Intellectual Property Rights - Science topic

This is backwards. Intellectual property rights must be reevaluated in the context of current technology.

Hello Farkand,

This is a great question! Ultimately, we’re still trying to figure this out in the US. Copyright concerns are two-fold: 1) Does using copyrighted content for AI training infringe on protections? 2) Does the AI-generated content infringe copyright, and if not, is it eligible for copyright protections? On this first point, we really don’t know yet. Theoretically, using copyrighted content for AI training could qualify as transformative use under Fair Use Doctrine, but this hasn’t been tested in our courts. The outcome of lawsuits in process, such as NYT v. OpenAI and Getty Images v. Stability AI, should tell us more. On the second point, it’s important to first note that the US Copyright Office deems that people (i.e., users) are not responsible for the content generated by AI, and furthermore, because AI is considered a non-human author, AI-generated content is ineligible for copyright protections. So, if the content generated by an AI system were to be a “copy in fact” – that is, an actual copy of protected content – it is difficult to determine whether the user prompting the AI would be responsible for a “copy in law” – in other words, an act of copying that is deemed infringing. It is more likely that, if this were to occur, the company responsible for development would be held responsible for copyright infringement, which goes back to the first concern. Does using copyrighted content for training infringe copyright? Again, though this theory has yet to be tested in the courts, and cases currently being litigated will tell us more once rulings and court opinions are presented.

I have published some literature on this issue, so please feel free to take a look at my latest research.

Excellent answer to the point dear Mr. Ronron Ancero. MSMEs is an innocent business community across the world, most of them are first generation and poor awareness on black market.

In general, and in most cases, it is very unlikely to obtain a patent in just 23 days.

It's worth noting that copyright applies to unpublished works, such as drafts, lab notebooks and the like, as well.

Dr. Aradhana garu, please excuse any disturbances caused, if anyone has been disappointed. My point concerns overlooking patents and other IPRs. The recognition for invention is through patent grants. They hold special significance as they are granted by governments worldwide after rigorous examination. The trend needs to change, and they (IPRs) must be given utmost importance.R&D policies must be revised accordingly. I am not criticizing publications; IPRs must be given parallel importance. However, this is not happening. Therefore, this point is being mentioned on this platform. The intention is not to hurt anyone. Please excuse any disturbances caused, if any.

The answer from Margaret Brumm is over-cautious in my opinion. Wait for confirmation from the IPR authoritythat your application for a Registered Design is approved, and only then go ahead and publish.

The protection of Traditional Knowledge is an an issue that the global IP community has been grappling with this issue for many years.

In fact, the CBD and Nagoya Protocol do protect TK. The CBD recognizes the sovereign rights of countries over their natural resources; and the Nagoya Protocol requires that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources can be accessed only if mutually agreed terms have been established. Those ownership rights of genetic resources and TK represent a form of intellectual property. They provide an intrinsic value, which is the basis for the provider country benefits under the CBD. Patent protection can add to that value.

There have been suggestions to protect TK by considering it as a community secret. Keeping TK confidential is indeed one way to protect it; and is used in some countries. But there are some problems with that approach. First, it is very difficult to keep information confidential, when it is shared amongst a community.

Secondly, it would hinder the mechanism of gaining benefits under CBD/Nagoya mentioned above. Thus, if local Traditional Knowledge is publicly available, it can be used as a starting point for research. The intention is that research will generate new knowledge, which will be different from, and therefore patentable over, the original TK. It may lead to a commercial product, returning benefits to communities where the TK originated. Keeping TK confidential would destroy the value of that avenue of research.

Another way to protect TK is to collect it in a database and make that database public and searchable. Such a system is in place in India and does prevent people trying to patent things that were already known and used locally - the classic example being a fungicide from the Neem tree.

But that system is not perfect either. It can have unintended consequences, by encouraging communities to register - and hence publish - as much information as possible. And too much information will deter research.

