but penalties for theft are roughly the same as the United States.

As of 2011 trade in counterfeit copyrighted and trademarked works was a $600 billion industry worldwide and accounted for 5–7% of global trade.

Criticisms

The term itself

Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights". Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term. Similarly, Boldrin and Levine prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept.

Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original). Other arguments along these lines claim that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is no natural scarcity of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. Stephan Kinsella has objected to intellectual property on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity, which may not be applicable to ideas.

Alternative terms

In civil law jurisdictions, intellectual property has often been referred to as intellectual rights, traditionally a somewhat broader concept that has included moral rights and other personal protections that cannot be bought or sold. Use of the term intellectual rights has declined since the early 1980s, as use of the term intellectual property has increased.

Alternative terms monopolies on information and intellectual monopoly have emerged among those who argue against the "property" or "intellect" or "rights" assumptions, notably Richard Stallman. The backronyms intellectual protectionism and intellectual poverty, whose initials are also IP, have found supporters as well, especially among those who have used the backronym digital restrictions management.

The argument that an intellectual property right should (in the interests of better balancing of relevant private and public interests) be termed an intellectual monopoly privilege (IMP) has been advanced by several academics including Birgitte Andersen and Thomas Alured Faunce.

Objections to overbroad intellectual property laws

Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culture movement, point at intellectual monopolies as harming health (in the case of pharmaceutical patents), preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses, and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever-expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents, and business method patents. More recently scientists and engineers are expressing concern that patent thickets are undermining technological development even in high-tech fields like nanotechnology.

Petra Moser has asserted that historical analysis suggests that intellectual property laws may harm innovation:

"Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors, may discourage innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to encourage innovation"

Peter Drahos notes, "Property rights confer authority over resources. When authority is granted to the few over resources on which many depend, the few gain power over the goals of the many. This has consequences for both political and economic freedoms with in a society."

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes that conflicts may exist between the respect for and implementation of current intellectual property systems and other human rights. In 2001 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a document called "Human rights and intellectual property" that argued that intellectual property tends to be governed by economic goals when it should be viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being, intellectual property systems must respect and conform to human rights laws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so they risk infringing upon the human right to food and health, and to cultural participation and scientific benefits. In 2004 the General Assembly of WIPO adopted The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization which argues that WIPO should "focus more on the needs of developing countries, and to view IP as one of many tools for development—not as an end in itself".

Further along these lines, The ethical problems brought up by IP rights are most pertinent when it is socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines are given IP protection. While the application of IP rights can allow companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development, the price may exclude from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life-saving drug. "An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conductive to the investment of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominately poor populations".

Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible property. Stephan Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:

magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let's call him Galt-Magnon—decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.

Thomas Jefferson once said in a letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

In 2005 the RSA launched the Adelphi Charter, aimed at creating an international policy statement to frame how governments should make balanced intellectual property law.

Another limitation of current U.S. Intellectual Property legislation is its focus on individual and joint works; thus, copyright protection can only be obtained in 'original' works of authorship. This definition excludes any works that are the result of community creativity, for example Native American songs and stories; current legislation does not recognize the uniqueness of indigenous cultural "property" and its ever-changing nature. Simply asking native cultures to 'write down' their cultural artifacts on tangible mediums ignores their necessary orality and enforces a Western bias of the written form as more authoritative.

Expansion in nature and scope of intellectual property laws

Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the expansion of intellectual property, both in duration and in scope.

In addition, as scientific knowledge has expanded and allowed new industries to arise in fields such as biotechnology and nanotechnology, originators of technology have sought IP protection for the new technologies. Patents have been granted for living organisms, (and in the United States, certain living organisms have been patentable for over a century)

The increase in terms of protection is particularly seen in relation to copyright, which has recently been the subject of serial extensions in the United States and in Europe. With no need for registration or copyright notices, this is thought to have led to an increase in orphan works (copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted), a problem that has been noticed and addressed by governmental bodies around the world.

