Commercialization of Intellectual Property (IP) for Small and Medium Enterprisers (SMEs) in India

Lots of people in this modern era take the Intellectual property (IP) as a magical word and they think that the game can be understood only by the experts or the trained people. Even there is no surprise that you may be asking yourself that why and how IP is going to provide an emerging platform in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) sector? Presently, the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in India are at a crossroad and there is an intense debate over the questions like what would be the future of these SMEs? How these SMEs can survive in the international trade arena? What role can the government play in making these SMEs more competitive? How can the Intellectual property (IP) generate wealth in the business? In order to know the answers of all these questions the paper is written and is concerned with the identification and analysis of current approaches of SMEs towards the Intellectual property (IP), the hurdles that they face; and the accessible & feasible solutions.Intellectual Property, Small and Medium Enterprisers, SMEs, Commercialization

Commercialization of Intellectual Property (IP) for Small and Medium Enterprisers (SMEs) in India

Lots of people in this modern era take the Intellectual property (IP) as a magical word and they think that the game can be understood only by the experts or the trained people. Even there is no surprise that you may be asking yourself that why and how IP is going to provide an emerging platform in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) sector? Presently, the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in India are at a crossroad and there is an intense debate over the questions like what would be the future of these SMEs? How these SMEs can survive in the international trade arena? What role can the government play in making these SMEs more competitive? How can the Intellectual property (IP) generate wealth in the business? In order to know the answers of all these questions the paper is written and is concerned with the identification and analysis of current approaches of SMEs towards the Intellectual property (IP), the hurdles that they face; and the accessible & feasible solutions.Intellectual Property, Small and Medium Enterprisers, SMEs,Commercialization

MLCapsule: Guarded Offline Deployment of Machine Learning as a Service

With the widespread use of machine learning (ML) techniques, ML as a service has become increasingly popular. In this setting, an ML model resides on a server and users can query it with their data via an API. However, if the user's input is sensitive, sending it to the server is undesirable and sometimes even legally not possible. Equally, the service provider does not want to share the model by sending it to the client for protecting its intellectual property and pay-per-query business model. In this paper, we propose MLCapsule, a guarded offline deployment of machine learning as a service. MLCapsule executes the model locally on the user's side and therefore the data never leaves the client. Meanwhile, MLCapsule offers the service provider the same level of control and security of its model as the commonly used server-side execution. In addition, MLCapsule is applicable to offline applications that require local execution. Beyond protecting against direct model access, we couple the secure offline deployment with defenses against advanced attacks on machine learning models such as model stealing, reverse engineering, and membership inference

Legal protection of information

"May 1990." "c1988. -- Published in Weaver, vol. 7, no. 1, Fall 1989."Includes bibliographical references (p. 16).Jeffrey Meldman

NNSplitter: An Active Defense Solution for DNN Model via Automated Weight Obfuscation

As a type of valuable intellectual property (IP), deep neural network (DNN) models have been protected by techniques like watermarking. However, such passive model protection cannot fully prevent model abuse. In this work, we propose an active model IP protection scheme, namely NNSplitter, which actively protects the model by splitting it into two parts: the obfuscated model that performs poorly due to weight obfuscation, and the model secrets consisting of the indexes and original values of the obfuscated weights, which can only be accessed by authorized users with the support of the trusted execution environment. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of NNSplitter, e.g., by only modifying 275 out of over 11 million (i.e., 0.002%) weights, the accuracy of the obfuscated ResNet-18 model on CIFAR-10 can drop to 10%. Moreover, NNSplitter is stealthy and resilient against norm clipping and fine-tuning attacks, making it an appealing solution for DNN model protection. The code is available at: https://github.com/Tongzhou0101/NNSplitter.Comment: To appear at ICML 202

Hocus Pocus: The Magic Within Trade Secret Law

This Note will discuss why trade secret law is the most appropriate form of IP protection for magicians seeking to protect their secrets. First it will discuss the background information on IP protections offered to magicians, specifically within copyright, patent, and trade secret law. After examining previous cases in which magicians have sought protection for their work using each of these different types of IP laws, it will then analyze why trade secret law is the best form of IP protection for magicians

Conflicting Theories at Play: Chemical Disclosure and Trade Secrets in the New Federal Fracking Regulation