No simple solution

Now my articles on electronic medicine have been read by 203 readers. This confirms the relevance of the development of this area of science and practice. The Eidos universal intelligent system has 55 operating modes, not counting the Exit mode. Any mistake you make will bring the system to a halt or you will get wrong results. If, without explanation, you begin to study several operating modes of the system per day, then in order to learn how to work in the Eidos system, you will need to spend more than a month. I appreciate your time, so I posted my lectures on the site. And he did it almost for free. For one lecture, the professor receives about $50. Compare this to the cost of a monthly subscription to https://www.patreon.com/user?u=87599532. And you will be pleasantly surprised. The best investment you can make is an investment in education.

It would depend on the jurisdiction because patents are national rights as are utility models. Many countries don't have utility models and there are some which have what are called "petty patents" which are like utility models. I am only qualified to advise on UK law (and it would be a criminal offense under the UK Patent Act to mark a product so as to claim to have a UK patent if you didn't have a UK patent), but the rule of thumb for every jurisdiction must be to act honestly and reasonably. So if you have a German Utility Model then say you have a German Utility Model, if you have an Indian Patent Application, then claim you have an Indian Patent Application, etc etc

There are many free journals related to Public health for publishing your research work

I agree that one method is the use of the number of citations of the article. Typically if an article has 5 to 10 citations, that's considered very good!

Also look at the impact factor of the journal where the article is published, which is essentially the journal's overall citation factor. An impact factor of 10 or more is generally considered very good. A score of 3 or less is good or average. In most disciplines there's a journal with an exceptionally high impact score. They are cited a lot!

In healthcare, which I consider home base, The New England Journal of Medicine has an impact score of 91. If the article you are evaluating is in a journal with a high impact score, you can be assured the article has been reviewed very stringently.

Good luck with your study!

Apostolos Vetsikas ,

Trademark dynamics are different than patents. Patents expire and therefore it's value depreciates, since the benefit of protection diminishes with time. Trademark expiration reasons are due mostly because there is abandonment or lack of process following. I do find the dynamics of trademarks described in the last two paragraphs in page 2115 of [1] are reasonable to assume.

Hope this helps

[1] Pozdnyakov, Y. V., Zoryana, S., & Tetiana, G. (2020). Price-forming factors choice grounding at intangible assets with negative depreciation independent valuation/appraising. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 11(6), 2112-2139. available at: http://www.paulorodrigues.pro.br/ojs/ijmp/index.php/ijmp/article/download/1170/1482

Patents are all about making information available - the whole idea behind them is to give an inventor exclusive rights in exchange for disclosing how the invention works. So "access" to the information is not a problem, rather, it's the whole point.

Few inventors or small businesses can afford to patent an invention all around the world, and entrepreneurs in the smaller countries are often free to make and sell products that are patented in, say, the US, Europe, Japan, and China. That's good for the local economy, and it's not exactly a "threat" to the inventor -- although it can reduce the potential to earn profits in those countries. Inventors have to make a business decision on where they intend to market the product, and how much they should invest in patent protection in those countries.

To be more precise : some rights you have to ask for (through filing a patent application for instance), some other rights are created as soon as you produce the results (droit d'auteur, Copyright : for text, images, software). In all cases you might have to defend your rights ; for industrial property (patent, trademark) you will use the Title granted (patent granted for instance), for copyrights you might need proof of date (so use lab Notebooks !).

There is no way to "register" such "rights"; there are no such rights. You can apply for a patent or enter into an agreement (contract) or you can publish and hope for "recognition". Sorry.

No one cares. The idea that there are people lurking out there to steal your ideas is a legend that graduate students tell each other. Even if you told someone your idea, the'd still have to do the research and write an article. Ideas a a dime a dozen. In an Hour I could probably come up with ten viable projects. I do it with graduate students in my office. In an hour I send them off with three or four topic ideas. I do it every year with a colleague. We spend half an hour brainstorming, come up with three or four articles, outline them, then pick which ones we want to be first author on. Stop worrying.

These rules of plagiarism are more than enough. Otherwise, we couldn't write anything new.

