Open access and digital morphology data in evolutionary biology: expanding frontiers of knowledge.

If data are the building blocks to generate information needed to acquire knowledge and understanding, then geodata, i.e. data with a geographic component (geodata), are the building blocks for information vital for decision-making at all levels of government, for companies and for citizens. Governments collect geodata and create, develop and use geo-information - also referred to as spatial information - to carry out public tasks as almost all decision-making involves a geographic component, such as a location or demographic information. Geo-information is often considered “special” for technical, economic reasons and legal reasons. Geoinformation is considered special for technical reasons because geo-information is multi-dimensional, voluminous and often dynamic, and can be represented at multiple scales. Because of this complexity, geodata require specialised hardware, software, analysis tools and skills to collect, to process into information and to use geoinformation for analyses. Geo-information is considered special for economic reasons because of the economic aspects, which sets it apart from other products. The fixed production costs to create geo-information are high, especially for large-scale geo-information, such as topographic data, whereas the variable costs of reproduction are low which do not increase with the number of copies produced. In addition, there are substantial sunk costs, which cannot be recovered from the market. As such, geo-information shows characteristics of a public good, i.e. a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. However, to protect the high investments costs, re-use of geo-information may be limited by legal and/or technological means such as intellectual property rights and digital rights management. Thus, by making geo-information excludable, it becomes a club good, i.e. a non-rivalrous but excludable good. By claiming intellectual property rights, such as copyright and/or database rights, and restricting (re-)use through licences and licence fees, geo-information can be commercially exploited and used to recover some of the investment costs. Geo-information is considered special for a number of legal reasons. First, as geo-information has a geographic component, e.g. a reference to a location, geoinformation may contain personal data, sensitive company data, environmentally sensitive data, or data that may pose a threat to the national security. Therefore, the dataset may have to be adapted, aggregated or anonymised before it can be made public. Secondly, geo-information may be subject to intellectual property rights. There may be a copyright on cartographic images or database rights on digital information. Such intellectual property rights may be claimed by third parties involved in the information chain, e.g. a private company supplying aerial photography to the National Mapping Authority. The data holder may also claim intellectual property rights to commercially exploit the dataset and recoup some of the vast investment costs made to produce the dataset. Lastly, there may be other (international) legislation or agreements that may either impede or promote publishing public sector information, whereby in some cases, these policies may contradict each other. It has been recognised that to deal with national, regional and global challenges, it is essential that geo-information collected by one level of government or government organisation be shared between all levels of government via a so-called Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). The main principles governing SDIs are that data are collected once and (re-)used many times; that data should be easy to discover, access and use; and that data are harmonised so that it is possible to combine spatial data from different sources seamlessly. In line with the SDI governing principles, this dissertation considers accessibility of information to include all these aspects. Accessibility concerns not only access to data, i.e. to be able to view the data without being able to alter the contents but also re-use of data, i.e. to be able to download and/or invoke the data and to share data, including to be able to provide feedback and/or to provide input for co-generated information. Accessibility to public sector geo-information is not only essential for effective and efficient government policy-making but is also associated with realising other ambitions. Examples of these ambitions are a more transparent and accountable government, more citizens’ participation in democratic processes, (co-)generation of solutions to societal problems, and to increase economic value due to companies creating innovative products and services with public sector information as a resource. Especially the latter ambition has been the subject of many international publications stressing the enormous potential economic value of re-use of public sector (geo-) information by companies. Previous research indicated that re-users of public sector information in Europe encountered barriers related to technical, organisational, legal and financial aspects, which was deemed to be the main reason why in Europe the number of value added products and services based on public service information were lagging compared to the United States. Especially the latter two barriers (restrictive licence conditions and high licence fees) were often cited to be the main barriers for reusers in Europe. However, in spite of considerable resources invested by governments to establish spatial data infrastructures, to facilitate data portals and to release public sector information as open data, i.e. without legal and financial restrictions, the expected surge of value added products based on public sector information has not quite eventuated to date and the expected benefits still appear to lag expectations. When this research started a decade ago, the debate around accessibility of public sector information focussed on access policies. Access policies ranged from open access (data available with a minimum of legal restrictions and for no more than marginal dissemination costs) to full cost recovery, whereby all costs incurred in collection, creation, processing, maintenance and dissemination costs to be recovered from the re-users. Most of the public sector bodies in the European Union adhered to a cost recovery policy for allowing re-use of public sector information. In 2003, the European Commission adopted two directives to ensure better accessibility of public sector information Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the so-called Access Directive, provided citizens the right of access to environmental information. Citizens should be able to access documents related to the environment via a register, preferably in an electronic form and if a copy of a document was requested, the charges must not exceed marginal dissemination costs. Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the co-called PSI Directive, intended to create conditions for a level playing field for all re-users of public sector information. However, the PSI Directive of 2003 left room for public sector organisations to maintain a cost recovery regime with restrictive licence conditions. In spite of these directives, access policies for geographic data were slow to change in most European nations. At the end of the last decade, accessibility of public sector information received two major impulses. The first major impulse was the implementation of Directive 2007/2/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the cocalled INSPIRE Directive, established a framework of standardisation rules for the data and publishing via web services, which significantly contributed to the accessibility of public sector geo-information. The second major impulse was the development of open data policies following the Digital Agenda for Europe adopted in 2010 and the USA Open Government Directive of 2009 and the Digital Agenda for Europe of 2010. These two impulses were the main drivers in Europe to start a careful move from cost recovery policies to open access or open data policies and for more public sector information to be made available as open data. Thus, of the four barriers to re-use of public sector information data cited in Chapter 1 (legal, financial, technical and organisational barriers), two barriers should have been lifted to a large degree due to open data. This shift to open data provided an excellent opportunity to test the hypothesis that the main barriers for re-users of public sector information were indeed restrictive licences and high fees as suggested by earlier research. Chapter 2 showed that by 2008, most European Union Member States had transposed and implemented the 2003/98/EC PSI Directive, however, in various ways and with considerable delay. By 2008, the effects of the PSI Directive were only slowly starting to emerge. A number of Member States reviewed their access policies and more public sector information became available for re-use. Some Member States made the information available free-of-charge or reduced their fees significantly. In many cases, where re-use fees were reduced the number of regular re-users increased significantly and total revenue even increased in spite of lower fees. Although the 2007/2/EC INSPIRE Directive paved the way for technical interoperability by providing guidelines for web services and catalogues, neither the INSPIRE Directive nor the PSI Directive had tackled the issue of legal interoperability. Chapter 2 also demonstrated that a major barrier to creating a level playing field for the private sector was the fact that some public sector bodies acted as value added resellers by developing and selling products and services based on their own data. Thus, the level playing field envisioned by the European Commission had not been realised. Chapter 3 researched the aspect of harmonised licences as a first step towards legal interoperability. Earlier research had indicated that one of the biggest barriers for re-users were complex, intransparent and inconsistent licence conditions, especially for re-users wanting to combine data from multiple sources. A survey of licences used by public sector data providers in the Netherlands demonstrated that although there were differences in length and language, there were also many similarities. The conclusion was that the introduction of a licence suite inspired by the Creative Commons concept would be a step towards increased transparency and consistency of geo-information license agreements. This chapter introduced a conceptual model for such a geo-information licence suite, the so-called Geo Shared licences. Both Creative Commons and Geo Shared licence suites enable harmonisation of licence conditions and promote transparency and legal interoperability, especially when re-users combine data from different sources. The Geo Shared licence suite became a serious option for inclusion into the draft version of the INSPIRE Directive as an annex. Unfortunately, the concept of one licence suite for the entire European Union came too early in 2006. The Geo Shared licences were further developed and implemented into the Dutch National Geo Register. In 2009, the European Commission recognised that PSI was the single largest source of information in Europe and the potential for re-use of PSI needed to be highlighted in the digital age. As part of a review of the 2003/98/EC PSI Directive, the European Commission carried out a round of consultations with stakeholders to seek their views on specific issues to be addressed in the future in 2010. In addition, the Commission commissioned a number of studies. These studies included a review of studies on public sector information re-use and related market studies, an assessment of the different models of supply and charging for public sector information and a study on public sector re-user in the cultural sector. The first study, carried out by Graham Vickery in 2011, showed that the overall economic gain from opening up public sector information as a resource for new products and services could be in the order of €40 billion per annum in the European Union. Both the Vickery Report and the second study, the so-called POPSIS Study, showed that for most public sector data providers their revenues from licence fees were relatively low in comparison to their total budget. After the evaluation, Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information was adopted and came into force on 17 July 2013. Chapter 4 described the main changes of the 2013/37/EU Amended PSI Directive, including the recommendation to employ open data licences. This chapter continued with a review of the various open data licences in use in Europe and analysed their interoperability. Although adoption of open data licences for public sector information should have addressed legal interoperability barriers for re-users, in practice, the different types of open data licences might not be so interoperable after all. Effectively, only a public domain declaration, such as a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) declaration, is suitable for open data re-users requiring with cross-border data sets and that such a public domain declaration is published in a prominent place to remove uncertainty for re-users. Without a public domain declaration, re-use of open data is still impeded as re-users are loathe to invest time into the development of value added products or services when it is uncertain if and which restrictions may be applicable and what the impact may be on their product or service. This dissertation also researched the financial and economic aspects of public sector information accessibility. Chapters 1 and 2 indicated that a cost recovery regime for dissemination of public sector information provided a financial barrier for private sector re-users because the fees charged were perceived to be too high. However, in 2008, there were still many advocates for maintaining a cost recovery regime. Especially public sector bodies that are not funded by the national Treasury, the socalled self-funding agencies, needed revenue from data sales to cover a substantial part of their operational costs. A sustainable source of revenue was viewed as essential to maintain the data at an adequate level, and to ensure actuality and continuity. Chapter 5 explored the potential business models and pricing mechanisms for public sector INSPIRE web services. Although, depending on the type of web service, and