Game-Theoretic Analysis of Blockchain-based Intellectual Property Rights Pledge Financing

The investment activity is diverse and can be carried out with the use of intellectual property rights in accordance with the current international and Russian investment law. The article aims to identify the specifics of the application of intellectual property rights as investments and the implementation of intellectual investments, i.e. investments endowed into intellectual property rights. The objectives of the study are to consider the categories of an investment and object of investment activity, intellectual property, exclusive and other intellectual rights, as well as to analyze and determine the features of legal regulation of the activity in question at the international and national levels in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the systematic analysis with the use of formal legal, comparative and other research methods, it is concluded that investments as a property in a broad sense may include both exclusive and other non-personal intellectual property rights to the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of goods, works, services and enterprises. At the same time, they exclude intellectual property itself as a set of various types of intangible products, moral and other personal non-proprietary intellectual rights by virtue of their inalienable and non-transferable character. It is argued to be the same with respect to the object of investment activity, i.e. the property which the investment is endowed in and is capable to bring income to the investor in the future. Investments into such intellectual property rights can be called as intellectual investments.The legal regulation of investment activity with the use of intellectual property rights has a dual character (in the sense that it is carried out by different investment legislative acts with the similar subject of their regulation) and depends on the type of a particular object used. If intellectual property rights are invested in fixed capital, then they are to be recognized as capital investments and are governed by the Federal Law of February 25,1999 No. 39-FZ “On Investment Activity in the Russian Federation Carried out in the Form of Capital Investments”. If intellectual property rights are used as the object of investment activity, i.e. where investments are endowed in, such intellectual investments are subject to the regulation by the Law of the RSFSR of June 26, 1991 No. 1488-1 “On Investment Activity in the RSFSR”.

The objective of this paper is to study the use of intellectual property (IP) rights by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The paper draws on different surveys and studies in selected countries, with an emphasis on Canadian SMEs, to compare the use and exploitation of IP by company size. The paper finds that despite the potential benefits of acquiring formal IP rights for SMEs, they use IP rights to a lesser degree than large companies due to several factors, mainly the low rate of innovation compared to large companies and the cost and complexity of the IP system. The paper also presents a framework to analyze whether there is a role for government to play in this area, and how the government could address this under-utilization of IP rights by SMEs.

Micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) form the backbone of most national economies and are often the driving force behind innovation. Intellectual property (IP) rights provide legal protection for MSMEs against unauthorised exploitation of their innovations by others. As part of Ghana’s trade policy reforms, Ghana and Switzerland recently signed an agreement to strengthen IP rights administration in Ghana, in order, inter alia, to improve the business environment and encourage innovation. However, little research exists on the use of IP protection by businesses, especially MSMEs, in developing countries such as Ghana. Will a strengthened IP regime benefit MSMEs? Using qualitative procedures, this study examines the use of IP, especially trademarks and industrial designs by MSMEs in Ghana. The evidence indicates that MSMEs do not use formal IP protection as a competitive strategy, and adapt to the threat of imitation by using informal methods such as trade secrets, maintaining product quality, and constant innovation. The study concludes that promoting IP as a tool for enhancing MSME competitiveness requires an integrated approach involving awareness creation on the benefits of IP, increasing MSME access to appropriate and affordable IP services and ensuring effective enforcement of IP rights together with promotion of other competitive strategies such as improving product quality and customer service, protection of cultural artefacts and promotion of national trademarks.

In Cirebon, there are a lot of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the creative sector, however there is still generally not much management of intellectual property rights. The first issue raised by this study is the significance of intellectual property rights protection for small and medium-sized businesses in Cirebon's creative sector. Second, what part does the local government of Cirebon play in offering small and medium-sized businesses in the city the legal protection of their intellectual property rights? Using primary data, this study employs a juridical-empirical methodology. The study's findings indicate that, first, there is a tendency for the market for works produced in the creative industry to expand. This is because, in Cirebon, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for 59% of GDP, and protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) for creative economy products is crucial to preserving the economic rights of original creators. Second, creating a website that offers IPR services is currently the role that local governments play in protecting SMEs' intellectual property rights.

