Crimes Involving Intangible Property

[Excerpt] “A well-known cliché came to life when “[t]he pope’s butler was convicted . . . of stealing the pontiff’s private documents and leaking them to a journalist . . . .” His lawyer’s unsuccessful argument—that taking “only photocopies, not original documents” should not be criminal—prompted this paper. When tangible property is taken, owners retain nothing. When documents or equivalents are duplicated, however, even if owners retain originals, they suffer loss of control and may lose substantial present and potential advantages, not necessarily economic. Civil redress for such losses has therefore long been available through copyright and trade secret laws. Indeed, it has often been available when injuries occasioned by unauthorized reproduction seem unrelated to goals traditionally advanced by either body of law. Thus, the way information is expressed may be protected by copyright and, until published, if it otherwise qualifies, information as such may also enjoy trade secret protection. When civil remedies are inadequate to deter theft and vindicate interests of owners and the public, civil remedies can be augmented with criminal penalties. Differences between tangibles and intangibles, however, are often seen to warrant different prosecutorial requirements and penalties. The second part of this paper explains how federal courts, recognizing those differences, have come to find the National Stolen Property Act (“NSPA”) inapplicable to theft of at least some intangibles. Ones addressed there fall within the scope of the Federal Copyright Act (“FCA”) and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”). … The paper concludes, first, by echoing a suggestion that lack of uniformity in state law justifies federal penalties and expanded jurisdiction. It also advocates more uniformity and better articulation of the subject matter contemplated by the term “intangibles” in, for example, the Model Penal Code. Finally, the paper argues that even when tangibles such as media are taken, courts should, for example, not base their value on the value of its intangible contents.

Property Claims in GM and Non-GM crops

Conceptualising the ongoing conflict over GM versus non-GM crops in the frame of property rights one can see that economic valorisation dynamics and aspirations are working on both sides, within two differently evolving agri-food paradigms, with biotechnology companies propagating intellectual property rights on seeds and crops within a productivist strategy, and with retailer chains, NGOs, farmer associations claiming generic names and labels as public property rights on identity preserved crops within a consumerist strategy. The analysis shows that the direction and strength of the dynamics depends much on the physical intricacies and the social relations which are implicated in these two types of intangible property. As the development of the intangible property rights lies at the heart of postindustrial knowledge economies, the study of the GM conflict is also instructive for understanding social change in the agri-food sector and in the society more generally

Maximizing Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets: Case Studies in Intangible Asset Finance

As innovative companies struggle to raise funds, intellectual property and intangible assets are providing alternative ways of financing innovation. But greater awareness of them as an asset class is needed. Raising that awareness is the focus of a new report from Athena Alliance, Maximizing Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets: Case Studies in Intangible Asset Finance by Ian Ellis, a former U.S. Department of Commerce official specializing in intellectual property and international trade. The report outlines increasing, but still nascent, means of financing innovation based on these assets in public, private and venture capital markets. As industry has invested capital in research and development to develop new technology and advance other creative activities, intellectual capital has become a valuable asset class, according to the paper. In response, firms specializing in intangible-based financing are springing up, using them to raise capital for the next round of innovation.The paper details equity, equity-debt, debt, and sale-leaseback transactions, both private and public, that have helped companies raise capital, based on careful, rigorous analysis and conservative underwriting standards. For example, the author notes that in 2000, there were two public deals using royalty securitization, raising $145 million. In 2007-08,$3.3 billion was raised in 19 deals.Unlike some of the exotic financial vehicles, however, the financial products discussed in this paper are some of the most basic financing mechanisms in business. The innovation is in recognizing the value of intangible assets for corporate finance. These new financial firms are using traditional financial techniques in new ways to help innovative companies.But more should be done.One important step would be developing sound, industry-wide, underwriting standards, according to the report. For example, Small Business Administration (SBA) rules permit its loans to be used for acquisition of intangible assets when buying on-going businesses. Rules are unclear on whether those assets can be used as collateral. The paper recommends that SBA work with commercial lenders to develop standards for using intangible assets as collateral.The report builds on earlier Athena Alliance papers, notably Intangible Asset Monetization: The Promise and the Reality

Corporate Taxes, Profit Shifting and the Location of Intangibles within Multinational Firms

Intangible assets are one major source of profit shifting opportunities due to a highly intransparent transfer pricing process. Our paper argues that multinational enterprises (MNEs) optimize their profit shifting strategy by locating shifting–relevant intangible property at affiliates with a low statutory corporate tax rate. Using panel data for European MNEs and controlling for unobserved time–constant heterogeneity between affiliates, we find that the lower a subsidiary’s tax rate relative to other affiliates of the multinational group the higher is its level of intangible asset investment. This effect is statistically and economically significant, even after controlling for subsidiary size and accounting for a dynamic intangible investment pattern.corporate taxation; multinational enterprise; profit shifting; intangible assets; micro level data

