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

The New Innovation Frontier? Intellectual Property and the European Court of Human Rights

This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the intellectual property case law of the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR ). Within the last three years, the ECHR has issued a trio of intellectual property rulings interpreting the right of property protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. These decisions, which view intellectual property through the lens of fundamental rights, have important consequences for the region\u27s innovation and creativity policies. The cases are also emblematic of a growing number of controversies in domestic and international law over the intersection of human rights, property rights, and intellectual property. The article analyzes this trend and uses it to develop three distinct paradigms to identify the proper place of intellectual property issues in the European human rights system. It concludes that the ECHR should find a violation of the right of property in intellectual property disputes only in cases of arbitrary government conduct

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

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights

We study the determinants of patent suits and their outcomes over the period 1978-1999 by linking detailed information from the U.S. patent office, the federal court system, and industry sources. The probability of being involved in a suit is heterogeneous, being much higher for valuable patents and for patents owned by individuals and smaller firms. Thus the patent system generates incentives, net of expected enforcement costs, that differ across inventors. Patentees with a large portfolio of patents to trade, or having other characteristics that encourage "cooperative" interaction with disputants, more successfully avoid court actions. At the same time, key post-suit outcomes do not depend on observed characteristics. This is good news: advantages in settlement are exercised quickly, before extensive legal proceedings consume both court and firm resources. But it is bad news in that the more frequent involvement of smaller patentees in court actions is not offset by a more rapid resolution of their suits. However, our estimates of the heterogeneity in litigation risk can facilitate development of private patent litigation to mitigate this adverse effect of high enforcement costs.Parents, court actions, settement.

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights

We study the determinants of patent suits and their outcomes over the period 1978-1999 by linking detailed information from the U.S. patent office, the federal court system, and industry sources. The probability of being involved in a suit is very heterogeneous, being much higher for valuable patents and for patents owned by individuals and smaller firms. Thus the patent system generates incentives, net of expected enforcement costs, that differ across inventors. Patentees with a large portfolio of patents to trade, or having other characteristics that encourage 'cooperative' interaction with disputants, more successfully avoid court actions. At the same time, key post-suit outcomes do not depend on observed characteristics. This is good news: advantages in settlement are exercised quickly, before extensive legal proceedings consume both court and firm resources. But it is bad news in that the more frequent involvement of smaller patentees in court actions is not offset by a more rapid resolution of their suits. However, our estimates of the heterogeneity in litigation risk can facilitate development of private patent litigation insurance to mitigate this adverse affect of high enforcement costs.

Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights

This paper compares reward systems to intellectual property rights (patents and copyrights). Under a reward system, innovators are paid for innovations directly by government (possibly on the basis of sales), and innovations pass immediately into the public domain. Thus, reward systems engender incentives to innovate without creating the monopoly power of intellectual property rights, but a principal difficulty with rewards is the information required for their determination. We conclude in our model that intellectual property rights do not possess a fundamental social advantage over reward systems, and that an optional reward system under which innovators choose between rewards and intellectual property rights is superior to intellectual property rights.

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

A Lunchtime Talk With Dr. Michal Shur-Ofry the Author of Copyright and the Holocaust

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2018/1028/thumbnail.jp