Australian intellectual property report 2013

This report provides a collation of data and information about the IP system in Australia, where Australia sits in the global IP system, and how it measures up against other countries. It is the first in a regular series of publications about the IP system. Future editions will: provide regular updates of the data presented in this edition; provide expanded datasets as these become available; and provide detailed analysis of particular aspects of the IP system

Report of the Intellectual Property Rights Panel

Report of the meeting of the Intellectual Property Rights Panel held in September 1994, chaired by M.S. Swaminathan.. The report discusses the history of CGIAR engagement with IPR issues. It analyses CGIAR policy on patent issues, plant variety protection, in situ and ex situ conservation, and the dissemination of information on CGIAR genetic resources research. Annexes include earlier statements on related subjects by the CGIAR, the Center Directors, and the Rockefeller Foundation.Agenda document at CGIAR International Centers Week, October 1994

A Review of Intellectual Property Protection within the CGIAR

Report of the Center Directors' Committee on Intellectual Property Rights transmitted to those attending ICW93 as background for a panel discussion on IPR and implications for IARCs. The report reviews the various steps taken by the centers and the CGIAR on IPR issues from 1991, lists studies undertaken, and summarizes comments received from NGOs, international organizations, and private firms. One of several annexes contains a draft model agreement to place center collections of plant genetic resources under the auspices of FAO.Agenda document, CGIAR International Centers Week, October 1993

Does Intellectual Property Lead to Intellectual Property Protection?

Researchers studying the differential commitment of countries to intellectual property rights, often appear to run into the claim that countries with a relatively higher and significantly changing technological base (the developed countries) opt for relatively stronger protection, whereas those with a relatively low and essentially unchanging technological base (the developing countries) opt for weaker protection. While the reasons for such strategic choice may vary between the two sets of countries, it appears to be a short step from the above assertion to the claim that such behaviour on the part of the developing countries results in huge trade losses for the developed countries. Using cross-country panel data for the period 1981-1995, this paper finds that the generation of intellectual property or technological change (proxied by private R&D investment) does not have any significant positive influence on the strength of intellectual property protection that nations provide.Intellectual Property, Protection, Technolgical Change

Antitrust, Innovation, and Uncertain Property Rights: Some Practical Considerations

The intersection of antitrust and intellectual property circumscribes two century-long debates. The first pertains to questions about how antitrust law and intellectual property law interact, and the second pertains to questions about how parties can exploit property rights, including intellectual property rights, to exclude competitors. This iBrief finesses these questions and turns to practical considerations about how innovation and intellectual property can impinge antitrust enforcement. This iBrief develops two propositions. First, although collaborative research and development has often been and remains unwittingly misunderstood, what is understood about it is consistent with the long- standing observation that antitrust has rarely interfered with collaborative ventures. Second, shifting focus from “intellectual property rights” to “uncertain property rights” makes it easier to understand what innovation and intellectual property imply for enforcement processes. Both intellectual property and tangible assets imply the same processes, but the boundaries of intellectual properties may be uncertain and may, in turn, allow parties to game enforcement processes in ways that would not be feasible in antitrust matters that principally feature tangible assets. Even so, uncertain property rights might not frustrate enforcement processes as the antitrust authorities may yet be able to factor parties’ strategic behaviors into the design of antitrust remedies

Intellectual Property in Experience

In today’s economy, consumers demand experiences. From Star Wars to Harry Potter, fans do not just want to watch or read about their favorite characters— they want to be them. They don the robes of Gryffindor, flick their wands, and drink the butterbeer. The owners of fantasy properties understand this, expanding their offerings from light sabers to the Galaxy’s Edge®, the new Disney Star Wars immersive theme park opening in 2019. Since Star Wars, Congress and the courts have abetted what is now a $262 billion-a-year industry in merchandising, fashioning “merchandising rights” appurtenant to copyrights and trademarks that give fantasy owners exclusive rights to supply our fantasy worlds with everything from goods to a good time. But are there any limits? Do merchandising rights extend to fan activity, from fantasy-themed birthday parties and summer camps to real world Quidditch leagues? This Article challenges the conventional account, arguing that as the economic value of fantasy merchandising increases in the emergent “experience economy,” intellectual property owners may prove less keen on tolerating uncompensated uses of their creations. In fact, from Amazon’s Kindle Worlds granting licenses for fan fiction, to crackdowns on sales of fan art sold on internet sites like Etsy, to algorithms taking down fan videos from YouTube, the holders of intellectual property in popular fantasies are seeking to create a world requiring licenses to make, do, and play. This Article turns to social and cultural theories of art as experience, learning by doing, tacit knowledge, and performance to demonstrate that fan activity, from discussion sites to live-action role-playing fosters learning, creativity, and sociability. Law must be attentive to the profound effects these laws have on human imagination and knowledge creation. I apply the insights of these theories to limit merchandising rights in imaginative play through fair use, the force in the legal galaxy intended to bring balance to intellectual property law

More Than an Academic Question: Defining Student Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property is increasingly important due to technology’s rapid development. The importance of intellectual property is also reflected within universities as traditional centers of research and expression, where students and faculty are encouraged to develop inventions and creative works throughout the educational experience. The commercialization potential of the intellectual property that emerges from these efforts has led many universities to adopt policies to determine ownership of intellectual property rights. Many of these policies take different approaches to ownership, and most students are unaware of their rights and are unlikely to consider whether the university has a claim to ownership. The purpose of this Article is to outline how intellectual property rights arise in the academic environment and to analyze how university policies determine ownership rights for students and the university. This Article concludes by urging universities and students to acknowledge the existence of these issues, adopt policies to address ownership rights, and make these policies known to members of the university community