Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
Doktorarbeit / Dissertation, 2011
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
1.THE BIRTH OF THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
2.THE ROLE OF INNOVATION FOR THE FORMATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
2.1HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF INNOVATION
2.2INNOVATION AND PSYCHOLOGY OF INNOVATION
2.3THE INNOVATION CYCLE
3.1HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND PROFILES DESCRIBING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.THE OPPORTUNITIES AND LIMITATIONS TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN MODERN ORGANIZATIONS
2.THE MAIN CHARATERISTICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSETS BETWEEN EXPANSION AND VIOLATION
3.INNOVATION AND ORGANIZATION PROCESS
3.1 THE MANAGER OF INNOVATION
3.2 ORGANIZATION MODEL TO SUBSTAIN THE INNOVATION PROCESS
3.3 THE TRANSFER OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT
3.4 THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.THE COMPANY KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM THE MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.2 STRATEGIC PLANNING OF INNOVATION CYCLE: COMPANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEVEL
4.3 THE EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.4 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GUDIELINEES INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION
4.5 SPECIFIC STRATEGIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
4.6 THE QUALITATIVE ASPECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSETS EVALUATION
4.7 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A STRATEGY FOR MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
5 THE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION, COPYRIGHT, PATENT AND BRAND
THE VALUATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
2. THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSETS BETWEEN BOOK VALUE AND ECONOMIC VALUE
3. THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, THE RECENT GROWTH TREND
4. THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DUE DILIGENCE
5. THE EVALUATION OF THE PORTFOLIO OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSETS
5.1 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5.2 THE EVALUATION OF A RESEARCH PROJECT IN THE LIGHT OF ITS SUBSEQUENT PATENTING
5.3 THE BRAND ASSESSMENT
Nel chiudere questo mio primo lavoro monografico desidero esprimere il più sentito ringraziamento al Prof. Ciro Attaianese per avermi offerto l’opportunità di intraprendere questo cammino di ricerca esprimendomi affetto e fiducia; allo stesso modo ringrazio il Prof. Raffaele Trequattrini per gli insegnamenti e la dedizione profusa nell’evoluzione dei miei studi.
Desidero inoltre, ringraziare il Prof. Marco Lacchini dell’Università degli studi di Cassino per la possibilità che mi ha offerto di ampliare le mie competenze attraverso il continuo confronto tra dottrina e prassi.
Un ringraziamento particolare va al Prof. Giuseppe Recinto per i consigli di taglio giuridico sul tema trattato e per i preziosi insegnamenti umani.
Infine, dedico un pensiero speciale ai Proff. Simone Manfredi, Domenico Celenza e Bruno Marsigalia per i preziosi consigli didattici e, in particolar modo, per la splendida amicizia che ci lega.
Per la condivisione delle conoscenze e della passione nei confronti delle discipline economico-aziendali non posso dimenticare le mie colleghe la Dott.ssa Mirella Battista, la Dott.ssa Tiziana Buttaro, Dott.ssa Rosa Lombardi e la Dott.ssa Federica Ricci, con le quali ho condiviso molte gioie e qualche dispiacere nelle lunghe giornate trascorse a Cassino.
Desidero, infine, ringraziare l’intero corpo docente e gli amici del Dipartimento di Impresa Ambiente e Management dell’Università degli studi di Cassino che, in questi anni di dottorato, hanno contribuito alla mia crescita umana e professionale. Come di consueto, restano per intero a carico dell’Autore le lacune ed i limiti che sarà dato riscontrare nel corso della trattazione.
CONTENTS: 1. The birth of the knowledge economy. - 2. The role of innovation for the formation of intellectual property. - 2.1. Historical origins of Innovation. - 2.2 Innovation and Psychology of Innovation - 2.3 The innovation cycle. - 3. Intellectual property. - 3.1. Historical origins and profiles describing intellectual property. - 4. The opportunities and limitations to intellectual property. - 4. The opportunities and limitations to intellectual property - 5. Conclusions.
Since the Nineties, with the coming of the knowledge economy1, many scholars have shown their interest in the issue of intellectual capital2.
In 1997, Thomas A. Stewart defined intellectual capital3 as “the entirety of all knowledge that the people working in a company have and they are able to give a competitive advantage to that particular company in the same market”4.
Essentially, intellectual capital can be attributed to intangible capital, held by the business system in the form of intangible assets: some examples are represented by skills, ideas and skills that belong to the people that are part of a particular economic entity5.
The components of intellectual capital are referable to the following6:
- human capital;
- structural capital;
- relational capital.
Human capital7 is represented by people that are part of an organization, which contribute to its success, bringing their own skills8 and their motivation9. Having said this, the fundamental characteristics of human resources are retraceable in the competence, in the attitude and in the intellectual ability10 of each of them.