I agree that it is a long and difficult route (and costly). However, the right that you obtain after grant of the patent is powerful: you may exclude all your competitors from market access for a period of time.

Further, other IP rights, like copyright and design rights are easier to obtain.

Good work Krishna Ravi Srinivas

As Mr. Rourk indicated, you can pay a fee to expedite your application usually resulting in a patent within a year. After filing a normal non-provisional application, the granting of a patent can depend on the subject matter and how busy a particular art unit is at the patent office. That being said, without paying the fee to expedite, an inventor can expect to wait from one to three years for the patent to issue.

Betina Moffat ,

I would say that Nico Deconinck point of defining "the final target" is extremely important not just in terms of the intended purpose but as a metric for your study. If you do not know the length of the campaign how are you going to evaluate the overall performance?

Julian Cockbain Sir, I am asking about maize crop for which DNA sequence is already available in the database. We want to protect them for our own purpose.

Thompson B Uki In addition to your importance points above, cultural genetically speaking, studying the Solomon Islands' diverse cultures and traditions is important for :

1. to sharply define its roots of culture (either Sea People Culture or Land People Culture)

2. to define whether the said diverse cultures is caused by microevolution phenomenon or inter-islands migration from their original place

3. to delineate the trail of their dispersal the world over by comparing their persistent customs/traditions

I totally agree with Phil Barbonis. My advice is not to sell the database to the company. Far too many privacy/data protection risks. Even a tightly-worded contract is no guaranty of unauthorised leakage of medical data. But thank you, Dr Concordet, for explaining the background to the query. Arguably the rights (database rights rather than copyright I suspect) in the diagnoses belong to the employing hospital as the doctors created the data as part of their employee duties.

The various international conventions, e.g., Berne Convention, and international bodies, e.g., WIPO, to ensure consistency of minimum standards of laws is evidence. Not sure if that answers your question - perhaps you could be more explicit?

Dear George.

Awareness of the concept Intellectual property right in Africa, specifically in Nigeria and presently Uganda is gaining momentum in the sence that before now plagiarism testing was overlooked, right now publications have to go through arrays of test to certify its authenticity or originality.

However have full right to your Phd work even after being declared authentic by various examining bodies of the particular school depends on the extant laws of the school, as each university or college have laws establishing them and also laws guiding the publication and publicizing of such research.

However, from my brief experience and based on advice which i have proffered in different occasions, it is expedient that schools hold on to the finished research for some number of years (Published via institutional repositories as a read only document), after which the research is released to its owner,

I have further opined that the researcher also MAY decide to allow the institution have full authority over the work.

These agreements should be in written form.

As I indicated, different sectors have different priorities, but basically pretty much whatever sector you choose will have had research on the relevance of IP to it discussed. It really would be best if you suggested an economic sector that interests you, as you would enjoy the research you do much more if you can relate to it/have empathy with it. So first choose your economic sector!

You automatically own the copyright in your text once you have written it. One way to protect your interest is to get a copy of it signed, dated and witnessed and then deposited in a safe place, say in a bank or with a lawyer. Then, if you think your text has been passed to a third party without your permission, you have the proof that you wrote it first and you own the rights to it, and can sue for infringement. But what you cannot do is force someone else to forward it to, say, a funding body.

Intellectual property rights is a broader term that encompasses copyright, trademarks and patents and trade secrets. The intellectual property rights are then outlined and protected by IP law.

Thank you Sudhir, most appreciated.

1. Essentially derived varieties should have details of parentage and otherwise new varieties may be from natural selection from seed origin population and should have distinct characterers from others in population. To register it as a variety it should be tested at multilocation for stabilty of desirable traits.

2. Registration is done at PPVFRA (in India). Breeders usually has/have IPR rights but if it is developed by public funding then organisation has IPR policy for that.

