Intellectual Property Rights Policies Research Articles

A Study of Global Trade War and Its Impact on Indian Economy

A Study of Global Trade War and Its Impact on Indian Economy

Foreign direct investment and environmental degradation: Can intellectual property rights help G20 countries achieve carbon neutrality?

The G20 comprises rich, industrialized, and powerful nations that advance the world economy through foreign direct investment (FDI). Nevertheless, these countries account for the largest share of global carbon dioxide emissions (CO2). Enforcing intellectual property rights (IPRs) has become a useful tool for stimulating clean technologies to mitigate climate change. This study examines how IPR enforcement moderated the inflow of FDI and carbon emissions in the G20 from 2001 to 2017. We applied the Driscoll-Kraay robust standard error technique, Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS), Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (DOLS), and Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality tests. The results show that FDI increases emissions, thus confirming the pollution haven effect. Long-term estimates suggest that the moderating role of IPRs in FDI significantly reduces environmental degradation. Causality analysis shows that FDI causes CO2 emissions in the long run, and carbon emissions enforce IPR regulations. Furthermore, we observed bidirectional causality between IPRs, FDI relationships, and carbon emissions. Based on these results, policymakers should enhance IPR policies and encourage clean technology through FDI among G20 members. In addition, governments should promote the clean-up of industrial processes, green finance, and the consumption of eco-friendly technologies, such as renewable energy, to achieve carbon neutrality.

Exports vs. FDI under counterfeiting: implications for the IPR policy of an importing country

ABSTRACT This paper analyzes how exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) differ in affecting the intellectual property rights (IPR) policy of an importing country faced with domestic counterfeiting problems. We identify the circumstances in which IPR protection and private protection are complementary. Our study also highlights the challenges of using IPR protection to fight counterfeiting while attracting FDI, which may reduce domestic welfare.

How does intellectual property system affect technology entrepreneurship: evidence from Chinese prefecture‐level cities

Technology entrepreneurship plays a pivotal role in bolstering regional economic vitality, with the intellectual property rights (IPR) system serving as a fundamental safeguard for entrepreneurs' intellectual achievements. Using panel data encompassing 260 prefecture‐level cities in China from 2006 to 2019, we employ the count of registered technology‐based enterprises to construct an indicator of technology entrepreneurship and consider China's IPR policy as a quasi‐natural experiment to examine the impact of the IPR system on technology entrepreneurship. The findings reveal that the pilot policy can significantly stimulate technology entrepreneurship displaying a periodically dynamic promotional effect. This conclusion remains reliable even after undergoing rigorous robustness tests. The mechanism analysis demonstrates that the pilot policy can stimulate technology entrepreneurship by enriching the technological knowledge base and providing financial guarantees. Notably, while the policy's impact on technology entrepreneurship increases with the expansion of the city scale across different scenarios, no discernible regional disparities emerge. This study provides a new perspective on the relationship between the IPR system and entrepreneurship, offering valuable insights into improving the IPR framework in emerging developing countries.

Effects of intellectual property rights on innovation and economic activity: A non-linear perspective from Latin America

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have a significant impact on facilitating the economic endeavors of countries. Nevertheless, there exists notable disparity among studies concerning the implications of IPRs within developing countries. Therefore, this study examines how stronger IPRs affect economic activity and moderate two important knowledge channels, domestic and foreign innovation activity. Using a sample of 18 Latin American countries from 2007 to 2018, we employed the Driscoll-Kraay robust standard errors, two-stage least squares (2SLS), and Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) to examine the effects of IPRs. Results confirm an inverted U-shaped relationship between IPRs and economic activity. Hence, the majority of Latin countries continue to vary in the factors of production that suport robust IPRs. Conversely, robust IPRs effectively improve the relation between domestic innovation and economic activity. Similarly, this influence holds true for foreign innovation as well. Based on this evidence, the research suggests implementing an optimal IPR policy.

The Impact of Intellectual Property Rights City Policy on Firm Green Innovation: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on a Staggered DID Model

Green innovation is considered an important way to promote low-carbon society formation and the sustainable development of environmental engineering. However, few quantitative studies have focused on the impact of intellectual property rights (IPR) on firm green innovation (FGI). This paper constructs a quasi-natural experiment based on the IPR pilot city policy in China. We empirically investigated the influence of IPR policy on FGI using a staggered difference-in-differences (DID) model and Chinese listed company data from 2007 to 2020. The findings of this research are as follows: (1) IPR policy significantly promotes FGI, and its effectiveness is confirmed by a variety of robustness tests. (2) The IPR policy supports both green product and green process innovation, with a stronger effect on green product innovation. (3) The IPR policy encourages green independent R&D but has little influence on green joint R&D. (4) The IPR policy promotes FGI with a high knowledge intensity, state-owned enterprises, and firms in key city groups. (5) The IPR policy supports FGI primarily via two institutional channels: increasing R&D investment and easing financing constraints. This paper broadens the study of green innovation city policy and FGI development, offering new perspectives for achieving social and environmental sustainability.