Structural capital is represented by the structures that form the organization and that support individuals in their work11. Structural capital identifies itself in all the structures, the mechanisms, the procedures, the formalized and also not codified processes that allow the passage of knowledge from the individual sphere to the sphere of organization, allowing the company to create value.
Relational capital represents the interaction and the integration between the business and the environment of reference when an exchange has been established - even economic- and allows them to ensure the survival of the company.
Relational capital12 finds its identification in the value of the relationships that the company establishes with customers, suppliers and other external subjects, the so-called stakeholders, and it is represented by the image, the reputation, the satisfaction and retention of customer loyalty that the company is able to create with the aforementioned stakeholders13.
In the light of the previous consideration, the interaction between human capital, structural capital, relational capital and financial capital (expressed in terms of financial flow) allows the development of each component of intellectual capital allowing the enterprise to increase its value.
It’s interesting that at the base of an organization there are people14 who must create relationships and ties15 between themselves, using the structural capital necessary to implement the project of the company.
Basically, human capital, structural capital and relational capital work together and, therefore, it is not possible to invest separately in the personnel, in the systems and in the relationships with stakeholders. Hence the need for the business management16 to be supported in the management of intellectual capital or by the so-called "intangible assets", which allows one to pursue a competitive advantage.
In this sense, the modern enterprise17, as "open organizational system, oriented, overly complex, probabilistic, with specific regulatory processes that can influence the external environment and whose behavior is defined by a model of bounded rationality18"represents a coordinated set of tangible and intangible assets, an open system that interacts with the external environment and it exchanges energy, information and knowledge with it. Such exchanges are of particular importance because they allow the company to survive and develop on the basis of continuous and repeated interactions. The products that are offered to the market gradually increase their own value thanks to the knowledge.
This happens for two reasons: the first one is due to research and development within the company oriented towards the integration of systematic knowledge; the second one is found in the involvement of external subjects to the enterprise.
Interlocutors who interact with the company are called stakeholders19 and are represented by customers, suppliers, business partners, credit institutions, research centers and so on.
Therefore, the firm must consider the needs of the subjects interested in its behavior and in its results: it must consider the stakeholders ’20 expectations or the professional investors’ cognitive needs in financial markets.
Using compulsory and additional communication tools, the company should move towards the satisfaction of investors’ informative needs: the information regard to the business system must be referable to the intellectual capital too.
For this reason, in recent years there has been a lot of talk about the effective and efficient management of intellectual property assets of the company.
Creativity and innovation are as old as history.
While in the past, inventions were not frequent, they were spread with difficulty and in a rather long time, today we can talk about “permanent innovation21 ” thanks to the changes in social and economic context.
If we wanted to schematize the steps that have led to this change we could define the three C’s22:
According to many authors, the date of the turning point is between the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century23.
In particular, towards the end of the Nineteenth Century the industrial sector is aware of the importance of scientific knowledge of technological invention24 and of its multiplier effect generated by the identification of the explicative bases of the innovation itself25 as opposed to what happened during the first industrial revolution granting a privilege to a practical knowledge described by empirical generalizations.
The recruitment of researchers within the company becomes a strategic factor for those who want to innovate. This phenomenon is also stimulated by the enlargement and the opening of markets in the late Nineteenth Century.
The competition between firms increases and they play on the quantity of innovation of process and of product that is possible to realize. The search becomes an instrument to beat the competition but this can only be achieved through investment.
Many resources have been invested in internal and external scientific and technology activity, favored by U.S. patent law revision in 1898. Through this law it has been possible to increase the protection of intellectual property rights of companies26.
All this is accompanied by two big phenomena such as the ability to set up companies in the form of joint-stock companies and the development of the financial system. These two factors promote the acquisition of capital assets to be used for uncertain, costly and long-term activities, such as scientific and technological research.
Knowledge, competition, capital provide the basis for triggering a more rapid process of technological change in the late Nineteenth Century.
From the Twentieth Century to today it has been possible to put the situation into effect in the phenomenon mentioned above of permanent innovation27, of knowledge capitalization28 and the affirmation of a growing institutional integration between universities and enterprises, characterized by the entrepreneurial university model and by the model of triple helix, where there is a marked convergence between industry, academia and government institutions29.
In the traditional conception of innovation, it is the result of a business or of an entrepreneur who wants to maximize the profit. In order to do so, he balances the costs of innovation with the potential benefits of it.
The innovative entrepreneur tries to win a patent, that is a monopoly right, in the result of its innovative activity, in order to eliminate competitors from the market. This is essentially an individual effort driven by the desire to achieve an extra profit as a result of the innovative activity developed30.
In the modern view, for innovation we mean the positive result of the meeting between the market demand and the company offer, of a new knowledge embodied in a product or in a sale productive process31.
In this regard, some authors define innovation as the 'engine of knowledge ", as it allows one to create new businesses, new cultural movements, destroying, changing and leaving behind what is obsolete32.
