Questions related to Intellectual Property Rights
I am working on developing a public health intervention plan which could be a pilot project to test its effectiveness, efficacy, and feasibility. I do not have any funding or any implementing agency. Just as a researcher I would like to publish the idea with a view to-
1) spreading the idea globally
2) confirming my intellectual property right on that concept.
In, this case, I would humbly request to have your kind guidance on it.
Thanks in advance.
As an old-generation researcher, a teacher educator and a university teacher for two decades, I have the following endless frustrations and uncertainties.
Many old-generations of top-rank professors and reputable academic giants [not me] have high-quality research publications (e.g. books, monographs, unpublished keynote speech papers and high-rank international journal papers) which have no electronic version or no doi so far. Scanned copies for sharing at RG or other circumstances might infringe copyrights or intellectual property rights (especially co-authored research works). And figures in citation index, citations, research interests and RG scores do not necessarily infer their prolific research works or vice versa which seem NOT to be transparent in ResearchGate or other academic citation platforms like Academia.
New RG measures like intuitive, transparent, robust and relevant might not help much in such case (especially measuring the quality of old-generations scholars)!
So my questions posed to the intellectual world: How to evaluate the quality of research works? What are reliable and valid measurement indicators for comparing young and old generations' academic works?
Could you share with me your novel ideas and possible answers here? And once you get some answers from your university colleagues and students towards these forwarded questions, please put them here afterwards for further reflections.
From Percy KWOK
Are there any online Summer Schools designed for post-doc and young faculties who are willingly to deepen their skills in computational intelligence and related areas or earn some credit transfer points. The preferable areas are engineering, science and Intellectual property rights. The objective is to stimulate to involve in rapidly evolving fields, and to foster participation in the adventure of research.
A depreciation rate of 15% is widely used for patents’ stock (Hall et al 2005; Blind et al 2021; Lach 1995; Milani and Neumann 2022). What are the corresponding depreciation rates for trademarks’ stock and industrial designs' stock?
In the case of trademarks, I observe either 0% (Sandner and Block 2011) or 15% (Castaldi and Dosso 2020).
Thank you in advance!
Do you think that the free access to information resources in countries that do not have deterrent laws may pose a risk to the intellectual property rights of the researchers themselves?
Why? And why not?
Do you think that the free access to information resources in countries that do not have deterrent laws may pose a risk to the intellectual property rights of the researchers themselves?Why? And why notDo you think that free access to information sources poses a threat to the intellectual property rights of researchers themselves?
I have some researches having good result and significant impact (In my opinion). From academic standpoint, my I get intellectual property right (HAKI) just on the result of my research?
If you want to register the intellectual property rights of a scientific project or idea ... how can this be done? What are the institutions that take these measures?
في حالة الرغبة بتسجيل الحقوق الخاصة بالملكية الفكرية لمشروع او فكرة علمية ... فكيف يتم ذلك؟ وما هي المؤسسات الرصينة التي تتولى هذه الاجراءات؟
How risky is it to jeopardize losing a research gap by revealing it on media communication platforms like this one?! It's not always easy to weigh the benefits and risks of discussions and questions.
The plagiarism which we are checking with the help of Turnitin software counts the similarity of usual English words even helping verbs and proverbs. If the similarity of specific terminology is counted instead of the entire usual English Sentences?
Not all companies have an R&D area or specialists that supply their need for knowledge and technology, and in this case, they seek solutions external to organizations, through specialists or technologies.
The big dilemma / paradox in this case, is how to innovate and at the same time maintain secrecy in this process?
I am with RIS a policy research think tank and work on inter alia, S,T and I issues. Please find the attached CV for details.
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation in the Times of Corona Epidemic- Policy Brief 89, April 2020
Krishna Ravi Srinivas PhD, RIS, Core IVB, IVth Floor, India Habitat Center, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003, India
email: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Tel: +91 11 24682177-2180 Mobile:+919958269111
Selected Publications are available at
Academia : http://ris.academia.edu/KrishnaRaviSrinivas
Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Krishna_Ravi_Srinivas
How much time it takes to grant a patent in your country? Many countries take up to 10 years to grant a patent. This is half of the time (20 years) of exclusive right. It is really horrible. Also state your opinion.
This is about Intellectual property rights awareness campaigns at universities by different organisations i.e National Intellectual Property Management Office (NIMPO) and The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC).
DNA fingerprinting is the one way of protecting our crop varieties. DNA sequence information can be utilized for the same purpose, But whole genome sequencing cannot be done for each variety. So, can we sequence some particular candidate genes for protection under Intellectual property rights?
Solomon Islands is a country made up of 9 Provinces, with their own various dialects, traditions and way of life.