Also with respect to copyright, the American film industry helped to change the social construct of intellectual property via its trade organization, the Motion Picture Association of America. In amicus briefs in important cases, in lobbying before Congress, and in its statements to the public, the MPAA has advocated strong protection of intellectual-property rights. In framing its presentations, the association has claimed that people are entitled to the property that is produced by their labor. Additionally Congress's awareness of the position of the United States as the world's largest producer of films has made it convenient to expand the conception of intellectual property. These doctrinal reforms have further strengthened the industry, lending the MPAA even more power and authority.

The growth of the Internet, and particularly distributed search engines like Kazaa and Gnutella, have represented a challenge for copyright policy. The Recording Industry Association of America, in particular, has been on the front lines of the fight against copyright infringement, which the industry calls "piracy". The industry has had victories against some services, including a highly publicized case against the file-sharing company Napster, and some people have been prosecuted for sharing files in violation of copyright. The electronic age has seen an increase in the attempt to use software-based digital rights management tools to restrict the copying and use of digitally based works. Laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have been enacted, that use criminal law to prevent any circumvention of software used to enforce digital rights management systems. Equivalent provisions, to prevent circumvention of copyright protection have existed in EU for some time, and are being expanded in, for example, Article 6 and 7 the Copyright Directive. Other examples are Article 7 of the Software Directive of 1991 (91/250/EEC), and the Conditional Access Directive of 1998 (98/84/EEC). This can hinder legal uses, affecting public domain works, limitations and exceptions to copyright, or uses allowed by the copyright holder. Some copyleft licenses, like GNU GPL 3, are designed to counter that. Laws may permit circumvention under specific conditions like when it is necessary to achieve interoperability with the circumventor’s program, or for accessibility reasons; however, distribution of circumvention tools or instructions may be illegal.

In the context of trademarks, this expansion has been driven by international efforts to harmonise the definition of "trademark", as exemplified by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ratified in 1994, which formalized regulations for IP rights that had been handled by common law, or not at all, in member states. Pursuant to TRIPs, any sign which is "capable of distinguishing" the products or services of one business from the products or services of another business is capable of constituting a trademark.

See also

• Outline of intellectual property
• Information policy
• Anti-copyright
• Freedom of information
• Artificial scarcity
• Digital rights management#Controversy
• Libertarianism and intellectual property