Innovation basically starts with a creative idea and ends with giving valuable form or shape to it. Now a days it is not a question of whether to innovate or not but the question is to find out what to innovate and how to innovate. In the global competitive scenario, it becomes imperative for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) to continuously innovate and reinvent themselves as per the changing business environment. Innovation is more about generating value-additions in the product or process which aims at resolving any problem or address concerns of the stakeholders. It may mean cost-effective drugs, new software program giving new output or new fabric design or texture having long shell life. Intellectual Property Rights can act as a stamp of innovation for MSMEs. Intellectual property means any unique or novel creations made by individuals and IP right is a legal right granted by government on creation of intellectual property. This article explores possible next step that innovative MSMEs should take up. It highlights the fact that they can use their innovations efficiently through effective application of intellectual property rights. It can be also used for commercial exploitation. Few examples are discussed to highlight use of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for innovative MSMEs. The use of IPR system opens up more growth avenues for MSMEs. They can use their intellectual property strategically to built their fortune. This can also result in ripple effect for innovations among MSMEs in Indian business environment. Other MSMEs tend to follow the same route and get motivated to innovate further.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between open innovation and the use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The authors consider patents, industrial designs (i.e. design patents in the USA), trademarks, and copyrights.Design/methodology/approachThe relationships between open innovation, IPRs, and profitability are tested with random-effects panel regressions on data from the Spanish Community Innovation Survey for 2,873 firms spanning the years 2008-2013.FindingsA key result is that SMEs do not benefit from open innovation or from patenting in the same way as larger firms. Furthermore, the results show that SMEs profit in different ways from IPR, depending on their size and the corresponding IPR.Research limitations/implicationsThe different impact of IPRs on the efficiency of open innovation in firms of varying sizes highlights the importance of further investigation into IP strategies and into open innovation in SMEs.Practical implicationsIndustrial designs are currently the most efficient IPR for SMEs to protect their intellectual property in open innovation collaborations. Depending on the company size, the use of different IPRs is recommended. Moreover, firms should seek to increase the efficiency of open innovation and the use of IPRs.Social implicationsThe high impact of SMEs on employment highlights the importance of fomenting efficient innovation processes in such firms.Originality/valueThis paper opens the black box of IPR in relation to open innovation in SMEs, and draws distinctive conclusions with regards to patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyrights.

The rendezvous between intellectual property rights and human rights has awakened slumbering legal spirits. Miscellaneous legal phenomena are now nestled in the intersection between intellectual property rights and human rights. However, the interplay between human rights and intellectual property rights is bizarrely characterized by amity and hostility. Naturally, therefore, situating indigenous intellectual property at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights becomes a daunting task. However, the dilemma is often overstated especially from the point of view of conventional intellectual property rights. At the outset of this Article, I shall be exploring the history and the development of the relationship between human rights and intellectual property rights. In the followng section, I shall be examining the extent to which intellectual property rights are entrenched in the international human rights instruments. The last section shall be devoted to exploring the phenomenon of locating indigenous peoples' rights at the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights and reflecting on the ensuing issues—an aspect which has seldom been considered in the existing literature.

As a business actor, it is only natural that MSMEs need to pay attention to the intellectual Property of the products they produce. Even though as we know that the registration of Intellectual Property, be it Copyrights, Brands, Patents, Trade Secrets, Industrial Designs, and Integrated Circuit Layout Designs (DST), is a distinct advantage for MSME actors; there is still little interest in Indonesian MSMEs to register Intellectual Property. Unfortunately, because noting IPR can protect its business products without fear of being copied by other parties. Based on the description above, what will be discussed in this research is 1. How is the government's legal protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Indonesia? 2. What factors cause the reluctance of MSMEs to take advantage of the IPR system? 3. What is the potential for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that can be used for Indonesian Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)? The method used in this research is normative juridical research using secondary data in the form of intellectual property books and applicable laws and regulations. Based on the provisional assumption, it is known that the state of government legal protection for IPR in Indonesia is by enacting several rules relating to IPR, namely Law No. 30/2000 concerning Trade Secrets, Law no. 31/2000 regarding Industrial Design, Law no. 32/2000 concerning Layout Design of Integrated Circuits, Law no. 13/2016 on Patents, Law no. 20/2016 on Trademarks, Law no. 28/2014 on Copyright. The potential for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that can be used for Indonesian Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are Copyrights, Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Trade Secrets and the factors that cause MSMEs reluctance to utilize the IPR system, namely, first, The registration procedure is long and complex. Secondly, the registration fee is expensive, and thirdly, it is related to the perception that law enforcement for IPR violations is feeble.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts «intellectual property» and «right of intellectual property» and to the issue of the possibility of using them as equivalent concepts. The author considersthe features of a broad understanding of the concept of intellectual property, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. With this approach intellectual relations are only one of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which is subject to legal regulation only in part.Taking into account the above, the difference between the meanings of the concepts «intellectual property» (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and «intellectual property right» is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determinedon the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside of the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept «object of intellectual property rights» is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights.The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in sociophilosophical sense that satisfies the social, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense the object by its nature is a good for man; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statusesand roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept «intellectual property» as identical with the concept «intellectual property right» is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concept of «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right» are used in the legislation in the same sense and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights about such objects.