Importance of learning these cultures, will enable an entity:
- To appreciate the value of respect;
- To engage in sincere collaboration;
- To appreciate traditional beliefs;
- To help protect Indigenous Intellectual Property rights;
- To help the indigenous people excel their creativity and intelligence; &
- To appreciate traditional rules of land management and conflict resolutions.
Here's an open-ended question relating to copyright, ethics, power relations in academia, and corpus linguistics:
What is the situation in your country/university with respect to the intellectual property rights of corpora/data collected and constituted by a PhD student during the preparation of their thesis?
All other considerations aside (i.e. suppose that the data is original, with no prior copyright holders, and that they have been duly collected with the consent of participants):
(1) Does the PhD student retain the intellectual property rights to such data? Or do they automatically become the intellectual property of the university, by means of an employment contract or another legal document (e.g. one that PhD students may be forced to sign in order to be authorised to defend their thesis)?
(2) What happens if the PhD student wishes to share/publish their data/corpora under an Open Access license (e.g. Creative Commons) after their defence or even before it? Do they need the permission of their supervisor, of a higher-level university body, of their funding agency, of all of the above? Has it ever happened in your university? Have there been cases where the researcher wanted to share data under an Open Access license and were prevented from doing so by another level of the hierarchy?
(3) If the data does become the intellectual property of the university, is there any obligation for the university afterwards (e.g. are they obliged to make them available through an institutional repository)? If the data becomes part of an institutional repository, does the PhD student have any say on the type of license under which they will be distributed? (for example, do they get to choose "non-commercial")?
(4) After the defence, is it possible for the university (or even an individual supervisor) to formally ask their former student (now Dr) to refrain from using the data/corpus they had collected during their thesis? Note that, in theory, if the corpus automatically becomes the intellectual property of the university, this is entirely possible. Do you know any cases of universities sending formal "cease and desist" letters against their former PhD students?
I would like to collect information about current practice and law in different countries with respect to this issue. For example, some countries limit these practices (considered an abusive utilisation of copyright); some Codes of Conduct in Dutch universities explicitly state that, unlike other productions, the copyright of a PhD thesis is retained by the PhD holder; in "business-friendly" Belgium, the issue is dealt under labour law (therefore a PhD student is just another employee and everything they produce belongs to their employer).
Researchers are becoming increasingly aware that the current situation is not really conducive to early-career researchers sharing their corpora under Open Access licenses.
Legal experts will provide data and analyses, as these matters can get complicated. But I would also like to hear some experiences and the opinions of corpus linguistics practitioners. Any pointer to your country's laws, university's code of conduct, case law, cases reported in the media, stories and anecdotes or even personal experiences (if you don't mind sharing them) are welcome.
Thank you very much for participating in the discussion and thank you for your help!
This is going to be my first project and I am considerably new to any kind of research. I would like to ask for your help with suggestions for literature. for the following project.
I am trying to understand how intellectual property rights of various kinds decimate a large scale corporate/ its effects / strategic changes to assess and implement checks in place to counter these violations / provisions across various marketplaces. Also trying to identify and plot a pattern between similarities across industries and marketplaces.
If someone has any insights about the above mentioned idea or any leads can message me or discuss the same here.
I am reaching out to the scientific community, to safeguard the intellectual property(IP) rights of an unpublished novel proposal idea.
While published work can be claimed for plagiarism, there are no such rights available for an unpublished novel proposals, that you spend months preparing for and finally sharing it with a supervisor(SP)/host organization that promised to submit it on your behalf, but eventually pulled out of it on the very day/or close to submission day.
Needless to say that it is an abuse of the time and effort of the applicant(AP) and a sham on the name of science. While it is certainly my belief that nothing goes wasted in life and one eventually gets compensated in ways that He/She doesn't realize at that time, there has to be some organized way to safeguard the rights of aspiring scientists, that share their aspiring ideas in blind trust to the SP (in good standing mind you), only to be cut out of it at the very end.
So, is there any organization academic/industrial that is working to protect the rights of the AP?? so that the AP can claim his IP and prevent the SP or any other party for non-consensual usage of IP for funding or otherwise.
I look forward to your responses and personal experiences in this regard.
Intellectual Property rights and Breeder Rights in floriculture and landscaping especially in Indian context
I would like to request researchgate people to comment on the following abstract. Does this report any findings, or convey a message? What are the weakness of this abstract?