Membership, governance, and lobbying in standard-setting organizations

Standard-setting organizations (SSOs) are collectively self-governed industry associations, formed by innovators and implementers. They are a key organizational form to agree on and manage technical standards, and form the foundation for many technological and economic sectors. We develop a model of endogeneous SSO participation that highlights different incentives for joining (namely licensing, learning, and implementation). We analyze equilibrium selection and conduct comparative statics for a policy parameter that is related to implementer-friendly Intellectual Property Rights policies, or alternatively, minimum viable implementation. The results can reconcile existing evidence, including that many SSO member firms are small. The extent of statutory participation of implementers in SSO control has an inverted U-shape effect on industry profits and welfare.

Intellectual property rights policy against imitations of product innovations under vertical product differentiation

Intellectual property rights policy against imitations of product innovations under vertical product differentiation

Intellectual property rights policy and foreign direct investment: A quasi‐natural experiment from China

AbstractOver the past 40 years of reform and opening up, China has attracted a large number of foreign investment. However, because of China's weak intellectual property protection environment, it is difficult to protect the intellectual assets of transnational enterprises, which will affect their investment decisions to some extent. In order to optimize the intellectual property system and improve the intellectual property environment, national intellectual property demonstration city policy was proposed in 2012 to improve the institutional environment. To explore the impact of national intellectual property demonstration city policy on foreign capital inflow, we explore the relationship between national intellectual property demonstration city and foreign direct investment (FDI) using the multi‐period differences‐in‐differences (DID) method based on city panel data of China from 2003 to 2019. Results shows the following: (1) Compared with non‐demonstration cities, national intellectual property demonstration cities are profit to FDI promotion. If a city is rated as a national intellectual property demonstration city, local FDI will increase by 5% on average. After a series of robustness tests, the conclusion is still tenable. (2) We find that the national intellectual property demonstration city policy has obvious urban heterogeneity. The effect of national intellectual property demonstration city policy on the increase in FDI is more significant in central cities, western cities, and key cities. (3) The mechanism test shows that national intellectual property demonstration city policies have a positive effect on FDI through increasing the government's strategic expenditure on intellectual property, improving urban technology innovation capacity, optimizing human capital structure, and promoting the marketization of cities. Therefore, China should continue to implement the policy of national intellectual property demonstration city, especially increasing the number of national intellectual property demonstration city in key cities, central cities, and western cities. On the one hand, these findings can help government evaluate the attractiveness of demonstration cities for FDI. On the other hand, it also provides relevant policy enlightenment for the Chinese government to select appropriate demonstration cities and further refine and implement the national intellectual property demonstration city policies.

Measuring the Factors Affecting Annual Turnover of the Firms: A Case Study of Selected Manufacturing Industries in India

The manufacturing sector works as an engine of growth as it creates the conducive path for socio-economic development. In the said perspective, numerous studied have empirically proved the positive contribution of manufacturing sector in social – economic development. However, limited studies could examine the factors affecting manufacturing sector in different industries in India. Thus, this study assessed the determinants of the annual turnover of the firms in the Indian manufacturing sector. For aforementioned investigation, it used financial statistics of 154 selected Indian manufacturing firms which were operating in seven different industries (i.e., automobile and auto component, chemicals and petrochemicals, construction, electronics, industrial equipment & machinery, pharmaceuticals, and textiles and apparels) from nine states of India. Log-linear regression model under the stochastic frontier production function technique was considered to examine the impact of specific factors on the annual turnover of the firms. It highlighted that annual turnover of the firms was significantly reflected with labour intensity; firm's age and size, R&D expenditure, and technology up-gradation; investment on machinery; annual salary of workers, skilled and un-skilled manpower. The findings of this study also indicate that India is required to adopt strict intellectual property rights (IPRs) policy to reduce the imitation rate of technologies for further improvement in technology transfer and commercialization. Effective education system, science & technology (S&T) and conducive research & development (R&D) ecosystem would be supportive to increase the performance of firms in the Indian manufacturing sector. It also provides the research direction to validate the empirical findings of this study.