In this regard, J. Schumpeter developed the theory of dynamic competition. According to this theory, the innovation is "a perennial storm of creative destruction" that can open up new domestic and foreign markets and revolutionize the economic structure from within, destroying the old and creating the new33.
According to the author, the concept of creative destruction identifies itself in the key element of capitalism. In this dynamic vision of the world, innovation is part of the destructive process and for this reason it can be seen as a "destructivity creation".
Innovation has become a constant concern for business executives, economists and those in charge of international politics. Intellectual property is one of the most powerful tools to stimulate and guide innovation, although the relationship between it and the intellectual property is still poorly understood.
Innovation is also synonymous with curiosity often seen in children, with their natural curiosity and innate love for games, in artists and in scientists, with their new discoveries and experiments34.
People are driven to solve problems or meet their own individual needs to satisfy the survival needs and to complete a project they began. In this sense, the "need" plays a key role in being the "mother" of invention.
Personal creativity and social impact are not certainly related. Generally, the recognition of the importance of an artist and his inventions take place over a very long time, often after his death.
Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, rejects the known genetic theory of racial superiority discarding the "heroic theory" according to which the innovation levers on the possible presence of a rare genius35.
Thus, Diamond argues that inventions are the result of cumulative incremental improvements that have occurred over time36.
The scholar, in formulating his argument, according to which geography and biology decide the fate of history, minimizes the role of individual creativity and of incentives linked to patents as factors that drive the innovation process.
This approach is certainly shared by a large audience of scholars and experts, though, Diamond leaves out a very important aspect of this issue, namely, that innovation is stimulated by the property37.
Diamond notes how the success or the failure of a company are closely tied to its ability to adopt innovations developed either from the outside or from the inside. In fact, the invention is a small part of a much broader process in which a person finds out how he can use a certain invention and spread it within the society.
According to other authors38, inventions are not attributable to one individual because they represent the result of a number of improvements over time39.
In this context, the role of individual creativity and incentives, outstretched towards the development of innovation over the long term, are minimized. However, the use of an invention would be, in this sense, a small part of a much wider process of innovation.
So, this way of thinking does not consider the relationship between the intellectual property and the creativity of each individual.
Hence, it is necessary to highlight the absolute importance of each invention in terms of innovation brought in a given system and the wide social consensus required by an innovation process.
The factors that generally favor the development of innovation in a company are identified in the technical-scientific, religious, socio-cultural and yet, in the normative context of reference, in the availability of economic resources and in the development of a specific geographic territory.
Innovation is divided into two levels:
- The first one represents the initial incentive towards creative activity
- The second one is the social force that captures and spreads innovation.
The intellectual property system, or knowledge, plays a central role in the innovation process, leading the individual creativity and social consensus.
Creative competition, simultaneous inventions, continuous and progressive improvements in innovation show that all the inventors, heroes and not are important, as well as incentives to support them. Curiosity drives people to be creative, building on the knowledge of others. Doing so, it is possible to see more than our predecessors did.
Innovation is a cycle that rotates through history, converts old knowledge into a new one and links individuals to their more widely understood society. Individuals commit themselves to their work doing it in a creative way, thereby giving rise to ever more innovative ideas.
An innovation cycle allows one to convert the old knowledge in a new one sharing it among individuals.
The traditional representation of innovation can be explained by a straight line, an arrow or an arch that starts from the invention, continues with the innovation process and ends with the distribution. Analytically, the innovation process is characterized by the following elements: ideas, technology research, distribution, role of institutions and marketing.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
FIG 1. TADITIONAL REPRESENTATION OF INNOVATION
Although this linear representation of the technological cycle is useful to distinguish the stages of innovation, this model shows severe limitations40. It is opportune to wonder where the new ideas come from and where the innovations end up once widespread in the market. Therefore, even if in a corporate environment the marketing stage represents a necessary step to spread the idea we must not overlook the role played by public institutions.
Recent studies have shown that innovation is wider in sectors with a high technological value even if a cultural and artistic innovation is more fluid and collaborative.
The spreading of ideas within the society follows a circular process through which other people build and improve their own knowledge. The value added is the surplus of ideas held by the individual. The collaboration among groups of individuals and every single person within a team, allows them to get more fruitful results in terms of ideas to commercialize on the market of reference.
In all areas, the creativity and the spreading of ideas within the society, seem to occur through a series of small steps of adaptability and improvement following the example of different people, rather than a monolithic application, a unique trajectory of effort.
The cycle of innovation involves a range of actors, creates new opportunities for themselves and for the community, determines new targets and, at the same time, sets certain rights linked to the exploitation of the idea.
In this sense, the phases of the innovation cycle come from the creative work that is embodied in certain ideas developed through the observation of the production process. Curiosity is an innate characteristic of the human race and encourages the development of creativity41.