type of re-user, there might have been an argument for employing a subscription model as a pricing mechanism, business models based on generating revenue from public sector information would not be viable in the long run and were not in the spirit of the INSPIRE Directive. This research concluded that public sector information web services employing different pricing regimes were counterproductive to achieving financial interoperability. In Chapter 6, business models for public sector data providers were revisited, this time from an open data perspective. Government agencies, including self-funding government agencies are under increasing pressure to implement open data policies. This chapter analysed the business models of self-funding agencies either already providing open data or under pressure to provide (some) open data in the near future. The analysis showed which adaptions might be necessary to ensure the long-term availability of high quality open data and the long-term financial sustainability of self-funding agencies. The case studies confirmed that providing (raw) open data does not necessarily lead to losses in revenue in the long term as long as the organisation has enough flexibility to adapt its role in the information value chain, especially when revenue from licence fees represents only a relative small part of their total budget. The case studies indicated that switching to open data has resulted in internal efficiency gains. In practice, it is difficult to isolate and quantify the internal efficiency gains that are solely attributable to open data as the researched organisations continuously implement efficiency measures. However, the reported decreases in internal and external transaction costs due to open data are in line with the case study carried out in Chapter 7. Open data also provided an excellent opportunity to assess the effects of open data ex ante as baseline measurements could be carried out. To develop both quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess the success of a policy change is a challenge for open data initiatives. In Chapter 7, a model to assess the effects on the organisation of an open data provider was developed. Liander, a private energy network administrator mandated with a public task, planned to publish some of their datasets as open data in the autumn of 2013. This offered an excellent opportunity to apply the developed assessment model to provide an insight into internal, external, and relational effects on Liander. A benchmark was carried out prior to release of open data and a follow-up measurement one year later. The benchmark provided an insight into the then work processes and into the preparations required to implement open data. The follow-up monitor indicated that Liander open data are used by a wide range of users and have had a positive effect on the development of apps to aid energy savings. However, it remains a challenge to quantify the societal effects of such apps. The follow-up monitor also indicated that regular re-users of Liander data used the open data to improve existing applications and work processes rather than to create new products. The case study demonstrated that private energy companies could successfully release open data. The case study also showed that Liander served as a best-practice case for open data and had a flywheel effect on companies within the same sector. By 2015, nearly all energy network administrators had published similar open data. The monitoring model developed in this project was assessed to be suitable to monitor the open data effects on the organisation of the data provider. The assessment model developed and tested in Chapter 7 proved to be suitable to monitor the effects of open data on organisational level. However, to provide a more complete picture of the effects of open data and to assess if there are other barriers for re-users, a more holistic approach was required to assess the maturity of open data. Therefore, a holistic open data assessment framework addressing the supplier side, the governance side, and the user side of the open data was developed and applied to the Dutch open data infrastructure in Chapter 8. This Holistic Open Data Maturity Assessment Framework was used to evaluate the State of the Open Data Nation in the Netherlands and to provide valuable information on (potential) bottlenecks. The framework showed that geographic data scored significantly better than other types of government data. The standardisation and implementation rules laid down by INSPIRE Directive framework appear to have been a catalyst for moving geographic data to a higher level of maturity. The maturity assessment framework provided Dutch policy makers with useful inputs for further development of the open data ecosystem and development of well-founded strategies that will ensure the full potential of open data will be reached. Since the publication of the State of the Open Data Nation in 2014, a number of the recommendations have already been implemented. This dissertation demonstrated that many aspects that should facilitate accessibility, such as standardised metadata, have already been addressed for geodata. This research also showed that for other types of data, there is still a long way to go. There is a growing demand for other types of data, such as financial data and healthcare data. Public sector organisations holding such types of data need hands-on guidelines to enable publication of their datasets, preferably as open data. However, data published as open data are forever and cannot be recalled. Therefore, the decision to publish public sector data as open data is complex: datasets are often of a heterogeneous nature and may contain microdata (data that quantify observations or facts, such as data collected during surveys) Although microdata may not necessarily contain personal data, the datasets will probably have to be processed before publication to address confidentiality and data quality issues. In addition, there is a tension between open data and protection of personal data. The big question remains to which level the data need to be aggregated and/or anonymised to ensure protection of personal data now and in the future, and at the same time keeping sufficient significance to be re-usable. Another issue that needs further research is data-ownership of sensor data and co-created data. Increasingly, sensor data generated by e.g. smart phones, smart energy meters and traffic sensors are collected by the public sector and the private sector and become part of a big data ecosystem. In addition, public sector organisations cooperate with other public sector organisations and the private sector to create information from their data, so-called co-created information. Citizens also collect data or complement information on a voluntary basis, e.g. bird counts data. Co-created information will become more commonplace in the coming decades, as will the contribution of sensor data to a big data ecosystem. However, the aspect of who owns the data in which part of the information value chain has not been researched. Uncertainty related to third party rights will pose a barrier to publishing open data. Therefore, the aspect of data-ownership for sensor data and for co-created data should be further researched.

