...INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY(IP)-This refers to the creations of mind: invetions, literary and artistic works and symbols, names, images and designs used in commerce and trade. IP is divided into two categories- 1-Industrial Property-which includes inventions (Patents, Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications of source) 2-Copyright-which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures and architectural designs. WHAT ARE IPR’s? Intellectual Property Rights are the rights given to people over the creations of their minds. With rights in hand, through the exploitation of IP, the individuals or the business organizations earn profits either through manufacturing or licensing and which is a reward for their innovative efforts. It also acts as a stimulus to R&D efforts. NEED FOR IPR’S: Michael Porter in his work on “Competitive Advantage” stated that differentiation is a key to business competitiveness. This can achieved through product, experience, technology or way the things are performed and exhibited to satisfy the customers. However, all this amounts to the knowledge which, in today’s highly dynamic and competitive business environment is the key source of competitive strength to the organizations. The need of IPR can be felt because any invention is the intellectual catpital of a firm or an individual which needs to be captured, preserved...
Words: 2571 - Pages: 11
...Drug patents The role of the patent system in promoting pharmaceutical innovation is widely seen as a tremendous success story. This view overlooks a serious shortcoming in the drug patent system: the standards by which drugs are deemed unpatentable under the novelty and non-obviousness requirement bear little relationship to the social value of those drugs or the need for a patent to motivate their development. If the idea for a drug is not novel or is obvious, perhaps because it was disclosed in an earlier publication or made to look obvious by recent scientific advances, then it cannot be patented. Yet the mere idea for a drug alone is generally of little value to the public. Without clinical trials proving the drug's safety and efficacy, a prerequisite for FDA approval and acceptance by the medical community, it is unlikely to benefit the public. Given the immense investment needed to fund clinical trials on drugs, and the ability of generic manufacturers to rely on those tests to secure regulatory approval for their own products, pharmaceutical companies are rarely willing to develop a drug without patent protection. The novelty and non-obviousness requirements make no concession for the development costs of inventions, and thus withhold patents from drugs that are unlikely to reach the public without that protection. This gap in the patent system for drugs has created a pervasive problem in the pharmaceutical industry, causing firms to regularly screen through their drugs...
Words: 299 - Pages: 2
...these two companies to evaluate the competitive advantages of GSK. USD $ in millions, translated from GBP £ | | Dec 31, 2012 | Dec 31, 2011 | Dec 31, 2010 | Dec 31, 2009 | Dec 31, 2008 | | Land and buildings | 10,538 | 9,654 | 9,263 | 9,457 | 8,506 | | Plant, equipment and vehicles | 16,105 | 15,454 | 15,550 | 16,361 | 15,020 | | Assets in construction | 3,056 | 3,148 | 3,343 | 3,523 | 3,330 | | Property, plant and equipment, cost | 29,699 | 28,255 | 28,156 | 29,340 | 26,857 | | Accumulated depreciation | (15,427) | (14,663) | (14,234) | (14,184) | (12,708) | | Property, plant and equipment, net book value | 14,272 | 13,592 | 13,922 | 15,156 | 14,149 | Patents 2013年数据 Assignee | No. of patent families | No. of patent families as 1st assignee | GLAXOSMITHKLINE (UK) | 37 | 32 | SANOFI-AVENTIS (FR) | 21 | 20 | US GOVERNMENT (US) | 21 | 12 | WYETH CORP (US) | 20 | 15 | NOVARTIS CORP (CH) | 19 | 13 | MERCK AND CO INC (US) | 15 | 14 | SEPPIC SA (FR) | 12 | 9 | BISEIBUTSU KAGAKU KENKYUSHO (JP) | 11 | 10 | KITASATO INST (JP) | 8 | 6 | PFIZER CORP (US) | 8 | 6 | AQUILA BIOPHARM INC (US) | 8 | 4 | UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (US) | 7 | 5 | EISAI CO LTD (JP) | 7 | 6 | STATENS SERUMINSTITUT (DK) | 6 | 6 | ANVAR (FR) | 6 | 6 | CHEMO-SERO THERAPEUTICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (JP) | 6 | 2 | CSL LTD (AU) | 6 | 5 | DUKE UNIVERSITY (US) | 6 | 6 | AKZO NOBEL NV (NL) | 6 | 6 | GENEXINE INC (KR) | 5 | 3 | UNIVERSITY...
