Towards an Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for Innovation in Europe

On October 13, 2009 the Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel (STOA) together with Knowledge4Innovation/The Lisbon Forum, supported by Technopolis Consulting Group and TNO, organised a half-day workshop entitled ‘Towards an Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for Innovation in Europe’. This workshop was part of the 1st European Innovation Summit at the European Parliament which took place on 13 October and 14 October 2009. It addressed the topics of the evolution and current issues concerning the European Patent System as well as International Protection and Enforcement of IPR (with special consideration of issues pertaining to IP enforcement in the Digital Environment). Conclusions drawn point to the benefits of a comprehensive European IPR strategy, covering a broad range of IP instruments and topics

The Responsibility of the RuleMaker: Comparative Approaches to Patent Administration Reform

Patent administrators across the globe currently face the most challenging operating environment they have ever known. Soaring application rates, lean fiscal policies and an increasingly ambitious range of patentable subject matter are among the difficulties faced by the world\u27s leading patent offices. These trends have resulted in persistent concerns over the quality of issued patents. Responding to recent writings questioning the value of maintaining high levels of patent quality, Professor Jay Thomas asserts both that patent quality matters, and that increasing the responsibilities of patent applicants provides a fair and efficient mechanism for improving patent office work product. This Article then assesses recent reform agendas pursued by the European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that have elevated applicant obligations. After distilling broader policy trends from these distinct programs, Professor Thomas presents several proposals for patent administration reform

CREATe 2012-2016: Impact on society, industry and policy through research excellence and knowledge exchange

On the eve of the CREATe Festival May 2016, the Centre published this legacy report (edited by Kerry Patterson & Sukhpreet Singh with contributions from consortium researchers)

Social Software, Groups, and Governance

Formal groups play an important role in the law. Informal groups largely lie outside it. Should the law be more attentive to informal groups? The paper argues that this and related questions are appearing more frequently as a number of computer technologies, which I collect under the heading social software, increase the salience of groups. In turn, that salience raises important questions about both the significance and the benefits of informal groups. The paper suggests that there may be important social benefits associated with informal groups, and that the law should move towards a framework for encouraging and recognizing them. Such a framework may be organized along three dimensions by which groups arise and sustain themselves: regulating places, things, and stories

Can Competitive Strategy and Open Business Strategy Coexist?

Traditional business models, driven by resource management and control, are under threat. There have been calls for increased corporate social responsibility, in addition to demands for improved and more transparent governance models. In addition, some argue that traditional resource control methods, such as patent acquisition and copyright enforcement, are ill-equipped to handle modern consumers and commercial relationships. Some have argued that business models based more on open strategy might address some of these problems. However, these open business models, largely enabled by the Internet and heightened ICT use, may be incompatible with contemporary competitive strategy theory and further research of the phenomenon is needed. This paper discusses the ways in which contemporary strategic theory might be threatened, and the ways in which an open strategy model could address these problems. The paper uses several case studies to illustrate this argument. The paper also conducts a literature search of the requirements for an open business model in a networked context

Suffolk University Law School Catalog, 2000

https://dc.suffolk.edu/suls-catalogs/1067/thumbnail.jp