Making a COVID-19 vaccine globally available once developed: Decoupling production of the vaccine from its development

The intersection of intellectual property and human rights is a relatively new site in the search for balance in intellectual property law and policy. Although this intersection opens up intellectual property to a unique kind of interdisciplinary analysis, only the human rights system appears to have seized the opportunity, while its intellectual property rights counterpart remains reluctant to engage. There are, so far, different competing first impressions over the nature of the intersection between intellectual property and human rights. Despite empirical credence of the conflict narrative, the co-existence of complementary thesis of the intellectual property and human rights interface has greater prospects for a meaningful and balanced rapprochement between the two. This chapter argues for critical scrutiny of the human rights appeal of intellectual property rights in order to avoid its potential for being hijacked by stronger stakeholders at the expense of their weaker opponents for whom intellectual property rights have strong paradoxical ramifications.

The Colour of Copyright

Technological innovation is an important challenge faced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This study investigates the factors that influence the growth, performance, and development of intellectual property rights (IPRs) attitude of SMEs in India. The study is an attempt to highlight the extent of Intellectual Property Rights of Indian manufacturing as a whole and a survey analysis has been undertaken for 100 SMEs of manufacturing sector of Punjab in India to understand the level of IPRS by firms in post TRIPS period. Punjab is a progressive state of India with an average growth rate of 10%. Punjab has been ranked as one of the growing states of India. The present study uses growth rates for analyzing the status of IPRs at all India level. It also presents the sector-wise status of patents filed. Manufacturing SMES have been categorized on the basis of use into durable, non durable and essential goods. The results of the study highlight the low level of IPRs in India. Durable industries have filed most of the trademarks. Most of the copyrights and patents have been filed by essential goods. The results of the factors influencing Innovation in SMEs of Punjab manufacturing depict that: increased market share, improved production flexibility, staff employed in R and D, status of trademarks in last ten years and status of copyrights in last ten years and: improved environmental impact or health safety aspect explain 87.6% of the variation. Finally, the study recommends the factors for promoting IPR culture for SMEs of Punjab manufacturing. Factor analysis results highlight that two factors namely; i) Factor analysis results highlight that two factors namely; policy initiatives and organizational factor explain 62.85% of total variation. Key words: Intellectual property rights (IPRs), innovation, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Punjab manufacturing.

The world community recognizes that intellectual property and intellectual rights are one of the foundations of the modern business world. The issues of choosing ways to protect intellectual property rights are the subject of constant discussions. The authors analyze the problem in two aspects: from the point of view of state and international policy and from the point of view of the possibility of protecting their intellectual rights by participants in civil turnover. The purpose of the study is to study the mechanism of intellectual property rights protection, as well as to study the problems of compensation for moral damage and self-defense in the field of intellectual property. When preparing the article, general scientific logical methods were used, as well as a private formal legal method. The authors note that the conflict between the interests of the copyright holder of exclusive rights, on the one hand, and the general rights of participation and access, on the other, is a characteristic feature of modern society and culture, therefore intellectual property and intellectual rights are of interest not only as a legal institution, but also as a cultural model and socio-economic mechanism. With the development of digital technologies, the very principle of exclusivity of intellectual rights is increasingly being questioned both in theory and in practice, which naturally leads to a revision of existing ideas about the protection of these rights.

This paper provides a theoretical overview of and practical guidance on the use of intellectual property (IP) rights as security in Estonia. It begins with an overview of the different IP rights in Estonia and the categories of security rights that can be granted over them. Like in other European countries, there are both non-registered and registered IP rights in Estonia. The different types of IP rights can be categorized as either copyright and related rights or as industrial property rights. In addition to national IP rights, EU-wide IP rights such as EU trademarks and Community also have effect in Estonia. The main ways to create a security right over an IP right are by establishing a pledge over IP rights or by transferring the IP rights as security. An IP right may be encumbered with a pledge through the establishment of a registered security over movables (for registered IP rights) or a pledge of rights (for non-registered IP rights). In addition, non-registered IP rights can also form part of a general commercial pledge, which is established over the entire movable property of an enterprise.