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”.

Intellectual Property: The Promise and Risk of Human Rights

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.

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.

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

Decentralizing the Lawmaking Function: Private Lawmaking Markets and Intellectual Property Rights in Law

Decentralizing the lawmaking function: Private lawmaking markets and intellectual property rights in law

Modern Intellectual Property Governance and Openness in Europe: A Long and Winding Road? In the last decade a trend towards more ‘openness’ in terms of collaborations and access to knowledge has been observed in many different sectors and contexts. Along the spectrum of openness one can find many different varieties, such as open innovation, co-creation, open science (combined with open access and open data) and open source. Even traditionally rather ‘closed’ actors, such as publishing houses and the pharmaceutical industry, are gradually catching up and are trying to develop mechanisms to cope with this trend towards openness. Both public and private actors encounter challenges in combining this trend towards openness with the management of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Although a strong willingness may exist to collaborate, open up and share knowledge and data, IPRs often create boundaries and limitations towards cutting-edge collaborations and initiatives for openness and sharing. Over time, companies, universities, public research organisations, etc. have developed certain models to allow for openness while safeguarding ways to protect their IPRs. Yet the legal framework is often lagging behind and does not appear to reflect the socio-economic trend towards openness; in many jurisdictions, changes to IP legislation have rather focused on strengthening of the rights of IP owners. But this is not necessarily a problem as stakeholders tend to find workarounds in their day-to-day practice. This special issue aims to further the discussion about modern governance of IPRs in Europe and to explore different perspectives on how openness could be operationalised within the context of IP protection.

Intellectual property rights are legal rights that protect intellectual assets, which hold signifi cant value for individuals and even greater importance for the economy and society as a whole. Liability insurance against the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights is becoming increasingly relevant as a mechanism for managing unforeseen risks arising from third-party proprietary claims and from unauthorized use of intellectual property rights. This paper fi rst examines the nature and scope of various intellectual property rights, alongside the advantages of liability insurance in cases of infringement of such rights. It then explores what may constitute the subject-matter of insurance coverage, based on the nature of intellectual property rights, general insurance principles, and contractual frameworks. The aim is to distinguish this specifi c type of liability insurance within the broader context of IP protection. Finally, the paper examines the scope of insurance coverage in relation to specifi c costs incurred when the insured appears as a defendant in legal proceedings, as well as when the insured takes actions to protect and enforce their intellectual property rights.

