Creating the missing link: applying collective marks to create clusters

Collective marks guarantee ownership over a community’s intangible wealth and in this sense not only reinforce its branding activities, but set up a new structure in which community business can function. Systems of local innovation may thus be developed through the design of an adequate legal infrastructure, paving the way for the solution of policy concerns, such as rural exodus or unemployment. Cluster theory argues that, if small and medium sized enterprises intensify their degree of interaction to build up networks, this reduces costs, dependence on large firms, provides access to new markets and helps improve the position of the cluster in the market. All these functions can be reinforced through collective marks, which offer a legal context for the cluster’s governance structure, its standards and quality controls and system of collaboration. These features are particularly of relevance in a sector like tourism, where cooperation is a prerequisite for success. Empirical evidence suggests a certain sense of confusion on the role of trade mark protection in clusters: Individual marks are used as if they were collective marks, collective marks are used without further consideration of the economic aspects or intellectual property protection is altogether ignored. In practice the wide range of opportunities provided by collective trademarks remains unexploited. Interdisciplinary approaches to IP may help to bridge a gap, observed both within academia and in practice, and thus join the IP law perspective to the evolving management literature on cluster theory.cluster creation, community reinforcement, network theory, collective trademarks,

Financing University Research

While the detailed mechanisms of the interplay of knowledge creation and economic growth have been discussed in great detail by endogenous growth theory, this paper is interested in assessing the role that universities play in the knowledge based economy. It does so at the example of best practice scenarios, as currently being undertaken by the University of Oxford, U.C. Berkeley, the M.I.T. and Chalmers School of Technology. It argues that key to successful research commercialization is the leverage of clusters and networks that assure knowledge flows between universities and business. We call this the ‘Third Way’ of university research commercialization, which focuses on systemic change, rather than on single stakeholder intervention. It reflects a novel generation of knowledge policies that focuses on training, awareness raising and the leverage of cluster effects, rather than the development of physical infrastructure (i.e. science parks). This is a unique approach that outperforms existing best practice in many ways; i.e. it focuses on the leverage of networks among the various academic institutions, rather than repeating the traditional ‘one university – one technology transfer office’ approach. The ‘Third Way’ also outperforms existing best practices by adopting latest trends in intellectual property management , such as online trading, perceiving intellectual property as a financial asset and leveraging open innovation for improving patent quality. Organizational values, structures & procedures of various actors (business, academia, government) are recognized and different institutional cultures are sought to be overcome through boundary spanning. The competing demands and interests of business and academia are reflected through the introduction of ‘social responsible university research commercialization’, as currently undertaken by U.C. Berkeley.Technology Transfer, Research Funding, Intellectual Property, Chalmers School of Technology, U.C. Berkeley, Oxford University

How developing countries can benefit from intellectual property: the role of collective marks in tourism

While tourism has been praised by a variety of international organizations as a means to promote the local economy in developing countries, tourism led growth has never been seen to be supported by a developing countries’ intellectual property regimes. Intellectual property rights, particularly if owned collectively, accelerate cluster creation, an organizational form particularly beneficial for tourism. The positive externalities associated with clusters can be reinforced through the assignment of collective marks. A region’s intangible assets, its social cohesion, can be fostered through the introduction of collective marks, since it is an intellectual property rights that can be owned collectively by a given community. This paper is one of the first of its kind to flesh out a more differentiated economic value proposition of collective marks, while at the same time illustrating the economic opportunities that the intellectual property system provides to developing countries’ economies.Economies of agglomeration, externalities of cluster creation, economic value proposition of collective marks

Trademark owners perspective on the Madrid system: practical experiences and theoretical underpinnings

Based on the assumption that possible future reforms of the Madrid System for the filing and renewal of trademark registration at the international level must be user driven, the paper explored in a series of 23 in-depth interviews, the views of companies varying in size, geographical distribution, market context and number of trademarks filed for a company through the Madrid System. The empirical analysis underlined the important role of the Madrid System in expanding their market coverage, but also showed that a major challenge will be to meet the diverse needs of business operating in varied contexts of developing and developed countries. While firms in developed countries need a system that fits high-speed post-fordist business operations, further awareness raising and capacity building is necessary to fully integrate the private sector in developing countries and to expand participation beyond current usage levels.economic costs of trademark protection, user driven innovation, international trademark filing, international trade,

Perceptions of Intellectual Property:A Review

In “The right to good ideas: patents and the poor”, The Economist depicts two driving forces in the contemporary discourse on IP and globalization. The one is interested in advancing the knowledge economy, an approach based on the belief that knowledge is the driving factor behind economic growth. The other resides on a belief that IP is a major means to advance the process of globalization. While the former is strongly motivated by new economic growth theory, as for example advanced by Stanford professor Paul Romer, the latter is based on typical anti-globalization arguments, such as for example the position that the IP system helps multinational companies to build up monopolies to the detriment of the poor, drives small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and local business in developing countries out of business and increases prices for consumer products, be they pharmaceuticals or software. The purpose of this review is to help understand the current discourse on intellectual property, to grasp underlying themes, assumptions and connotations associated with the term “IP”, so as to identify paths leading to a more comprehensive understanding of IP and the opportunities and pitfalls it may provide