It follows that a creative type of behavior is different from a routine model, since the first of the two leaves the presence of knowledge, training and practice out of consideration.
Although creativity is a factor not universally provided in innovations, we can affirm that every human being is creative in different ways and for different purposes42.
The second phase of the innovation process is represented by the adoption or disclosure.
This phase begins when the product is made available and, therefore, freely used by the community or shared and developed in collaboration with other stakeholders. Spreading is a complex phenomenon and in less fortunate places of the world the innovation cycle may stop at the first stage.
A creative person who lives within a poor community, plagued by hunger and poor health care, in a corrupt economy or under the threat of violence, criminality and war, faces big challenges in transferring and spreading the fruit of his own creativity to others43.
The third phase is defined as accessibility or knowledge understood as a comparison of different creativity.
The innovation cycle continues thanks to individual promoting and the consensus of society. Access to knowledge plays a crucial role. The innovation cycle stops
when individuals do not encourage the access and sharing of information. In particular, the innovations are lost when laws and circumstances make innovations inaccessible.
Innovation becomes available through the purchase, license or because there are not restrictions on it. Restrictions on movement and/or distribution lead to a less important role of intellectual property.
Restricting the marketing of a successful innovation, we obtain the expansion of the wealth of knowledge freely available, providing a useful support for those who will improve it.
In this sense, innovation is not destruction but construction, a virtuous cycle that sets its roots in the old knowledge in order to make a new one, drawing from the great ocean of knowledge in the public domain.
The innovation of the past has become part of today's knowledge, influenced, encouraged and strongly linked to social forces.
Innovation is a source of good and bad intentions. We say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions44. In fact, it often happened that in order to improve a situation we ended up worsening another one45.
Countries need to be cautious in adopting new technology, in consideration of the fact that intellectual property is not able to discriminate between innovations which could damage the entire community.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
FIG. 2 AUSTRALIA ACADEMY OF TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, AUSTRALIA INNOVATES, “THE INNOVATION CYCLE”.
There are at least five different definitions of intellectual property and this causes great confusion even to the people who have a big experience in this field. According to the best-known definition, intellectual property is essentially something immaterial, the result of mental skills and related legal rights. Since Roman times these rights were essentially linked to the ownership of the asset and then to the use, to the enjoyment, to the transfer and to the destruction / alienation of the same.
In order to define the intellectual property, the famous Oxford Dictionary refers to the judgments of American courts[…] “ Only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labours of the mind, the production and interest as much a man ’ s own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the folks he rears ” 46.
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the term refers to the creations and ideas that are the result of human thought, that is, inventions, literary and artistic compositions.
In legal practice the term is divided with reference to industrial and literal property. In the first case we talk about patents and trade secrets, in the second one we talk about copyright47.
From an accounting point of view, intellectual property is an intangible asset of the company.
However, the managerial approach to intellectual property leads to the consideration that this is the result of people working within organizations, creating and bringing new knowledge.
Historical and philosophical studies have broadened the definition of intellectual property referring to an ethical system of which all are aware, characterized by individual creativity and by the use of social innovation. For these scholars, the term intellectual property would go beyond the legal definition encompassing all that is in the public domain.
As a system of rights, norms and practical developments, intellectual property is the key to innovation, which is guided by various social forces such as:
- investors' interests, market forces, market demand, entrepreneurship and managerial skills;
- geographic factors and natural resources;
- environmental, taxation and product liability regulations;
- governmental actions as informative standards, procurement practices, subsidies and changes in barriers to trade;
- government funds and philanthropic for the research, cultural activities, prizes and awards to inventors.
Unlike the above influences, intellectual property is just one of several social forces that guide the course of innovation.
The most common theory, date back to 1980, compares the intellectual property to natural, immutable and inevitable pillars.
As George Santayana said, "Those who can ’ t remember the Past are Condemned to repeat it"48.
To know the origin of intellectual property can help to pass judgments both about the direction towards which we are heading and about the possibility to exploit it. History shows that, although it is difficult to define the evolution that ideas have taken over the time, the facts and the events occurred reveal a great stability in the laws on intellectual property. Nevertheless, nothing is inevitable and it is logical to expect a change in the future.
If we wanted to go over the salient points related to intellectual property, it would be possible paying attention to the first forms of innovation of the prehistoric era. Archaeologists say that the primitive social institutions, such as the authoritarian chiefs, suppressed innovation in order to protect their authority. The birth of writing and of new institutional models, have brought different attitudes towards communication, knowledge and innovation.
However, the roots of intellectual property can be traced back to ancient Egypt and in particular to the respect that the Egyptian placed on trade secrets49.
Even trademarks date back to ancient Egypt, such as the branding of livestock with the hot iron, the Chinese potters who marked their porcelain, or the logos, trade names of the Romans. However, the recognition of trademarks, as applicable intellectual property rights, did not happen until the mid 1800’s50.