Notes

1. Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis, by Richard Raysman, Edward A. Pisacreta and Kenneth A. Adler. Law Journal Press, 1998–2008. ISBN 973-58852-086-9
2. ^ "property as a common descriptor of the field probably traces to the foundation of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by the United Nations." in Mark A. Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, Texas Law Review, 2005, Vol. 83:1031, page 1033, footnote 4.
3. Brad, Sherman; Lionel Bently (1999). The making of modern intellectual property law: the British experience, 1760–1911. Cambridge University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780521563635.
4. 'Article 4 No. 6 of the Constitution of 1867 (German)' Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001
5. Mark A. Lemley, "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding" (Abstract); see Table 1: 4–5.
6. Mossoff, A. 'Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550–1800,' Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001
7. 1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West.L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414
8. A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States
9. "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding", Mark A. Lemley, Texas Law Review 2007
10. Jewish Law and Copyright
11. Charles Anthon, A Classical Dictionary: Containing an Account of the Principal Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors, and Intended to Elucidate All the Important Points Connected with the Geography, History, Biography, Mythology, and Fine Arts of the Greek and Romans. Together with an Account of Coins, Weights, and Measures, with Tabular Values of the Same 1273 (Harper & Brothers 1841).
12. ^ WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2: Fields of Intellectual Property Protection WIPO 2008
13. Peter K, Yu (2007). Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 346. ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
14. World Intellectual Property Organisation. "Understanding Copyright and Related Rights" (PDF). WIPO. p. 8. Retrieved August 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
15. Simon, Stokes (2001). Art and copyright. Hart Publishing. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-1-84113-225-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
16. "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others". Retrieved 2011-12-13.
17. "A trade mark is a sign which can distinguish your goods and services from those of your competitors (you may refer to your trade mark as your "brand")". Retrieved 2012-12-22.
18. "Trade marks identify the goods and services of particular traders".
19. Merges, Robert P.; Menell, Peter S.; Lemley, Mark A. (2007). Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (4th rev. ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-7355-6989-8.
20. U.S. Const., art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8.
21. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tlr83&div=30&g_sent=1&collection=journals
22. Prudential Reasons for IPR Reform, University of Melbourne, Doris Schroeder and Peter Singer, May 2009
23. Levine, David; Michele Boldrin (2008-09-07). Against intellectual monopoly (PDF). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87928-6.
24. Thomas Bollyky (10 April 2013). "Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
25. Brassell, King, Martin, Kelvin (2013). Banking on IP? (PDF). Newport, Wales: The Intellectual Property Office. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-908908-86-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
26. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch1.pdf p. 3.
27. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf
28. Sonecon.com
29. Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the United States, Robert Shapiro and Nam Pham, July 2007 (archived on archive.org).
30. Measuring the Economic Impact of IP Systems, WIPO, 2007.
31. Greenhalgh, C. & Rogers M., (2010). The Nature and Role of Intellectual Property. Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 32–34).
32. United Nations. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Retrieved October 25, 2011.
33. WIPO - The World Intellectual Property Organization. "Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An Overview". Retrieved October 25, 2011.
34. Ronald V. Bettig. "Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright" in Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property, by Ronald V. Bettig. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996), 19–20
35. Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights," in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 415–416.
36. Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights," in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 416.
37. ^ Spinello, Richard A. (January 2007). "Intellectual property rights". Library Hi Tech. 25 (1): 12–22. doi:10.1108/07378830710735821. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
38. Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights," in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 417.
39. Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights," in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 418.
40. The Law of Intellectual Property, Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 9 - Lysander Spooner
41. Rand, Ayn (1967) . Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (paperback 2nd ed.). New York: Signet. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
42. Article 69 EPC
43. Pradip K. Sahu and Shannon Mrksich, Ph.D. The Hatch-Waxman Act: When Is Research Exempt from Patent Infringement? ABA-IPL Newsletter 22(4) Summer 2004
44. Matthew L. Cutler (2008) International Patent Litigation Survey: A Survey of the Characteristics of Patent Litigation in 17 International Jurisdictions
45. Panethiere, Darrell (July–September 2005). "The Persistence of Piracy: The Consequences for Creativity, for Culture, and for Sustainable Development" (PDF). UNESCO e-Copyright Bulletin. p. 2.