Improved design of a synthetic Bt gene stack and testing its insecticidal efficacy in the model plant Arabidopsis
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal toxin protein encoded by Cry gene is a widely used technology to control insect pest in the crop field. However, development of insect resistant to Cry genes has appeared as a major threat to the durability of this approach, and thus urgent action is required to overcome this problem. Out of many available approaches, stacking of multiple Cry genes in the same plant is thought as the best strategy to delay the development of insect resistant to Cry genes. Here we report the insecticidal activity of a genetically engineered Bt gene stack consisting of Cry1B/Cry1C genes in the model plant Arabidopsis. Cry1B/Cry1C genes were designed to produce a novel version which is free of IP. Components which have the freedom to operate were used to test the insecticidal activity of the modified Cry1B/Cry1C gene stack. Availability of technology that does not require licensing agreement to use, is one of the main barrier to develop GM crops by public sector organizations in the developing countries. Thus, it is expected that the modified Cry1B/Cry1C gene stack will be a valuable tool to develop GM crops for public or humanitarian use in the developing nations.
The long dispute between Hynix (producer of DRAM) and Rambus, patent owner and licensor of related IP rights seems to be over. However a lot of questions remained unanswered. It is already practice that such disputes end with a settlement. However there is also a public enforcement dimension to these cases. In Europe the cases brought before the CJEU (General Court) are based on antitrust law. In the U.S. the litigation started with a similar action initiated by the FTC, but most of the confrontation was related to IP law and the allegations brought by Rambus against Hynix. Rambus is a very successful patent litigant and they won even in this case. However, a little but important battle was a success for Hynix. They succeeded to obtain the reduction of the total amount of royalties to be paid with $250,000,000 with reference to Rambus' spoliation of evidence (JEDEC documentation).
In Europe the actions for annulment against the Commission decisions giving authority to the commitments undertaken by Rambus in 2009 were withdrawn on 5 July 2013.
eiml.webs.com/ (for more links and case references)
I want to engineer a biological host to produce a desire product and create a new innovative process. For example, I have to use an enzyme that previously claimed in US 8877461 B2. How can I avoid infringing to what is claimed? Can I isolate a cDNA sequence encoding the polypeptide from the original host with a high similarity (>%98) to SEQ ID NO:1 US 8877461 B2?
I am studying the inclination of companies to associate a new trademark (TM) with the commercialization of radical innovations.
Do you know examples of companies that decided to apply (or not apply) for a TM to commercialize a radical innovation (eg., a new product)?
I am asking this because, on the one hand, firms may improve appropriability over the radical product thanks to the TM. But, on the other hand, a firm may have an existing TM, so choosing to use it to commercialize the product since that brand is already known among customers while the product is distant from their existing values. What do you think about?
I wonder if there is any quickest or easiest method available to determine the FTO of any invention? Say X is added to system Y and considered a member of Z family, is this OK to consider X under FTO even though Family Z is already patented? Thanks in advance for your feedback. Kind Regards, Abdullah Kafi
planned obsolescence and intellectual property rights have an effect on design and availability of products currently in production.
if planned obsolescence and intellectual property rights effects are removed from consideration how would product quality and availability be affected?
China has become one of leading technology exporter mainly in all areas, but its presence has been felt quite sharp in low-carbon technologies also. How has this happen does china has overlooked the issue of Intellectual Property Rights or has he progressed slowly. please help me with articles and books that you can suggest.
I am working in a paper about the enforcement of IPRs at border and how would developing countries be able to enforce such rights effectively at their borders. Thus, if you have any experience in enforcing the IP rights at border please help me to determine the cost needed to do so.
In the age of open economy and transformation of material wealth to information as wealth, and the widespread application of IPR, it seems that the geoscientists are not getting their due in terms of number of patents applied/granted when compared with other sciences. It does not mean that we, the geoscientists are not generating enough information or design processes worthy of getting patents. Even the routine academic performance is also being measured in terms of number of patents generated out of academic research!! On the contrary, it seems that the number of patents granted to other sciences is multifold higher than the geosciences. Please share your thoughts on whether we should work on problems worthy of generating patents. I am putting forth this question to get convincing answer and also to spread awareness on the importance of IPR regime in geoscientific research.
One of the constructs of my research are intellectual property governance and brand equity and i want to know that in how many dimensions they connect with each other
Trademark documents present different "dates", filing date, registration date, priority date, first use in commerce, etc. Can someone explain at which type of "managerial" event each date might be related to? For instance, may filing date be related to product/marketing innovation?
Furthermore, I noticed that the date of first use in commerce sometimes come before the filing date. How is that possible?
Can you suggest any references (especially from USPTO) that can provide some clarification?
This right has been enshrined in Canadian Copyright Act since 1988. It has also been judicially enforced in France. Unfortunately, it still remains not applied in many cases. The main trouble, for the artists, is to deal with the owner of the support of the work.
CGI and IEF provide combined scores, but I really need them separately for patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks. 50+ countries would be great.