Words: 383 - Pages: 2
...Patent Trolls Patent Trolls as defined by Investopedia is a term used to describe companies or people that misuse patents as a business strategy. These patents are bought by Non-Practicing Entity’s (NPE) who buy these patents from bankrupt companies and auctions and have no intentions of developing it. Their business strategy is to do some research and file lawsuits against infringing companies. These Patent trollers cost the US Company billions of dollars each year. They disrupt the productivities of many companies and affect the whole idea of creativity and innovation in the United States. Patent trolling cost the companies $29 Billion in 2011 in direct costs and up to $80 Billion in other ancillary costs. Add to that the incalculable costs in terms of productivity and disruption of innovation and entrepreneurship. Among the ones that are most affected by this are the small and start-up companies. To give a comparison, the terrorist attack of 9/11 had an economic impact of $123 Billion whereas, patent troll lawsuits amounted to $500 Billion in lost wealth to defendants. The next question that needs to be answered is why there is a rise in this sort of unethical business. This business has a very low start-up cost which usually requires buying out junk patents or acquiring patents from bankrupt companies. This business also has a very low overhead cost Furthermore, the cost of running these sort of businesses are very...
Words: 631 - Pages: 3
...Patent Warfare Per your request I reviewed the lawsuit notice and believe our company can handle the matter without litigation saving us time and money. Our first course of action should be to propose collaboration with the accuser in order to continue innovation. If the accuser turns out to be a patent troll or in other terms in the business of strictly making money on infringement cases we will have the case arbitrated by a subject matter expert. I recommend we offer the accuser a chance to collaborate with a business which recently launched a great new product supported by Apple iOS and Google Android platforms. Instead of being a killer of creativity the accuser might be a legitimate technology developer such as our company. The accuser may be more interested in developing newer and better versions of its product instead of getting a onetime payout. Collaboration will save both parties time and money by avoiding a long and expensive court case. It will also benefit both parties to share research and new ideas (Laudon, 2012). Nokia and HTC are a recent example of collaborations as they entered “into a collaboration agreement to provide access to each other’s patented technology to explore future projects” (Shankar, 2014). Working together will provide our business with new innovations making us more competitive. New innovations will develop an opportunity for new registered patents to our company, providing a defense system for possible future law suits. Licensing...
Words: 856 - Pages: 4
...realized recently that we may be able to solve part of the patent problem without waiting for the government. I've never been 100% sure whether patents help or hinder technological progress. When I was a kid I thought they helped. I thought they protected inventors from having their ideas stolen by big companies. Maybe that was truer in the past, when more things were physical. But regardless of whether patents are in general a good thing, there do seem to be bad ways of using them. And since bad uses of patents seem to be increasing, there is an increasing call for patent reform. The problem with patent reform is that it has to go through the government. That tends to be slow. But recently I realized we can also attack the problem downstream. As well as pinching off the stream of patents at the point where they're issued, we may in some cases be able to pinch it off at the point where they're used. One way of using patents that clearly does not encourage innovation is when established companies with bad products use patents to suppress small competitors with good products. This is the type of abuse we may be able to decrease without having to go through the government. The way to do it is to get the companies that are above pulling this sort of trick to pledge publicly not to. Then the ones that won't make such a pledge will be very conspicuous. Potential employees won't want to work for them. And investors, too, will be able to see that they're the sort of company...
Words: 593 - Pages: 3
...Disadvantages of software Patents 1. Furthering Monopoly Software patents let companies such as Oracle buy up patents on technology created by others and then launch lawsuit after lawsuit as a way to generate revenue. This is what it means to be a "patent troll," and it's of course motivated by the huge sums that have been awarded by the courts in the past. It also puts the advantage squarely in the hands of the industry's monoliths, which are the ones with deep enough pockets to acquire and assert all that intellectual property. 2. Hindering Innovation By their very definition, patents reduce the sharing of new ideas. In the software industry--which relies on just that kind of diffusion to spur further innovation--that's particularly destructive. Software patents frequently have very broad or vague boundaries, making it highly unclear where the patented piece of a program begins and ends. Frequently, software patents cover what can be considered the equivalent of a sequence of notes in a piece of music; imagine if that were to happen in the music world! It has also been historically very difficult for patent offices to judge patent quality, or to realize when a patent application is too broad or covers something trivial. 3. Cost and Time Patents are extremely expensive, and the examination process takes a very long time. Not only are the costs extremely high to determine if a particular piece of software infringes any issued patents--thereby reducing the funds companies...