In ancient times the exclusive rights were misunderstood and poorly supported51. In ancient Greece, writers such as Aeschylus and Sophocles were rewarded with prestigious awards and at the same time the ancient Greeks supported the innovation paying the researchers and trying to protect innovations founding universities and libraries52.
During the Roman Empire, the inventors could receive their awards directly from the emperor. The first systems of patronage were limited to the interests of the latter53.
The Roman poet Martial was the first to introduce the concept of copying as theft and coined the term "plagiarism" as an insult to someone who had copied his verses54. Similarly, Jewish law discouraged the theft of ideas and warned against those who falsely claimed to be the author of a book.
Abraham Lincoln, in a speech of 1858, said that the press, writing and the discovery of America were the greatest inventions in history. Writing allowed humanity to communicate with the deceased, the absent and the unborn, so that we can learn from others, develop new projects and spread the ideas to posterity. Finally, the press has extended the access to writing leading to the emancipation of people from a "slavery of the mind" to a "freedom of thought.55 "
In conclusion, we list some very important dates in the long process of recognition and international harmonization of various legal, economic and social issues related to intellectual property:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
FIG. 3 SHORT EVOLUTION COURSE OF THE LEGAL , SOCIAL-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
In particular, we start from the year 1883 when 11 nations set up the Paris Convention for the harmonization of intellectual property law among member states.
1886; the Berne Convention on Copyright of 1886 is set up, in which the conditions of the recognition are specified by defining the set of rights under copyright.
1891; the Madrid Agreement is signed and through the adoption of the Madrid Protocol, it provided the introduction of a series of innovations in the system of international registration of trademarks.
1967, the WIPO was established. It stands for World Intellectual Property Organization and aims to encourage creative activity and promote intellectual property protection worldwide.
Finally, the 1994 TRIPS agreement, the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, is an international treaty sponsored by the World Trade Organization, better known as the WTO, in order to set the standard for the protection of Intellectual Property.
Intellectual property rules encourage technical ingenuity and creativity through the recognition of a series of rights to protect property56.
As stated by WIPO, the protection of inventions and individual creativity is not an end in itself but it is a means to promote industrialization, trade investment and honesty by virtue of the achievement of social welfare, that is, more safety, less poverty and greater luxury.
This assertion is not universally accepted because we can’t think that the protection of intellectual property will lead to technological progress and welfare in all countries and economic systems.
Scholars, experts and institutions have been focusing their attention on the usefulness or injury caused by intellectual property laws. Concerning this, there are good arguments based on a political, economic and philosophical belief rather than on evidence.
We can state that intellectual property affects the society being in the middle between good and evil.
There are at least eight arguments on positive and negative effects related to intellectual property. In the first category there are: politics for incentives, recognition, work, morality, public disclosure, transfer, technological development and industrial policies.
The recognition of the exclusivity of the idea is the foundation to encourage people to be creative.
Economists argue that to promote the exclusivity of a product constitutes a market failure, a disincentive to invest capital in something that others can freely copy.
Therefore, as already mentioned above, creativity is inherent in mankind and not all types of recognition stimulate the innovation: it is the recognition of the work that stimulates the man to do better.
The philosopher John Locke57 talks about the labor theory of property, according to which the mind is part of the body, work is part of the mind and the products that result belong to the creator.
A natural law according to which, if the result immediately became public, the inventor wouldn’t obtain any recognition. For this reason, the intellectual property rights foster control by the inventor because they recognize the same right to grant or restrict access to knowledge.
It was noted that artists, inventors and creative people often feel emotions towards their invention, a sensation that exceeds the limit of tangible and of property or economic and exploitation rights58.
Moreover, people are encouraged to disclose confidential information only under certain conditions. By contrast the patent law provides a wide openness to the disclosure, since the recognition is possible only through a detailed examination of the invention.
In particular, the copyright allows authors to choose the editor, without fear of possible unauthorized copies. The absence of rules of protection of knowledge would result in the interruption of the innovation cycle and non-use of information from the community.
So, the recognition of individuals under certain intellectual property rights, allow them to freely dispose of their inventions.
Intellectual property is something that can be marketed, a strong system of intellectual property rights assure protection to the organizations. This way the transfer and its use is bound by certain rules.
Therefore, intellectual property defines a framework of rules in which the most advanced organizations can transfer innovation to developing countries in order to prevent it is taken away unlawfully. Otherwise, organizations would tend to keep their innovations secret.
Innovation involves the supporting of investment. In this regard, Universities and research centers play an important role in the innovation process. The majority of pharmaceutical products on the market are the result of the development of basic research carried out by these institutions.
Therefore, investors are more likely to invest in a technology that grants exclusive rights.
From a regulatory point of view, countries may promote or ban intellectual property through ad hoc policies. In particular, the Nordic countries support innovative industry through a very effective intellectual property law.