46. Correa, Carlos Maria; Li, Xuan (2009). Intellectual property enforcement: international perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-84844-663-2.
47. ^ Miriam Bitton (2012) Rethinking the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’s Criminal Copyright Enforcement Measures The Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology 102(1):67-117
48. ^ Irina D. Manta Spring 2011 The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 24(2):469-518
49. Richard M. Stallman. "Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage". Free Software Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
50. Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
51. ^ "Against perpetual copyright".
52. Doctorow, Cory (2008-02-21). ""Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-02-23.
53. Stephan Kinsella (2001 Against Intellectual Property Journal of Libertarian Studies 15(2):1–53
54. Stephan Kinsella for Ludwig von Mises Institute blog, January 6, 2011. Intellectual Poverty
55. Official drm.info site run by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)
56. Defective by Design Official Website
57. Birgitte Andersen. "'Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege: Which One Should Patent Analysts Focus On?" CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL SOBRE SISTEMAS DE INOVAÇÃO E ESTRATÉGIAS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO PARA O TERCEIRO MILÊNIO. Nov 2003
58. Martin G, Sorenson C and Faunce TA. Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for essential medicines Globalization and Health 2007, 3:4 doi:10.1186/1744-8603-3-4. http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/3/1/4 "Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs) ("which the third author considers are more accurately described as intellectual monopoly privileges (IMPs)) of pharmaceutical companies, with the need to ensure access to essential medicines in developing countries is one of the most pressing challenges facing international policy makers today.")
59. Birgitte Andersen. 'Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege': Which One Should Patent Analysts Focus On? Conferência Internacional Sobre Sistemas De Inovação E Estratégias De Desenvolvimento Para O Terceiro Milênio. Nov. 2003
60. Martin G, Sorenson C and Faunce TA. (2007) Editorial: Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs). Globalization and Health 2007, 3:4
61. On patents - Daniel B. Ravicher (August 6, 2008). "Protecting Freedom In The Patent System: The Public Patent Foundation's Mission and Activities".
62. Joseph Stiglitz (October 13, 2006). "Authors@Google: Joseph Stiglitz - Making Globalization Work".
63. Pearce, J. (2012). "Make nanotechnology research open-source". Nature. 491: 519. doi:10.1038/491519a.
64. Joshua M. Pearce, Open-source nanotechnology: Solutions to a modern intellectual property tragedy,Nano Today, Volume 8, Issue 4, August 2013, Pages 339–341. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2013.04.001 open access
65. Usman Mushtaq and Joshua M. Pearce “Open Source Appropriate Nanotechnology ” Chapter 9 in editors Donald Maclurcan and Natalia Radywyl, Nanotechnology and Global Sustainability, CRC Press, pp. 191-213, 2012.
66. Stallman's got company: Researcher wants nanotech patent moratorium - Ars Technica
67. Freeze on nanotechnology patents proposed to help grow the sector- Wired UK 11-23-2012
68. Moser, Petra. 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 23-44.
69. Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite. Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, Earthscan 2002
70. WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. "Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An Overview". Retrieved October 25, 2011.
71. Staff, UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva, November 12–30, 2001. Human rights and intellectual property
72. Chapman, Audrey R. (December 2002). "The Human Rights Implications of Intellectual Property Protection". Journal of International Economic Law. 5 (4): 861–882. doi:10.1093/jiel/5.4.861. Retrieved February 9, 2013.
73. The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization
74. ^ Jorn Sonderholm (2010) Ethical Issues Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights, Philosophy Compass 5(12): 1107–1115.
75. N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual property (2008), p. 44.
76. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson (August 13, 1813)
77. Boyle, James (14 October 2005). Protecting the public domain. The Guardian.
78. Philip Bennet, 'Native Americans and Intellectual Property: the Necessity of Implementing Collective Ideals into Current United States Intellectual Property Laws", 2009
79. Council for Responsible Genetics, DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms. Accessed 2008.12.18.
80. Plant Patents USPTO.gov
81. E.g., the U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, Pub.L. 105–298.
82. Mark Helprin, Op-ed: A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? The New York Times, May 20, 2007.
83. Eldred v. Ashcroft Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186 (2003)
84. Mike Masnick (May 21, 2007). "Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property". techdirt.
85. Library of Congress Copyright Office Docket No. 2012–12 Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 204. Monday, October 22, 2012. Notices. PP 64555–64561; see p 64555 first column for international efforts and 3rd column for description of the problem.
86. Dennis Wharton, "MPAA's Rebel With Cause Fights for Copyright Coin," Variety (August 3, 1992), Vol. 348, No. 2, p. 18.
87. William W. Fisher III, The Growth of Intellectual Property:A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United States Eigentumskulturen im Vergleich (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)
88. Brett Smith (2007–2010). "A Quick Guide to GPLv3". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2013-02-15.
89. Katherine Beckman and Christa Pletcher (2009) Expanding Global Trademark Regulation Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal 10(2): 215–239