Corporate Taxes and the Location of Intangible Assets Within Multinational Firms

Intangible assets, like patents and trademarks, are increasingly seen as the key to competitive success and as the drivers of corporate profit. Moreover, they constitute a major source of profit shifting opportunities in multinational enterprises (MNEs) due to a highly intransparent transfer pricing process. This paper argues that for both reasons, MNEs have an incentive to locate intangible property at affiliates with a relatively low corporate tax rate. Using panel data on European MNEs and controlling for unobserved time--constant heterogeneity between affiliates, we find that the lower a subsidiary's tax rate relative to other affiliates of the multinational group the higher is its level of intangible asset investment. This effect is statistically and economically significant, even after controlling for subsidiary size and accounting for a dynamic intangible investment pattern

Assessing the Economic Impact of Sports Facilities on Residential Property Values: A Spatial Hedonic Approach

This paper estimates the intangible benefits of a two sports facilities in Columbus, Ohio on residential property values. We estimate a spatial hedonic model that avoids biased and inconsistent estimates in the presence of uncorrected spatial autocorrelation. The results suggest that the presence of sports facilities in Columbus have a significant positive distance-decaying effect on surrounding house values, supporting the idea that professional sports facilities generate important intangible benefits in the local economy. OLS overestimates the hedonic model parameters compared with Maximum Likelihood and Spatial Two Stage-Least-Squares.Economic Impact, Residential Property Values, Sports Facilities, Hedonic Model, Spatial Dependence, Spatial Hedonic Model

Project Management and Intellectual Property

Recent approaches consider the knowledge as a determinant factor in the current economy, moving from the knowledge-based economy to the knowledge driving economy. (European Commission - Directorate-General for Enterprise 2004) In that context, along with the growing importance of the intangible assets, and along with the changing criteria for defining the competitive advantages, the intellectual property related issues are increasingly addressed. Therefore, the intellectual property management science has evolved in the past few decades and it is becoming more and more important among the overall management science and practice. As a part of this science, the intellectual property management in the field of project management has just started. It is related to intellectual property components that appear, interfere and result from the project management processes. This paper is trying to find out the place that the intellectual property has in project management, to point out the previous similar approaches and to provide directions for further research in the field.project management, intellectual property, knowledge, intellectual capital, intangible assets, management.

Are Domain Names Property? The sex.com Controversy

Do domain names constitute tangible property? Since domain names may be purchased or transferred, the answer at first glance would appear to be yes . Congress has also dictated that domain names corresponding closely to existing trademarks may be considered tangible property under certain circumstances. However, a recent case involving the lurid and lucrative domain name sex.com has determined otherwise. This iBrief examines the impact of characterizing domain names as tangible or intangible property on the causes of action available for domain name litigation

Intangible resources, agglomeration effect of FDI intensity, and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese semiconductor firms

This study analyzes the impact of intangible resources on firm performance in an emerging economy context. Intangible resources are considered essential to firms? competitive advantage; however, we argue that firms? intangible resources can be negatively related with performance in emerging economies, due to their weak intellectual property rights protection. Furthermore, we incorporate the resource-based view and geographical agglomeration perspective to propose that geographical locations with dense foreign direct investment can affect the appropriability of intangible resources, thereby moderating the relationship between intangible resources and firm performance. We find empirical evidence to support our argument by examining 70 semiconductor firms in China from 1999 to 2006 period.intangible resources, intellectual property, agglomeration, foreign direct investment, emerging economy

Corporate Taxes and the Location of Intangible Assets Within Multinational Firms

Intangible assets, like patents and trademarks, are increasingly seen as the key to competitive success and as the drivers of corporate profit. Moreover, they constitute a major source of profit shifting opportunities in multinational enterprises (MNEs) due to a highly intransparent transfer pricing process. This paper argues that for both reasons, MNEs have an incentive to locate intangible property at affiliates with a relatively low corporate tax rate. Using panel data on European MNEs and controlling for unobserved time--constant heterogeneity between affiliates, we find that the lower a subsidiary's tax rate relative to other affiliates of the multinational group the higher is its level of intangible asset investment. This effect is statistically and economically significant, even after controlling for subsidiary size and accounting for a dynamic intangible investment pattern.multinational enterprise; intangible assets; tax planning; micro level data