3. Landscaping method if it is innovative then can be patented with registrar of patent (in India).

4. Landscape technique if published then should be referred keeping plagiarism policy under consideration.

This abstract doesn't give any finding. it gives only suggestion about new methodology about gene transfering. the abstract needs key points about new methodology (why we are prefare, what will be happen when we use more than two Cry genes etc.)

it is still interesting subject. the review will get more attention.

HI,

You may be interested by this paper:

A survey of litigation in corporate finance

Matteo Arena, Stephen Ferris

Managerial finance, 2017 vol 43, issue 1, (pp. 4 - 18)

Keywords: Corporate finance, Litigation

Best regards

 

Hi,

Note that a Patent Must have these three attributes:

1. Novel

2. Inventive

3. Industrially applicable

otherwise it will not be granted Patent Status. The concept, method, formulation, device, invention, or alike must be considered NOVEL and INVENTIVE to those who are: "Skilled in the art".

Therefore, it should not be possible to protect any naturally occurring molecule by a Patent, copyright or Trade Mark. 

To offer a more general perspective, trademark can be helpful where IP protection for the innovation is uncertain or unavailable. Trademark will not only enable the innovator to gain a head start in the new market but will can establish and preserve her reputation as an innovating force, even if IP protection is ultimately unavailable for the innovation itself. For example, if the innovation is a widget, and it is subsequently determined that widgets are not amenable to patent protection (and consequently others produce widget knock offs) the trademark not only establishes the innovator as a source but can also be supplemented with descriptions such as "the original widget". Thus, an innovator who is reluctant to commercialize an innovation because of uncertain IP protection can proceed with the alternative (albeit limited) protection of trademark.

Interpreting you question a little bit wider than only digital industries, it is said that no developing nation ever became developed with a truly open market.

I predict that that any "model" you are going to find in literature, whether it has been successfully applied or not, will be denounced as wrong and unwise by all generally accepted economic theories.

Best of luck in your research,

Thorwald van Vuure

X is an independent entity so one should not be confused between FTO and patent grant. What does it mean ? Simply stated X can be granted, provided one proves novelty and inventively vs prior art. But this patent, although being granted, at the commercial exploitation stage, can "walk on the toes" of other patents (Y, Z). The FTO allows then to define to which extent X will walk on the toes and what are the risks ? To which extent your patent X, being commercially exploited, would infringe patent Y and family Z ? If so what is the strategy ? Shall you license with patent Y or Z owners ? Or shall you consider that risk of being litigated is so low that no need to sign a licence ?  

Dear Omar, 

See the article below, where you can find the answer: 

Methods  of measuring ideas for innovation

 < http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2014/10/23/methods-of-measuring-ideas-for-innovation/ >.

Attention with the Ideal Idea = 0,00 iur. 

The question is whether China has caught up *because* it has ignored IPR and allowed the theft of intellectual property from foreign firms in particular, or *despite* that. Evidence from previous emerging countries such as Japan and South Korea implies that countries become more protective of IP either because of a cultural pre-disposition (Weberian view) or when they are developing enough of it that a self-interested domestic constituency arises. China seems to have reached the latter point.

For more on ways in which China may or may not be representative of other emerging economies, allow me to suggest this reading: Martin, X., & Li, C. 2015. What do we know about state-owned emerging-economy firms, and how? Evaluating literature about inward and outward multinational activities. In L. Tihanyi, E. R. Banalieva, T. M. Devinney, & T. Pedersen (Eds.), Advances in International Management, Vol. 28: 403-439. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

The best document that i know is on the European Union's website at http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm

The whole website is full of facts and figures and may include the details for which you are looking. I cannot think of anything directly relevant at this stage.

I do a lot of work in Europe and can answer any specific questions that you might have about the process. 

I asked to my Prof about patent. He said knowledge is human right. Patents is like a dark hole for develop knowledge.

In my opinion for technology and industry is ok.