Words: 1547 - Pages: 7
...THE NEW ITALIAN PATENT BOX: FIRST EVALUATION AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES WITH THE OECD INDICATIONS Author: Luca Marco Pappalardo Summary: 1. The new Italian Patent Box: a brief overview. - 2. Eligible assets. - 3. Eligibility requirements and determination of the relevant income: the nexus approach. - 3.1 Nexus approach and trademarks: what went wrong? - 3.2 Looking at the issue from a comparative perspective - 4. - Conclusions. 1. The 2015 Italian Stability Law, Article 1, subsections from 37 to 45, introduces an optional taxation regime for income produced by intangible assets, known as ‘Patent Box’. The regime has been subsequently modified by Article 5 of the Law Decree n. 3 of 24 January 2015. The regime allows taxpayers to exclude from their tax base a percentage of the income derived from certain intangible assets. According to the Stability Law, individual and collective entrepreneurs as well may choose to benefit from this regime, including foreign entrepreneurs having a permanent establishment in Italy and being resident in a state that has both a double tax agreement with Italy and undertakes an effective exchange of information. The election of the regime cannot be revoked and lasts for five fiscal years. The income that benefits from the exemption may originate from: 1) direct use of the intangible assets by the taxpayer; 2) allowance of use of the intangible assets given by the taxpayer to third parties; 3) transfer of ownership of the relevant assets...
Words: 4828 - Pages: 20
...SCOPE OF STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS AND THER RELATION WITH FRAND (FAIR , REASONABLE AND NON DISCRIMINATORY TERMS) SUBMITTED BY : ALIFAH AHMAD TABLE OF CONTENT Topic | Page No. | 1. Introduction | 3 | 2. Litigation relating to SEP | 5 | 3. Standard Essential Patent and their relevance to FRAND | 9 | 4. USA’s and EU’s approach to Standard Essential Patents | 11 | 5. India’s approach to Standard Essential Patents | 12 | 6. Conclusion | 12 | INTRODUCTION Indian jurisprudence on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing practices for standard-essential patents (SEPs) is at a relatively nascent stage. Unlike U.S. and EU courts, which have dealt with cases concerning calculating a FRAND royalty for a considerable time, Indian courts and the Indian antitrust authority—the Competition Commission of India (CCI)—have only just begun to decide such cases. In its initial orders in the first two antitrust complaints concerning SEPs, the CCI seemed to favor using the smallest salable patent-practicing component (SSPPC) as the royalty base to determine a FRAND royalty. However, in the short time since the CCI’s orders, the Delhi High Court has rendered contrary decisions in two SEP infringement suits. The Delhi High Court’s decisions use the value of the downstream product as a royalty base and rely on comparable licenses to determine a FRAND royalty. The Delhi High Court’s decisions are not only consistent with sound economic principles...
Words: 3902 - Pages: 16
...found to my surprise that I'd been granted four patents. This was all the more surprising because I'd only applied for three. The patents aren't mine, of course. They were assigned to Viaweb, and became Yahoo's when they bought us. But the news set me thinking about the question of software patents generally. Patents are a hard problem. I've had to advise most of the startups we've funded about them, and despite years of experience I'm still not always sure I'm giving the right advice. One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not. Unfortunately, patent law is inconsistent on this point. Patent law in most countries says that algorithms aren't patentable. This rule is left over from a time when "algorithm" meant something like the Sieve of Eratosthenes. In 1800, people could not see as readily as we can that a great many patents on mechanical objects were really patents on the algorithms they embodied. Patent lawyers still have to pretend that's what they're doing when they patent algorithms. You must not use the word "algorithm" in the title of a patent application, just as you must not use the word...
Words: 4445 - Pages: 18
...Software Copyright and Patents Introduction The escalating speed of the advancement in the software industry has put many parties in a competitive race to come up with new softwares for commercial purposes. This digital arms race contributed to a rapid increase in software patents from a mere 45 average patents a week in year 1985 to an average 1200 patents a week in year 2012 (Patent Metrics, 2013). Intrigued by such large numbers of software patents, multiple studies have been carried out by scholars to investigate the impact of software patents to the software industry. The studies sparked an ongoing debate on whether software copyrights and patents are beneficial or detrimental for the software industry. This paper touches lightly on the methodology of software copyrights and patents under the current standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It then explores the benefits of copyrights and patents in the software industry and lay out the drawbacks of software patenting. Finally, this paper provides a possible four-point solution to the problems concerning software patents. Methodology of Software Copyrights and Patents According to WIPO, copyright is defined as something that “provides exclusive legal rights to a creator to publish, print, perform or materialise an original work and authorize others to do the same” (2002). In the context of software copyright, a software is subject to copyright as soon as it is documented in a verifiable manner...