National and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) IP Policies: Comparison of Indian HEIs’ IP Policies from a Global Perspective

Until the end of the eighteenth century, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) were restricted to generate knowledge for free access to industries which they use for making commercial products. Though HEIs have the potential to contribute to the national economy from their creative and commercially viable R&D output through commercialization of research and Intellectual Property Rights, it was not given the needed importance due to lack of supportive policies. In many developed countries, innovation strategies, Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) and national Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policies provided opportunities to HEIs to own and commercialize knowledge they generate. National IPR policy and formulation and implementation of HEI IP policies became crucial for effective implementation, promotion of innovation, generation, and protection of IP in the HEIs. Efficiency of HEI in commercializing research is dependent on national IP policy framework aligning vision and goals of HEI IP policy with national IP policy, objectives, ownership, and revenue sharing mechanism. These are the key indicators for comparing the institutions’ innovation and IP capacity. This paper uses these indicators to discuss the impact of different countries’ (developed, developing, and least developed) national IPR policy frameworks on top-performing HEIs of those countries and to address the research question, how national and HEI IP policies have worked in achieving envisaged economic growth by improving innovation output of the HEIs. It further compares Indian HEI IP policies with global HEIs. We found that there is a greater need for local governments and HEIs to make their incentive strategies and policies in line with their corresponding national frameworks for facilitating the collaboration and commercialization of innovations. Implementing a robust IP policy framework at state/region and HEI level plays a pivotal role in creating an innovation ecosystem supportive to envisaged national economic growth.

Was the Update of the 2015 Business Review Letter to the IEEE Justified?

In September 2020, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) supplemented and updated a Business Review Letter (BRL) that it had issued to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association (IEEE-SA) in 2015, upon a much-debated change made by IEEE-SA to its intellectual property rights (IPRs) policy. The DOJ took this extraordinary step by noting that its BRL had been mischaracterized both domestically and internationally. In this article, we review the evidence and find empirical support for DOJ's concerns. The BRL's only purpose was to state that the DOJ had no intention of bringing an antitrust enforcement action against the IEEE after reviewing the process followed by the organization during its updated IPR policy change. However, some industry groups and agencies cited the 2015 BRL to support a variety of propositions for broader principles around licensing of IPRs. In its update, the DOJ also correctly observes that some of the positions expressed in the BRL have become out of step with the most recent law and policy. Finally, we find empirical evidence supporting the DOJ's concerns that the predicted benefits of the IEEE-SA's 2015 patent policy revisions have not materialized.

Optimal intellectual property rights policy by an importing country

We study the optimal intellectual property rights policies of an importing country with a large market in which producers are not based. We show that the government should ban imitation if the cost of innovation is low, and should not allow free imitation regardless of the cost of innovation. Moreover, social welfare under a monopoly can exceed that under Cournot duopoly, given relatively low-cost innovation. Thus, when the cost of innovation is low, entry restriction can raise social welfare, even when innovators are based in other countries.

Intellectual property rights policies of higher education institutions (HEIs) in India: a cross-sectional study

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the intellectual property (IP) policy and innovation practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) and to understand the impact of national intellectual property rights (IPR) policy at the ground level. It identifies the barriers of HEIs in the generation of IP, its commercialization and technology transfer.Design/methodology/approachThis cross-sectional study aims to understand the innovation practices and IP policy framework of HEIs in India. It was studied in a qualitative approach with a structured questionnaire tool deployed to the top management of HEIs (targeted respondents), using convenience sampling methods.FindingsThe results imply that IP policies and innovation practices of HEIs in India are evolving and need to align with the global standard as envisaged in the national IPR policy. Lack of commensurate incentives to the inventors, linkages with industries and facilities were found to be major barriers among HEIs and research institutions. Institutional IP policy shall be framed to promote industry linkages with universities resulting in successful IP generation and technology transfer.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample size in this study is less; however, it does not have an impact on the study outcome, as it is a qualitative approach.Practical implicationsThis study brings awareness among stakeholders of IP generation and commercialization regarding the barriers and needed changes to overcome them through policy.Social implicationsIt helps policymakers to redesign the tools of IP and innovation policy to enable the innovation promotion at HEIs. This study identifies innovation practices and institutional barriers in the generation of IP.Originality/valueThis qualitative survey-based study helps in understanding the innovation practices of HEIs in India. It also aims to identify the barriers of HEIs on the generation and commercialization of IP.

Искусственный интеллект и интеллектуальная собственность

In the article, prepared on the basis of the author’s plenary report presented at the XII International Forum “Innovative Development through the Intellectual Property Market”, held in Moscow at the MSLA on October 30, 2020, issues arising in the field of intellectual property rights in connection with the development of artificial intelligence systems and their impact on the development of legal relations in the economy and culture of modern society are considered. Aspects of mutual policies in the field of intellectual property rights and the development of artificial intelligence systems for the development of innovation and creativity are discussed. Questions of copyright and ownership are raised and proposed in the interaction of man, collective and artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence systems. Issues related to artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property are considered. The position of the author on the legal personality of artificial intelligence to intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence systems is presented, which is expressed in the answers to the questions of the project of the World Intellectual Property Organization to the wide discussion of interested parties, planned for 2020 at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. The main conceptual principle of the author on the issues of the planned discussion is to grant the right of copyright and ownership of intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence to a dressed subject — a person or collective, a developer of artificial intelligence with fixation of the latter as a sub-subject or instrument of the subject. Traditional categories of intellectual property rights are also discussed, such as patentability and the inventive level of property in connection with the possible generation of these objects by artificial intelligence. Issues related to data, its generation, fabrications and legal relations regarding data are considered. It is proposed to harmonize international intellectual property rights policies to reduce the technological gap between countries in the context of artificial intelligence development.