Thanks

see this article it may be relevant

Managing risk and protecting intellectual property

Corbin, Ruth M. Ivey Business Journal 66.3 (Jan/Feb 2002): 11-13

I generally agree with Feng Tian. Priority date usually means that the trade mark registration applicant has applied on an earlier date (the priority date) to register the same mark for (substantially) the same goods or services in a different country before the application that you are looking at was filed and is asking the trademark registration office to treat the application you are looking at as if it had been filed on that earlier date. That is: I file for KODAK in the UK on 12 Jan 2012, and file in France for KODAK on 12 May 2012 claiming priority from my UK application. You make your first filing for KODAK, in France, on 12 March 2012 - sorry, you lose because my effective date in France is 12 Jan 2012 which is earlier than yours. First use in commerce is what it says - the day you first used the mark in trade in the country in question. (It matters in the US). First use in commerce can and often will predate the trademark application date because generally you don't have to register a mark before you can begin using it.

Without an empirical study, it is hard to say.  With the advent of the internet for performance and distribution, enforcement has become very difficulty for any music copyrights generally.  What is "weak"?  Lengthy duration for music is meaningless --few pieces have much of a lifespan.  Protection against literal copying and requirement of paying royalties for performance is what you basically get in every country.  The problem everywhere is enforcing those rights and administering a compulsory licensing scheme for performance.  Musicians in the United States mostly scratch out a living from live performances.  The revenue stream from selling music or recordings is mostly dried up.

Thanks for your answer !

Yes, it's true. Most of the owners want to display the physical copy of the works. Moreover, their price can be very expensive, so that they can't bear to let the exhibition right to the author. It's particularly the case with public institutions, such as museums, in the name of the right to culture.

But we can find some examples of its enforcement in France. the most notable case was judged by the Supreme Court in 2002. The exhibition right has been enforced for two photographers, whose works were displayed by a non-profit organization without their permission and, of course, without any royalties. Some lower courts later judged in the same way. But there are very few cases, and the case law is not very significant.

Most of the authors who are interested in this right stopped to sell their works, just to keep a control on it. They rent these to galleries and sometimes organize their own exhibitions. But they do it more as owner of the physical copy than author of the work.

What do you know about it ? is it the same in Netherlands ? Other countries ?

Best regards.

IP protection is a balancing act. On the one hand, awarding IP protection may reward the inventor's ground-breaking endeavor and incentivize future discoveries in the research/creative field. On the other hand, IP protection may create a road block for others to use and/or improve the current discoveries due to the monopoly right associated with IP protection. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the goal of awarding IP right should be to maximize the overall benefits to the society as a whole and accelerate the development of technology/humanity instead of hamper the progress thereof.

Accordingly, it is logical to state that the criteria to award IP protection is: Only award those discoveries that would not have been made without the assurance of IP protection. In other words, affording IP protection to those technologies or writings which would naturally/spontaneously be discovered or disclosed in due course would be a misuse, if not an abuse, of this incentive mechanism to shorten the discovery path/time. The subject matter of IP protection should reflect the above criteria as well.

Hi Lutz,

you may have a look at World Bank's Management, Organisation and Innovation Survey Microdata:

Kind regards,

Marko

 The initial process of patent application has been internationalized via WIPO and the Patent Cooperation Treaty. A single PCT application can get you started in 140+ jurisdictions.  There other treaties that aim towards so-called harmonizations of patent laws including TRIPS and  the recent  PLT. A few of the larger jurisdictions (the IP5) have multilateral agreements and experiments going on to see IF search results from one country might save work in other countries examining the counterpart patent application.

Don't mention it, Noa, hope it helps.

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance; I represented Argentina during the final stage of this case. It was a leading case, where it was defined the scope of the Patent along the agrifood chain. Helpful not only for Argentine farmers, but also for farmers around the world, because it's a very important precedent.

Regards, Alejandro

There appears to be confusion between intellectual property and knowledge in this thread. Intellectual property is a legal term and is defined in the legal concepts of property/ownership. Knowledge is not a legal term and knowledge can be shared by all, discovered by many simultaneously and contains both proprietary and general knowledge.