In addition, up to the TRIPS Agreement, India supported the national pharmaceutical industry, famous for copying popular drugs through a strong legislation on patent protection.
The developing countries have realized that they may obtain several political advantages through an improvement in the legislation on intellectual property.
In contrast with what has just been argued, critics define a series of reasons with regard to the negative consequences associated with the protection of knowledge.
These arguments start from the exclusivity of use that is embodied in the prohibition of access by all. According to critics, the exclusive benefit wouldn’t bring massive benefits to the community.
In addition, exclusive rights and recognition are crucial to encourage people to improve and - as stated earlier- no one knows the right balance between security and freedom. In this sense, the reforms that have taken place in this area reveal an effort to balance the components closer to reality.
Without competition, intellectual property rights would be used exclusively to raise the prices of use. With the same active ingredient, when a drug is recognized as innovative it considerably makes increase the price compared to a generic drug.
The Nobel J. Stiglitz wrote, "allowing a person or a company to have exclusive control over the use of knowledge gives rise to monopoly."
Many argue that the rights of intellectual property create monopolies for particular technologies, some companies or for certain countries59.
The antitrust law aims to avoid excessive concentration of power and a monopoly position, although not all the restrictions of free competition generate antitrust violation.
Schumpeter argues that the existence of a monopoly on a particular technology, for a limited period of time, is not debatable if a competitor, through an innovation, is capable of destroying the old monopoly replacing it with a new and better monopoly than the last one.
J. Schumpeter’s theory on the dynamics of competition is the most modern trend in the current economic landscape.
According to the claims, intellectual property influences and guides the development of creativity to a kind of innovation that can be protected by intellectual property law, far from a knowledge of the public domain.
As stated by R. Frost, "good fences make good horses." In fact, intellectual property rights can promote marketing as regards to cooperation and this is what happens in the universities, through agreements with corporate sponsors and researchers.
Moreover, although the copyrights and trade secrets are relatively easy to protect, patents are expensive and difficult to obtain60.
From an ethical point of view, we have widely discussed the issue of protection. In particular, the emphasis was placed on surgical procedures and human body parts. Therefore, both elements should remain free of restrictions considering the vital importance they assume. In the second case, we should consider the sanctity that human bodies have.
It is not easy to find the right balance between access and exclusivity. Public rights may limit public ones and the latter may limit the first ones61. Through the copyright, the owner of a book or software can avoid that other people copy his work. However, it is possible that other people use and cite his ideas, making a good use of it.
The company can promote innovation and competitiveness in an effective way if it has got a balanced62 system of intellectual property, with rights that are neither too strong nor too weak and with innovators who are able to use the system to achieve their own targets.
Intellectual property is often at odds with the public domain and it is not easy to understand the dichotomy between public and private domain, as each includes part of the other.
Collaboration, balance and tension between access and exclusivity lead inevitably to the dynamic relationship between intellectual property and public domain. Innovation is enhanced by access to knowledge, the greater the access, the better the innovation.
It is not easy to understand the term public domain and at the same time it can be misleading and vague. Some scholars63 have suggested an alternative terminology, referring to the public domain as the “domain of accessible knowledge."
However, even the knowledge of public domain may be accessible with certain limits and in this sense five situations can be defined:
- Fully accessible and of public domain without intellectual property;
- Widely available with minimal restrictions;
- Widely available subject to agreed limitations;
- Suitable for limited purposes;
- Not available everywhere due to highly restrictive intellectual property rights.
In the first case the information is freely available and it is not subject to any permission as the Government archives, Shakespeare’s works and the telephone directory.
In its turn, this category can be further divided into three subcategories.
- Information and materials for which it is not possible to exercise IP rights;
- Innovations for which the innovator has obtained protection but he does not intend to exploit it;
- Innovations previously protected by intellectual property rights which are now expired64.
In the second case that is accessible with minimum limitations, the innovator needs to obtain permits to access information, to be able to use it and - if possible- to copy it. Libraries, public collections in museums and websites are included in this category.
The widely available category - but subject to agreed limitations - provides for a conditional use under specific rules.
A category is suitable for limited purposes when a particular idea, a material, a product or an aspect of it is subject at least to one type of intellectual property in at least one country that precludes a use but allows other types of access65.
In the latter case that is not available everywhere because of the highly restrictive IP rights, the intellectual property rights almost block each access to relevant information and are applicable even in the absence of the innovator’s authorization.
The categories just mentioned are referred to all current knowledge as part of an accessible and inaccessible domain. The intellectual property rights include both.
Focusing on the access theme, it is possible to see how intellectual property favors the balancing of various interests at stake. The theme has been successful with public opinion and it has been discussed at the International Commission on Intellectual Property Rights.
Thus, the dichotomy public domain- intellectual property can be considered as the proper balance between exclusivity and access.
Each type of intellectual property balances different types of access exclusivity.