References

• Arai, Hisamitsu. "Intellectual Property Policies for the Twenty-First Century: The Japanese Experience in Wealth Creation", WIPO Publication Number 834 (E). 2000. wipo.int
• Bettig, R. V. (1996). Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright. In R. V. Bettig, Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. (pp. 9–32). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Boldrin, Michele and David K. Levine. "Against Intellectual Monopoly", 2008. dkleving.com
• Hahn, Robert W., Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology, AEI Press, March 2005.
• Branstetter, Lee, Raymond Fishman and C. Fritz Foley. "Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from US Firm-Level Data". NBER Working Paper 11516. July 2005. weblog.ipcentral.info
• Connell, Shaun. "Intellectual Ownership". October 2007. rebithofffreedom.org
• De George, Richard T. "14. Intellectual Property Rights." In The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, 1:408-439. 1st ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.
• Farah, Paolo and Cima, Elena. "China’s Participation in the World Trade Organization: Trade in Goods, Services, Intellectual Property Rights and Transparency Issues" in Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez (ed.), El comercio con China. Oportunidades empresariales, incertidumbres jurídicas, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia (Spain) 2010, pp. 85–121. ISBN 978-84-8456-981-7. Available at SSRN.com
• Gowers, Andrew. "Gowers Review of Intellectual Property". Her Majesty's Treasury, November 2006. hm-treasury.gov.uk ISBN 978011840839.
• Greenhalgh, C. & Rogers M., (2010). Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Kinsella, Stephan. "Against Intellectual Property". Journal of Libertarian Studies 15.2 (Spring 2001): 1–53. mises.org
• Lai, Edwin. "The Economics of Intellectual Property Protection in the Global Economy". Princeton University. April 2001. dklevine.com
• Lee, Richmond K. Scope and Interplay of IP Rights Accralaw offices.
• Lessig, Lawrence. "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity". New York: Penguin Press, 2004. free-culture.cc.
• Lindberg, Van. Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code. O'Reilly Books, 2008. ISBN 0-596-51796-3 | ISBN 978-0-596-51796-0
• Maskus, Keith E. "Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development". Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, 471. journals/jil/32-3/maskusarticle.pdf law.case.edu
• Mazzone, Jason. "Copyfraud". Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 40. New York University Law Review 81 (2006): 1027. (Abstract.)
• Miller, Arthur Raphael, and Michael H. Davis. Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright. 3rd ed. New York: West/Wadsworth, 2000. ISBN 0-314-23519-1.
• Moore, Adam, "Intellectual Property", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
• Mossoff, A. 'Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800,' Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001
• Rozanski, Felix. "Developing Countries and Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property Rights: Myths and Reality" stockholm-network.org
• Perelman, Michael. Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property and The Corporate Confiscation of Creativity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
• Rand, Ayn. "Patents and Copyrights" in Ayn Rand, ed. 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,' New York: New American Library, 1966, pp. 126–128
• Reisman, George. 'Capitalism: A Complete & Integrated Understanding of the Nature & Value of Human Economic Life,' Ottawa, Illinois: 1996, pp. 388–389
• Schechter, Roger E., and John R. Thomas. Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks. New York: West/Wadsworth, 2003, ISBN 0-314-06599-7.
• Schneider, Patricia H. "International Trade, Economic Growth and Intellectual Property Rights: A Panel Data Study of Developed and Developing Countries". July 2004. mtholyoke.edu
• Shapiro, Robert and Nam Pham. "Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the United States". July 2007. the-value-of.ip.org
• Spooner, Lysander. "The Law of Intellectual Property; or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas". Boston: Bela Marsh, 1855.
• Vaidhyanathan, Siva. The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
• Burk, Dan L. and Mark A. Lemley (2009). The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08061-1.

External links

• Resources in your library
• Resources in other libraries

• IRIS newsletter on media law in Europe, European Audiovisual Observatory
• Analysis of copyright legislation in Europe, European Audiovisual Observatory

(P)

• Intellectual property law
• Monopoly (economics)
• Social information processing
• Information economics