The history of the human race is a history of the application of imagination, or innovation and creativity, to an existing base of knowledge in order to solve problems or express thoughts. From early writing in Mesopotamia, the Chinese abacus, the Syrian astrolabe, the ancient observatories of India, the Gutenberg printing press, the internal combustion engine, penicillin, plant medicines and cures in Southern Africa, the transistor, semiconductor nanotechnology, recombinant DNA drugs, and countless other discoveries and innovations, it has been the imagination of the world's creators that has enabled humanity to advance to today's levels of technological progress. I am interested in determining what type of intellectual creations can be the subject matter of IP?
With the public available patent data, there exists an exciting source of raw data around innovation activities. We want to go a step further and are continuously looking for further, innovation-related open data, like technology transfer deals or M&A activities in high-tech industries. Besides these raw datasets, we are looking for ontologies or common vocabularies which help us to better integrate and analyze the relevant data sources. Any suggestions are highly welcome!
What is the limitation of having an uniform recognition of registration of patents among major jurisdictions ? It has been major problem among the inventors and companies around the world where they have to register their patents in almost every major jurisdictions in order to enjoy such protection for their inventions. My question here is whether what is the limitation for other major jurisdiction to recognise the registration of patent in a counterpart country.
I am no expert in the legal issues here, but Monsanto, Dow, Sygenta, etc. have been copyrighting genes to food crops as I understand it. However, these crops that they are utilizing, corn for example, represent an intellectual property. These are not wild, unaltered species, but species that have been transformed through thousands of years of plant breeding by indigenous peoples. It seems to me that these genes then, again say of commercial corn, should actually belong to the indigenous peoples if anyone, and more likely should belong to a creative commons. After all, we are currently only adding our own little breeding piece to a process that has taken thousands of years to undertake. Thought?
Conflicts are emerging on a daily basis over who owns an 'idea', especially when they have business value and money-making potential. An idea is claimed by one to be his/her own sole property and others have to pay him/her to use it, even for a brief period of time. Is this a right thing to do? Especially when leading scientists and researchers have humbly admitted to becoming successful 'standing on the shoulders of giants' before them.
Consider the following:
A Californian clothing company is suing song performer Taylor Swift over the use of the number 13, claiming they used the concept two decades before her.
The Chinese government is often accused by the USA of stealing ideas and blueprint plans.
In the past, dictatorial regimes thirsted for access to nuclear weapon building plans and technology.
New 3D printing technology has opened a new chapter in intellectual property infringement.
The ancient science of Yoga originating in India is now a popular fad in many countries, with each claiming its own variations as 'copyright'.
1. Is 'intellectual property' a correct concept at all? Does knowledge belong to anyone?
2. Where does knowledge come from at all? What is the source of thoughts and ideas, do they belong to us at all? Can we claim ownership over such subjective, non-material 'things'?
3. Is the concept of 'intellectual property' an indicator of progress and development in civilization or a regressive concept conceived by a few greedy people to make money taking advantage of a society's fairness and justice system?
4. Should all knowledge be 'open source' accessible to all in the interests of society, country, humanity? Is this, after all, a Utopian concept, possible only in theory, never in practice?
5. This brings another angle, that of the Darwinian assumption of 'survival of the fittest'.
Should competition be the mantra so that everyone fights it out to bring out only the best or do cooperation, fairness, and ethics have a place in society?
6. Is it an exclusively western fad to claim ownership over knowledge and its use, being primarily based on eastern philosophical foundations?
7. Families and communities bequeath information, knowledge and wisdom to successive generations. Does this too come under the purview of 'intellectual property'?
8. Is there a thin borderline between 'open source' and 'intellectual property', subject to one's own individual interpretation?
It is my observation that Indian researchers generally go for publishing research paper instead of filing Patent application. Is it the lack of awareness or cost involved the real reason?
IPR : Intellectual Property Rights as WTO stated: Awareness-raising and training on IP; Technological information services; Financial assistance; Customized advisory services on IP; Assistance for IP exploitation and technology transfer
Entreprenuership developed by Robinson (1987) refined by Stimpson et al.,(1990) and Shanthakumar (1992) as follow: Achievement, Personal Control, Innovation, Self esteem, Opportunism
Affordability has become a major social and political issue and the governments especially in poor countries are under pressure to make exceptions and allow evergreening for few life saving drugs. For example, under the compulsory licensing provisions of patent laws, Indian drug manufacturer Natco Pharma was allowed to produce Nexavar (Bayer’s kidney and liver cancer drug) for making it available at reasonably affordable price. Bayer’s cost of one month supply of is about 5,600 USD as against Natco’s generic version cost 175 USD a month.
Just recently, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board has rejected Bayer’s appeal to stop manufacturing of generic version by Natco.
If I want to patent an invention, can I discuss (poster presentation) in a scientific meeting regarding the same prior to patenting it ?
In other words, if once presented in a scientific meeting, can I patent an invention after the presentation?
Please give any reference if possible and details regarding the Indian patent laws would be helpful.