Therefore, the copyright balances the free global flow of creative expression with incentives for new ideas.
The patent systems balance the access to inventions already existing through incentives for new creations.
The trade secret law balances the benefits of sharing personal knowledge through the security secret within the group.
Trademarks balance the benefits of the creativity of those who sell goods and marketing services, with the consumer’s need to know the origin of the goods.
The latest developments in terms of balance between free access and restrictions have involved the cultural and biological resources. At the moment, there is not a term to define these rights that could be called the "innovation rights of resources" or "rights of traditional resources."
However, the latest trends in intellectual property matters denote an extension of the conditions of protection, in terms of application field and duration of exclusive rights.
In particular, the application field has involved the engineering of microorganisms, plants, animals, software and business practices. Even so, the differences in terms of protection and freedom remain.
The expansion of technology has led to copyright reform, has given birth to schools of thought and has triggered debates on the subject.
Although there are many initiatives to harmonize the systems of protection of original works, at the same time there are strong local interests that influence them, favoring only internal changes.
Therefore, the protection and strategic management of intellectual property is one of the most important challenges of the future.
CONTENTS: 1. Introduction. - 2. The main charateristics of intellectual property assets between expansion and violation. - 3. Innovation and organization process. - 3.1. The Manager of Innovation. - 3.2. Organization model to substain the innovation process. - 3.3 The transfer of intellectual property right - 3.4 The organization and management of intellectual property right. - 4. The Company knowledge system: the management of intellectual property. - 4.1 Premise. - 4.2 Strategic planning of innovation cycle: company intellectual property level. - 4.3 The efficient management of intellectual property. - 4.4 Intellectual Property management guidelines inside the organization. - 4.5 Specific strategies of intellectual property management. - 4.6 The qualitative aspect of intellectual property asset evaluation. - 4.7 The implementation of a strategy for managing intellectual property. - 5. The management and protection of information, copyright, patent and brand. - 5.1 Information. - 5.2 Copyright. - 5.3 Patent. - 5.4 Brand.
In developing a modern enterprise special role was played by technological progress66 with the continuous and systematic effort to adapt to the foreground processes, production processes and their individual operations of the business.
The production of goods with a strong "innovative power" and the invention of processes and tools to increase the efficiency of other inputs used are required to carry out activities in the fields of basic research67, applied research68 and the design or development.
The most immediately obvious application of the results of these types of industry research has focused on increasing the productivity of human labor69 and the simultaneous improvement in profitability management, become progressively more significant as and that the processes, phases and individual pieces of work have been reworked so as to allow the application of new scientific knowledge.
A further consequence was the emergence of division of labor was progressively accentuated as they has been able to find specialized instruments - derived from the breakdown of manufacturing operations - which could be traced in the context of specific organizational roles.
The scientific and technical progress has also been a substantial influence on company size70 and the structure of operating costs, in particular, the gradual adoption by businesses of more and more mechanized production processes led to the replacement of many variable costs with fixed costs, reconnect them to services provided by fixed assets and other services in proportion to the size of the plant, not just the volume of the product actually manufactured in a certain period of time.
1 See D. FORAY, L ’ economia della conoscenza, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2006, J. RIFKIN, L ’ era dell ’ accesso. La rivoluzione della new economy, Mondadori, Milano, 2001; E. RULLANI, Economia della conoscenza. Creativit à e valore nel capitalismo delle reti, Carocci, Roma, 2004; R. TREQUATTRINI, Conoscenza ed economia aziendale. Elementi di teoria, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, 2008.
2 The growing interest in the variable assets held by a company allowed the recognition of the knowledge economy. See D. BOSWORTH, E. WEBSTER, The Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, 2006.
3 Today the term Capitale Intellettuale can also be replaced by the expression Intellectual Capital.
4 See . T.A. STEWART, Il Capitale Intellettuale. La nuova ricchezza, Ponte alle Grazie, Milano, 1999
5 With the birth of the modern enterprise, corporate planning is configured as a collection of elements (goods, people, operations and knowledge) and relationships between elements. See G. ZANDA, La grande impresa. Caratteristiche strutturali e di comportamento, Giuffré, Milano, 1974; R.L. ACKOFF, Systems, organizations and interdisciplinary research, in D. P. ECKMAN (ed.), Systems: Research and design, J. Wiley & Sons Inc. New York, 1961; A. AMADUZZI, Ricerche di economia delle aziende industriali, Utet, Torino, 1965; U. BERTINI, Il sistema d ’ azienda. Schema d ’ analisi, Giappichelli, Torino, 1990; A. CECCHERELLI, Problemi di economia aziendale, Cursi, Pisa, 1964, p.45; G. EMINENTE, Politiche di impresa e strategie di marketing, Isedi, Milano, 1972; G. FERRERO, Impresa e management, Giuffré, Milano, 1980; E. GIANNESSI, Le aziende di produzione originaria, vol. I, Cursi, Pisa, 1960; C. MASINI, Lavoro e risparmio, Utet, Torino, 1970, pp. 18-19; S. SCIARELLI, Il sistema d ’ impresa, Cedam, Padova, 1985.
