Are patents an encumbrance? When a firm is articulating their innovation strategy, determining how to keep control of their intellectual assets is crucial. That is because companies who are heavily reliant on research and development inherent value in intangible assets and other intellectual property (IP) compared to material assets (Henkel and Reitzig, 2008). But, of course this varies between different industries in managing those valuable resources to a business i.e. pharmaceutical and biotechnology) heavily rely on patents (Thomas, 2003). A patent gives an inventor a period of 20 years to stop other corporations from making, using or selling the invention in question without the permission of the investor (Out-Law.com, 2016) hence giving the investor a short-term monopoly. The main purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation and the improvement of industrial techniques (Out-Law.com, 2016). However, this is open to debate, Boldrin and Levine (2013), claim there is no empirical evidence that patents serve to promote innovation and productivity. In the UK and other economies, patent ‘trolls’ are misusing the patent system which then serves as a hindrance to innovation. This leads to the question – are patents hurting innovation? I will critically explore patenting, patent sharks and consider recommendations made by authors for policy-makers. Patents do not impede innovation but help knowledge-sharing across industries. Japan’s Assistant Secretary of State Korehiyo Takahashi visited the U.S Patent Office in 1888 wrote, “what is it that makes the United States such a great nation? ' And we investigated and we found that it was patents, and we will have patents”. This indicates the patent system played a pivotal role i... ... middle of paper ... ...ort from venture capital. Thus, patents play an important role in terms of reducing uncertainty and alleviating information asymmetries (Mensa, Hegde and Ljungqvist, 2015). Hence, reforms of the patent system need to facilitate the above. The implication otherwise would run the risk inhibiting the available capital for innovative start-ups. However, the authors research is based on the USA and thus, the empirical evidence cannot be generalised. In conclusion, patents do not impede innovation but the patent system employed allows patent sharks targeting start-ups. Abolishing the patent system as suggested by Boldrin and Levine (2013), is imprudent and risky which would then provide implications to innovators. However, further research is required to investigate how the patent system can be better articulated to avoid patent sharks and protect innovative entrepreneurs.
(7) Hall B. Patents and Patent Policy -. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the Morse H. SETTLEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRIES: ANTITRUST RULES. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD. Valuable patents. Geol.
Margaret Fuller was one of the most influential woman of her time. She was a very intelligent woman that had concurred three languages by the age of thirteen. She used her knowledge to open the eyes of many people. She was a true Transcendentalist. She was very vocal about her views on gender roles of the nineteenth century even though they were not considered traditional. She challenged the conventional gender roles of the men and women. She was not afraid to tell women to fight for their natural rights. Her audience was composed of both men and women. She makes sure to point out that when she speaks of men, she is referring to both men and women. One of her greatest literature written was The Great Lawsuit. It was
Do you remember the lawsuit about the woman who ordered the McDonald’s coffee and spilled it in her lap and sued McDonald’s because it did not have a warning label on it? What about the woman who fell in the fountain at the mall while texting and wants to sue the mall? These lawsuits may seem fairly farfetched. They fall into the category called frivolous.
Glader, M. (2006). Innovation markets and competition analysis: EU competition law and US antitrust law. Camberley, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
...se enough money during a certain period of time the inventors get start their proposed project.
Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.
Although monopolies appear damaging at times, there are arguments that they are an advantage to society. Monopolies in the pharmaceutical industry drive companies to pursue research and development (R&D) efforts to gain new patents. According to a 1992 study, among the 24 US. Industry groups, pharmaceuticals dedicated 16.6% of their amounts to basic research, while all other industries averaged at 5.3% (Sherer 1307). This fact validates the incentive pharmaceutical companies have to get a patent and acquire more power. Pfizer encourages R&D because of the incentives and a want to obtain patents to receive more profit. Pfizer has to promote itself to be successful, creating a good brand image that consumers will trust. If the company can advertise successfully, more consumers will purc...
Frivolous Lawsuits As children our parents tried to instill in all of us good moral judgment and common sense. However, if I was to open the newspaper I would surely find any number of articles on the latest frivolous lawsuit, these being even more outrageous than the ones in yesterday’s paper. How have we as a society, which is completely capable of rational thinking, allowed ourselves to become so intertwined in the blaming game?
Intellectual Property Law used to only protect art, music, and literature, but because of technological development, Intellectual Property Law now also protects a greater variety of innovations including designs, inventions, symbols, discoveries, and words. The phrase “intellectual property” was first known to be used in the late 1700’s; however, it was not widely talked about, nor was the Intellectual Property Law in actuality commonly implemented. Intellectual Property Rights slowly gained more attention by mid-1800’s after the Industrial Revolution had taken place: more companies were created, competition between corporations became fiercer, and owning unique innovations were crucial to winning the competition. However, as Intellectual Property
Competition law in the European Union has developed from being an uncertain preoccupation of a few economists, lawyers and officials to one of the leading competition law system in the globe. Nonetheless, in agreement with most commentators, there are inherent flaws within the EU Commission’s procedures. This paper aims to provide an account of concerns in the current system, drawing comments from scholars and EU officials in order to demonstrate both benefits and shortcomings of the system. An overview of the legal and policy debate of the current EU Competition enforcement will be presented as the introduction. Policy concerns such as prosecutorial bias and self-incrimination in enforcement powers will be the main subjects for the purpose of this paper, followed by analysis of the EU commission structure, in particular checks and balances and the hearing process, both of which have been claimed being incompatible with the ECHR. A comparison with the US Antitrust system will also be paralleled through out this essay in order to demonstrate a clearer examination. This essay will conclude with the Commission’s flaws that have effected on the upcoming UK competition law reforms.
The case study is about an interview, conducted to four venture capitalists from four of the most prominent VC Silicon Valley firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), Menlo Ventures, Trinity Ventures and Alta Partners. These firms invest both in seed as well as in later-stage companies, which operate mostly in the information technology sector. However, each VC has developed different sector portfolio depending on the expertise of the venture capitalists, the partner network and other factors. Professor Mike Roberts and Lauren Barley a senior research associate, both from Harvard Business School, have made a series of seven questions to their interviewees to understand how they evaluate potential venture opportunities and what they look at in order to decide if they will fund them and in which way. The questions were dealing with how VC’s evaluate potential venture opportunities, how they conduct due diligence, what process id followed for the decision making, what financial analyses is performed, the role of risk in the evaluation and how they think of potential exit routes. These questions were asked individually and revealed several similarities as well as differences in the strategy and the criteria that are used for the evaluation.
...ividuals and systems should be developed to encourage innovation in a flexible way with few legal restrictions. Government and investors should work towards improving the infrastructure of the nation by providing facilities and platforms making it simple for any individual to innovate.
Pharmaceutical patents are patents for inventions within the pharmaceutical industry. Patents give exclusive rights for an invention for a product or a process of making a product [1]. There are many aspects to patents in the pharmaceutical industry that are both pros and cons; it just depends on what industry you are in. Pharmaceutical companies take out patents so they can regulate the market and restrict competition from other companies. By obtaining patents pharmaceutical companies also attract investment. In addition to this pharmaceutical companies can also regulate the price of the drug as they will be the only company selling that drug. However these aspects of patents can adversely affect the generics industry. The generics industry cannot make or sell drugs that are patented but once a patent licence expires, both the generics industry and the WHO see increased benefits as drugs become more widely available around the world (i.e. developing countries) at a lower price. Here we will discuss the pros and cons of patents from the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, generics industry and the WHO.