Currently, there is no federal law regulating fracking. Instead, fracking is only regulated under state law. Public disclosure requirements vary widely from state-to-state. Some states have no disclosure requirements at all. Of the states that do, most have included trade secret exception provisions allowing oil and gas companies to refuse to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking. More importantly, very few state laws that have trade secret exceptions also require that the company provide any substantiation that the trade secret is legitimate. Without some kind of uniform factual substantiation requirement, what is to keep oil and gas companies from abusing trade secret exceptions? A possible solution has emerged. In March of 2015, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the first important federal rules governing fracking on federal and tribal lands. The law only affects approximately 100,000 oil and gas wells in the United States, but has already caused widespread concern among its opponents. Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, and two oil and gas industry organizations have filed claims for review of BLM’s rules in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming. The arguments that have transpired offer a clear perspective into the controversy surrounding chemical disclosure and trade secret exceptions. Through analysis, it is apparent that BLM’s new fracking rule should be uniformly adopted as a solution to the tension between disclosure requirements and trade secrets. Part I of this Note defines hydraulic fracturing and provides a history and background of the two conflicting theories: trade secrets and environmental “right-to-know” policies. Part II introduces the BLM’s new federal regulation and examines how it has addressed conflicts between trade secrets and chemical disclosure. Part III discusses the current problems with fracking regulations, and addresses how trade secrets and chemical disclosure play a part in its controversy and why BLM’s new regulation can be a solution. This Note concludes that BLM’s new regulation is a much needed and effective compromise between the conflicting theories of trade secrets and chemical disclosure

Conflicting Theories at Play: Chemical Disclosure and Trade Secrets in the New Federal Fracking Regulation

Currently, there is no federal law regulating fracking. Instead, fracking is only regulated under state law. Public disclosure requirements vary widely from state-to-state. Some states have no disclosure requirements at all. Of the states that do, most have included trade secret exception provisions allowing oil and gas companies to refuse to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking. More importantly, very few state laws that have trade secret exceptions also require that the company provide any substantiation that the trade secret is legitimate. Without some kind of uniform factual substantiation requirement, what is to keep oil and gas companies from abusing trade secret exceptions? A possible solution has emerged. In March of 2015, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the first important federal rules governing fracking on federal and tribal lands. The law only affects approximately 100,000 oil and gas wells in the United States, but has already caused widespread concern among its opponents. Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, and two oil and gas industry organizations have filed claims for review of BLM’s rules in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming. The arguments that have transpired offer a clear perspective into the controversy surrounding chemical disclosure and trade secret exceptions. Through analysis, it is apparent that BLM’s new fracking rule should be uniformly adopted as a solution to the tension between disclosure requirements and trade secrets. Part I of this Note defines hydraulic fracturing and provides a history and background of the two conflicting theories: trade secrets and environmental “right-to-know” policies. Part II introduces the BLM’s new federal regulation and examines how it has addressed conflicts between trade secrets and chemical disclosure. Part III discusses the current problems with fracking regulations, and addresses how trade secrets and chemical disclosure play a part in its controversy and why BLM’s new regulation can be a solution. This Note concludes that BLM’s new regulation is a much needed and effective compromise between the conflicting theories of trade secrets and chemical disclosure

Here Come the Trade Secret Trolls

Within the past few years, the U.S. federal government has been forced to confront the massive but hard-to-quantify problem of foreign and state-sponsored cyberespionage against U.S. corporations, from Boeing to small technology start-ups, and (as of this writing) perhaps Sony Pictures Entertainment. As part of that effort, Congress has taken up the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Trade Secret Protection Act, which would create a private cause of action under the federal Economic Espionage Act. This Article addresses the possibility of introducing trolling behavior—using litigation as a means to extract settlement payments from unsuspecting defendants—to trade secret law through creation of a federal private trade secret misappropriation cause of action. Like the existing problem of patent trolls, trade secret trolling has the potential to undermine the structure of trade secret law and create serious problems and costs for innovators across all industries. Thus, this Article addresses the heretofore unexplored link between patent and trade secret trolling established by this legislation. It assesses in detail the benefits and downsides of creation of a federal trade secret misappropriation cause of action and, for the first time, the risk of trolling