Learning outcomes The objectives of the case study are to provide an overview of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights in Indian context; understand the intellectual property rights implementation and challenges for implementing it in emerging economies; understand what would be the best approach that companies can adopt when the companies face backlash in such circumstances; and explore the scope for redefining the intellectual property rights in the changing global environment. Case overview/synopsis In December 2021, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA) in India revoked the plant variety protection (PVP) certificate granted to PepsiCo India Holding (PHI) for its Lays variety potato (FL-2027, known as FC-5). The FC-5 variety possessed low moisture content which made it suitable for making potato chips. The controversy started with Pepsi suing the small and marginal farmers of Gujarat for alleged patent infringement and cultivating the patented variety. Pepsi’s legal suit against nine marginal potato farmers in Gujarat initiated the dispute over how intellectual property (IP) rights are used to intimidate small, marginal farmers and its infringement of farmers’ rights. But, on the other side, the interesting aspect was how IP infringement could be a setback for the companies that made the capital investment to develop the variety. The case study discusses the backlash Pepsi faced due to this IP rights legal suit and the punitive aspects of IP rights (IPR) law. Moreover, in the context of the global pandemic, the case study helped discuss the need to redefine the intellectual property rights regime keeping in mind global welfare. Complexity academic level The case is intended for use in postgraduate-level management courses in agricultural marketing, agribusiness, international business and economics. This study can help management students understand how IPR is defined, the apparent complexities associated with it and the adverse effect of it on small and marginal farmers in emerging economies. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 5: International business.

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.

Technological developments raise the importance of intellectual and intangible production day by day. It is critical for the future of countries to adapting this change, as the share of human production has decreased and automation and artificial intelligence has extended. Countries make a great effort to claim rights for innovative products and to increase their competitiveness. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are the key for ownership of products, economic development and promoting innovative technologies. Therefore, most developed and developing economies prioritize the IPR and innovative production. While Türkiye was at a quite low level in IPR outputs at the beginning of the 2000s, a drastic performance increase was in the last 20 years. However, Türkiye’s performance is not adequate to reach the new IPR targets in the Turkish strategy documents including “11th Development Plan (2019-2023)” and “National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy Plan – Status Analysis Report”. The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has recently prioritized IPR via raising the awareness of education stakeholders, establishing monitoring mechanisms and setting targets, establishing cooperation with other stakeholders, and increasing the production capacity of educational institutions. Additionally, teacher training on IPR was intensified, R&D centers were established, and the IPR was prioritized in large-scale projects. The improvements provided solid results in a short time, and the number of IPR applications and registrations from MoNE institutions increased tremendously. Consequently, the steps of the MoNE show that concrete results can be achieved in a short time with dedicated and holistic IPR improvements. It is recommended to expand these efforts and increase cooperation in order for Türkiye to achieve its recent targets in IPR.

Featured Collection Introduction: Open Water Data Initiative

In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick defends a libertarian theory of property rights under a minimal state. Whether libertarian theory supports or excludes intellectual property (IP) rights remains controversial. This paper shows that, although Nozick only mentions intellectual property (IP) a few times in the book, these discussions turn out to be surprisingly pivotal for his arguments. Indeed, Nozick calls IP rights a ‘fundamental’ issue for libertarian theory. So, it is important to analyse the structural, methodological, and substantive implications of what Nozick says (and does not say) about IP rights. I will show that in Part 1 of ASU, IP rights illustrate the non-ideal problem of persistent disagreement, which shows that the minimal state cannot simply administer justice; it must also tackle disagreements about the content of justice. In Part 2 of ASU, Nozick discusses patents to illustrate the limits of the Lockean Proviso. His embrace of counterfactual reasoning opens the surprising possibility that even property rights in physical resources may be up for time limitations, inheritance laws, or other proviso-motivated regulations. Overall, Nozick’s discussion of IP rights illuminates the somewhat neglected role of non-ideal libertarian theory, epistemic indeterminacy, counterfactual reasoning, and pragmatic, ‘rule-of-thumb’ remedies in ASU. In the final analysis, Nozick does not develop a fully coherent picture of IP rights, and his proposed solution, putting time limits on patents, seems somewhat ad hoc. Although IP rights play an underappreciated role in the book, his discussion raises more questions than it answers. The epistemically humble libertarian (or liberal) should approach the regulation of IP rights, and other thorny issues of real-world property-ownership, with an open mind.