Words: 3386 - Pages: 14
...Patents in the Modern World Stefano Andreis Intellectual Property has always been a widely discussed topic but not as much as it is nowadays in the so-called globalized technological era that we live in. According to the World Intellectual Property organization, known as WIPO, Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind and is divided into two categories: Industrial Property, which includes patents for inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications and Copyright that covers literary works, films, music, artistic works and architectural design. Intellectual property rights serve the same purpose as any other property rights. They allow creators, or owners, of patents, trademarks or copyrighted works to benefit exclusively, for a certain period, from their own work or investment in a creation. However, in reality maintaining the rights for such an asset as the “creation of mind” always raises multitude of complication and disputes. Therefore, the reasons behind the intellectual rights are the following: * To maintain peace and order; * To assign decision rights; * To reward investments; * To favor the diffusion of information. However, as any other type of legislation, these rights have their own pros and cons. Property rights have a major impact on economic growth. An efficient intellectual property system is essential because the legal protection of new creations encourages the commitment of both human and economic...
Words: 2385 - Pages: 10
...Software Patents Controversy over software patents has been around since the inception of commercial software. The main issue lies in the fact that some software producers want legislation that allows them to be granted exclusive rights to algorithms, data structures or other snippets of code implemented in their commercial productions, while other people argue that software patents stint software production and have many other negative effects. Due to the increasing size of the software industry, and in turn the rising number of software patents being applied for and granted, the number of problems arising from this issue is only getting worse; clearly our patent system is broken. Both advocates and opponents of software patents make convincing arguments, but because of my own personal experiences and opinions, as well as the opinions of other patent objectors, I believe patents like Amazon's US5960411 online ordering system patent should not be granted. People that oppose software patents are at an advantage in that there are many examples that make a compelling argument for them. It is no subtle fact that claims are made that software patents impede research and development of software. These claims can be quantified in studies like those in Adam Jaffe's Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress. In these studies, Jaffe shows that many companies are stopped from working on projects because they find themselves...
Words: 1699 - Pages: 7
...in! Let’s talk about patent infringement. Because the absolute best way to understand a patent…your rights with a patent…your competitors’ rights with a patent…the strength of a patent. The best way to understand a patent is to understand how a patent is infringed. So, we know the power of the patent is in the claims. This is where the inventor defines his or her patent rights; his or her ENFORCEMENT rights. So, let’s try to infringe some claims. We’ll use a simple example. Let’s imagine we can get a patent on anything. Let’s get a patent on a basic chair. Imagine a world without chairs…pretty scary…all we can do is sit on rocks. Not comfortable. Hard to move around. So, we invent the first chair. And we know we’re on to something. Everyone will want to buy this. So, we go to a patent lawyer and get a patent. Here is the claim. (Visually display the elements) • An apparatus for sitting comprised of • a seat, • a back, and • four legs. All of these elements make up one independent claim. And this would be a great claim. It would come at the end of a patent document which could be a few or even dozens of pages of text and drawings describing how to make it and how to use it. (Patent visual running through page after page of drawings then text…then narrow in on a claim). What can we do with this patent… with this claim? Well, first, in our scenario, let’s pick a country. We need to do that because each patent is only useful and enforceable...
Words: 1539 - Pages: 7
...If one was able to put their own price on a gene patent, then a lot more clinical research would be easily accessible, thus leading to less expensive testing and a lower amount of deaths. Film producer, Michael Crichton, who wrote “Patenting Life” and an economist in the Bureau Of Economics at the Federal Trade Commission, John E. Calfee, who wrote “ Decoding The Use Of Gene Patents,” discuss the use of gene patents and its negative effects on medical research. Crichton and Calfee both disagree on the handling of gene patents. Each source points out the rising medical costs, monopoly effects and impeding the advancement of future research. Gene patents are shown to gradually increase in price. This can be seen when Crichton talks about how a test for breast cancer which could be done for $1,000 has dramatically increased to $3,000, stating “ Why? Because the holder of the gene can charge whatever he wants and does”(Crichton 441). Believing that everyone should be able to test on the gene patent not solely the company who owns it. On the other hand, Calfee argues that not...
Words: 834 - Pages: 4