While I can see the advantages of an ultra utopian world where IP is shared it is of course sheer fantasy. Research costs a great deal of money, a great deal of effort and even huge emotional cost. The data obtained has been 'earned' by the researcher and she deserves to get a benefit from it.

To those who do believe that IP should be shared I advise that they leave the keys in their cars that others may share the use of them. They should give any spare room in their houses to the homeless and share their food with all of their neighbours.

Intelectual property is as real as the physical property described above. It is earned and it is owned. I agree fully with Dirk and Eigentum verpflictet is an elegant way of describing the obligations of ownership. Selling rights to use intellectual property is perfectly ethical and should be seen as no different to requiring rent for a room or wages for work.

Example:

You filed a patent application and claimed three structures: A, B, and C. USPTO said that structure C is either anticipated by ref 1 or is obvious over refs 2 & 3. You as the patent practitioner amended the claims to narrow the structures covered to A, B and C' (wherein C' has a smaller scope than C).

Later you found that on the market there was a competitor's product which had structure D. D is either obvious over C or an equivalent thereof, but would not infringe claims under the structure C' in your issued patent. One option you may have is to reissue or reexamine your patent to convert your claims back to A, B, and C. The other is to sue the competitor for infringement in the court. Neither would work because of prosecution history estoppel.

Re-prosecution: USPTO would reject your request to expand the scope of your patent right based on prosecution history estoppel, i.e., you CANNOT re-claim what you have surrendered to USPTO during previous prosecution of your patent if the earlier narrowing amendment were in response to USPTO's patentability rejections. This relinquished IP space has entered the public domain and would not become your private IP property any more. It's gone forever!

Litigation: The Court would not allow you to use doctrine of equivalent to put D as an equivalent of C since you have surrendered your right to own C during the prosecution at USPTO.

The key is that if you has surrendered part of your claims when responding to USPTO's patentability rejections, you cannot retrieve that part (reaction mode). But if you voluntarily narrowed your claims without any threat from USPTO, you may still broaden your claims later on (action mode).

The take-home message is: Be very careful when narrowing your claims in response to a patentability rejection. If you have a chance to argue for the validity of your claims instead of amending the claims, argue in all possible ways you can.

Three basic Criteria:

1) New: Should be completely different from prior art (should be published or disclosed ever anywhere!);

2) Non-obvious: Should be newer for the person Skilled in art as well as should be reproducible by person skilled in art;

3) Industrial Applicable: Should be useful to society/industry...

From these criteria you can definitely say that your work shouldn't published anywhere before you FILE a patent...

There seem not to be much empirical research in Africa in relation to IPR. Below is link to a dissertation that reports results of research about Kenyan university libraries in relation to copyright.

Reason one: In India the patent right is not a big enough carrot to lure the researcher into filing a patent application. Maybe the research subject has no commercial value. Maybe the cost to commercialize the technology is too big a hurdle for the researcher to climb over. Maybe the Patents Act in India provides too little protection for patents.

Reason two: The university or research institution where the researcher works do not have licensing department or policy to recoup the value of IP rights. A researcher needs professional help when deciding whether to file a patent application for his/her new discoveries. Writing a patent is different from writing a paper. Even if the researcher is awarded a patent, he/she may have trouble selling the patent right.

Reason three: Publish or perish. If no extra bonus is provided by a patent application when compared with a paper, most researchers would choose publishing a paper: much quicker to publish and much easier to write (no claims at all).

Noted with many thanks../wiwiek harwiki

Yes, I agree. I think Indian pharma industry is in deep slumber. They have enough money today if they wish to invest in real original R&D. They can not survive as copy cats for a long time. While developing new processes may be innovative, I think ethically it is not right to exploit some one else's IPR. At the same time BigPharma should also be transparent in costs to invention reasonable in profiteering. I hope some mid way is discovered mutually.

you can present your poster presentation, but you should be careful enough not to disclose the core technical details of your inventions. you should file for the patent within 12 months from the date of disclosing.

The Indian Sec-29, 31 talks about the previous publication.

the complete sections from 29-32 talks about anticipation.