Public sector IP management in the life sciences: reconciling practice and policy

This chapter reviews the options for effective public sector management of intellectual property (IP) in the life sciences, focusing on the need for a judicious, pragmatic choice of options along two axes: (1) deployment of exclusive rights over technology and (2) use of market mechanisms to bring a new technology to the public. The essence of public sector IP management is finding the right settings along these two axes that will deliver tangible outcomes in line with defined public-interest objectives. Experience shows that ex ante assumptions about how to gain optimal leverage from exclusive rights, and the appropriate degree of reliance on market mechanisms, are unlikely to serve a public sector IP manager well. In clarifying objectives and the practical means of achieving them, pragmatic coordination between the practical and policy levels is essential. Public sector IP managers are more likely to be assessed against public interest expectations than their private sector colleagues. In IP management in the life sciences, policy and practice are ultimately two sides of the same coin; practitioners cannot hope, expect, or plan to operate outside the broader policy perspective. Policy-makers therefore need to consider the actual practice of IP management when assessing a policy framework for innovation in the life sciences. IP managers should be open to using legal mechanisms flexibly for inclusion, or exclusion, as required to achieve their goals. Finally, managers should seek mechanisms to pragmatically structure and promote partnerships with those who have the resources necessary to bring life-sciences innovation to the public. Such partnerships may be centered in the public, philanthropic, or private sectors, but more likely fall into a hybrid mix of these categories.Public Interest Intellectual Property Management, Agricultural Biotechnology, Developing Countries

A Changing Climate: Statistical Evidence of the Intellectual Property Landscape of Clean Energy Technologies

The intellectual property (IP) system plays an important role in the development and diffusion of technologies by determining the institutional context in which transactions occur. This article reviews the recent EPO report ‘Patents and Clean Energy Technologies: Bridging the Gap between Evidence and Policy’ and offers further insights into the interplay between patents, innovation in climate change mitigating technologies and access to technology. Empirical evidence and analysis of patent trends forms the basis for understanding the spectrum of policy choices available to combat climate change. In an effort to bridge the gap between policy and evidence, the EPO report provides ample statistical analysis of existing patenting trends, fleshes out the current patent landscape and assesses licensing trends in emerging technologies relating to climate change. This review evaluates these statistical insights and discusses the implications for both the developed and developing world. It aims to deepen understanding of how intellectual property influences the development of markets for green technologies.Climate Change Mitigating Technologies, Patent Statistics, European Patent Office, Technology Transfer

Regulatory Reflorm in Germany: Enhancing Market Openness through Regulatory Reform

This report assesses the impact of regulations and the regulatory process in Germany on trade and investment, as well as the extent to which market openness considerations are incorporated into the general policy framework for regulations. The assessment is based on six efficient regulation principles developed by the OECD, namely: transparency, non-discrimination; avoidance of unnecessary trade restrictiveness; use of internationally harmonized standards; streamlining conformity assessment; and integration of competition principles into the regulatory framework. Through broad application of the six efficient regulation principles Germany has been very successful in establishing a regulatory framework that has competently underpinned German participation international competition and the global economy. International stakeholders trading with or investing in Germany are confronted with an extensively elaborated regulatory framework of high quality. Particular mention may be made of the important steps taken to facilitate customs procedures, with a positive impact on trade flows. Equally, the country has taken a leading role in contributing to the spread of internationally harmonized standards and the recognition of foreign measures. The reduction of barriers to trade and investment worldwide has enabled Germany to take advantage of the expanding global market. At the same time a gradually more open market in Germany has provided benefits to consumers and contributed to economic growth and innovation. The progressive liberalisation of the German market has been driven not only by domestic forces, but even more so by regulations that follow from agreements at the regional and international level. Despite Germany's success in establishing a regulatory system that strongly supports market openness, there remains room for improvement in some areas. The general accessibility of regulatory information permits high levels of transparency; however, the extreme complexity of the legal architecture represents a significant challenge to new market entrants, particularly foreigners. Non-domestic stakeholders may need a substantial amount of time and resources to understand various and occasionally duplicative regulations and institutions applying them. This circumstance is rendered more acute by the exactness with which the regulatory framework is implemented. In addition, there is room for progress in the area of public procurement, where the country is not profiting from the opportunity of taking a forefront position within the EU which would reflect its economic capacity. Among EU countries Germany has the lowest level of public procurement tenders openly advertised at the European level and does not provide adequate legal protection for bidders competing for tenders below the EU threshold. In Germany, like in other EU countries, the regulatory processes in areas directly or indirectly affecting trade and investment are initiated at the EU level or directed by decisions of the EU with implementation often taking place at the national level. Reflecting this distribution of responsibilities, there is a tendency at the national level not to consider the full extent of international implications. At the national level the advantages of adopting an international perspective are not yet taken to their full extent. To give an example, regulatory impact assessments do not explicitly address trade and investment related aspects. The German administration is aware of the need to further change the regulatory framework in order to enhance economic growth. Several promising ongoing reform initiatives address many, if not most, areas covered in this report. The impact and pace of these reforms remains to be seen and evaluated.Regulatory reform, trade, market access, non-tariff measures