Balance Requirements for Standards Development Organizations: A Historical, Legal and Institutional Assessment

Most technical standards-development organizations (SDOs) have adopted internal policies embodying “due process” criteria such as openness, balance of interests, consensus decision making and appeals. These requirements arise from numerous sources including antitrust law, international trade law, public procurement requirements and institutional norms. Yet balance criteria lack a generally-accepted definition and the manner in which they are implemented varies, sometimes dramatically, among SDOs. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the principle that SDOs should ensure a balance of interests among their stakeholders, including in the development of intellectual property rights policies. This article explores the origins and meaning of the balance requirement in the U.S. and EU, and identifies distinct legal, administrative and institutional modalities in which balance requirements are imposed, as well as existing antitrust and competition law requirements surrounding SDO balance.

How effective are India's model guidelines on implementation of IPR policy for academic institutions? Seeking the answer from the US and the UK experience

AbstractPublic funded research and inventions play a central role in stimulating innovation in any country. Last year, the Government of India stealthily notified the Draft Model Guidelines on Implementation of IPR Policy for Academic Institutions. The draft guidelines aim to provide a structure embedded in intellectual property rights (IPR) for commercializing university inventions. They prioritize IPR over other methods of technology transfer from academia to the industry. The draft guidelines put India in elite comity of fast‐developing and developed nations which have a similar policy framework in place. But is the spirit of collegiality a reason good enough by itself to embrace a policy? The article comprehensively analyses the draft guidelines, their purported rationale, and consequences that their enforcement would entail. The article presents an Indian perspective against the backdrop of the American and English experience, with their respective academic institutions Intellectual Property Policy frameworks, in an endeavor to extract tangible lessons for India. It is argued that with all the pious intentions with which the draft guidelines have been brought, they are misplaced, inapt, and ill‐judged.

Will Intellectual Property Rights Policy Increase Foreign Direct Investment and Promote Technological Innovation?

In this paper, we discuss the effects of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on FDI and indigenous innovation and the overall effects of IPR on the Southern and Northern countries. Our model predicts that tighter IPR is good for FDI and indigenous innovation; however, the effects vary according to the initial resource endowment such as skill level and absorptive capacity. By a game theory model, we also find that tighter IPR benefits both sides if the innovation is the common knowledge to both players, and it improves indigenous innovation and welfare in a short term, but they will emerge in the long run. We also discuss the further direction to an empirical study. Finally, we make the following conclusion: IPR is part of business environment, and tighter IPR in progress is good for boosting welfare of both sides. It is time to build a better environment for IPR, but the cost of patent enforcement policy and the trade barrier must be taken into account.

IPR policies and determinants of membership in Standard Setting Organizations: a social network analysis

Whereas technical standards and Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) are omnipresent and essential to mass production and communications, relatively little is formally known about the propensity of firms’ decisions to belong to certain SSOs. An understanding of such propensities can explain why some firms join SSOs (and others do not) and have implications for the regulation of SSOs. This paper uses a social network analysis technique to categorize/place firms in SSO communities and then empirically analyzes their propensities to belong to SSOs. We concentrate our study on standard setting organizations’ features and their intellectual property rights (IPR) policies such as licensing rules, disclosure requirements, as well as the features of the decision process of standards. Using data on more than 1060 member firms as participants in 28 SSOs, we are able to uniquely graph the membership of firms in SSOs by highlighting some important characteristics through community detection. The results provide some novel insights into why firms might choose certain SSO communities over others.

The Technical Standardization Ecosystem and Institutional Decision Making: The Case of Intellectual Property Rights Policies

In this paper, we analyze decision making on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policies in the standardization ecosystem. While a large literature has studied IPR policies of Standard Developing Organizations (SDOs), we contribute a more rigorous analysis of how these IPR policies are shaped by the interdependencies between SDOs and between SDOs and a variety of stakeholders. While SDO stakeholders often have opposing policy preferences, they are tied together by non-generic complementarities and a joint interest in the overall performance of the standardization system, which are constitutive characteristics of an ecosystem. The standardization ecosystem is characterized by widely shared institutional norms, which – in the field of IPR – result in the preponderance of what we call a “Baseline Policy”. SDOs’ positions in the ecosystem contributes to explain where in the ecosystem institutional innovations going beyond the Baseline Policy are more likely to arise. We analyze different mechanisms of transmission of such novel practices, such as emulation and precedent.