6 In this regard see, D. BOSWORTH, E. WEBSTER, The Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, 2006.
7 See G. ZANDA, M. LACCHINI, G. ORICCHIO, La valutazione del capitale umano. Modelli qualitativi e quantitativi di logica aziendale, Giappichelli, Torino, 1993.
8 The skills concern the technical specialization of workers within the organization and their ability to communicate the results of their work. The skills do not remain the same over time, but change to allow the company to respond to environmental changes
9 According to Leif Edvisson, human capital “ is the lifeblood that increases the intellectual capital of the company ” . On this point, among others, see S. EPIFANI, Business community: Gestire il Capitale Intellettuale nella net economy, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2003
10 See J. ROOS, G. ROOS, N.C. DRAGONETTI, L. EDVINSSON, Intellectual capital. Navigating the new business landscape, MacMillan Business, London, 1997.
11 See G. P. BONANI, La sfida del capitale intellettuale. Principi e strumenti di knowledge management per organizzazioni intelligenti, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2002, p 99-100.
12 Relational Capital was defined by Thomas A. Stewart Capital Clients
13 T. DONALDSON, L. E. PRESTON, The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications, in Academy of Management Review, n. 20, 1995; R. E. FREEMAN, G. RUSCONI, M. DORIGATTI (a cura di), Teoria degli stakeholder, Franco Angeli, 2007; R. K. MITCHELL, B. R. AGLE, D. J. WOOD, Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts, in Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, n. 4, 1997; R. TREQUATTRINI, Economia aziendale e nuovi modelli di corporate governance, Giappichelli, Torino, 1999.
14 People are referable to human capital
15 The relationships are referable to relational capital
16 U. BERTINI, Il sistema d ’ azienda. Schema d ’ analisi, Giappichelli, Torino, 1990.
17 G. ZANDA, Il governo della grande impresa nella societ à della conoscenza, Giappichelli, Torino, 2009.
18 G. ZANDA, La grande impresa. Caratteristiche strutturali e di comportamento, Giuffré, Milano, 1974. About the concept of the company system see R.L. ACKOFF, Systems, organizations and interdisciplinary research, in D. P. ECKMAN (ed.), Systems: Research and design, J. Wiley & Sons Inc. New York, 1961; A. AMADUZZI, Ricerche di economia delle aziende industriali, Utet, Torino, 1965; U. BERTINI, Il sistema d ’ azienda. Schema d ’ analisi, Giappichelli, Torino, 1990; A. CECCHERELLI, Problemi di economia aziendale, Cursi, Pisa, 1964, p.45; G. EMINENTE, Politiche di impresa e strategie di marketing, Isedi, Milano, 1972; G. FERRERO, Impresa e management, Giuffré, Milano, 1980; E. GIANNESSI, Le aziende di produzione originaria, vol. I, Cursi, Pisa, 1960; C. MASINI, Lavoro e risparmio, Utet, Torino, 1970, pp. 18-19; S. SCIARELLI, Il sistema d ’ impresa, Cedam, Padova, 1985.
19 See R.E. FREEMAN, Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, 1984; G. ZANDA, Lineamenti di economia aziendale, Kappa, Roma, 2006.
20 Thanks to the studies of the Stanford Research Institute, the European Societal Strategy Project has identified twenty-seven categories of stakeholders:1 Banks, 2. Unions, 3. Suppliers of raw materials 4. Competitors 5. Political parties; 6. Mass Media 7. Executives 8. Workers 9. Distributors 10. Companies such as clients 11. National Government; 12. Big institutional shareholders, 13. End-users 14. Associations of employers 15. Component suppliers; 16. Regional Government; 17. Society in general, 18 Local community 19. Ecologists 20. Employees 21. Private shareholders 22. Professional associations; 23. Religious associations; 24. Women's organizations; 25. Consumer groups; 26. University; 27. Pension funds. In this regard, see R. E. FREEMAN, Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, 1984.
21 D. FORAY, L ’é conomie de la connaissance, La Decouverte, Paris, 2000.
22 R. VIALE, La cultura dell ’ innovazione, comportamenti e ambienti innovativi, il sole 24 ore, Milano, 2008.
23 J. MOKYR, The Gift of Athena: Historical origins of the Knowledge Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002a; J. MOKYR, “ Innovation in an Historical Perspective: Tales of Technology and Evolution ”, in B. STEIL, G. VICTOR E R. NELSON (a cura di), Technological Innovation and economic Performance, Princeton University Press, Princeton; N. ROSENBERG e L.E. BIRDZELL. How The West Grew Rich. The Economic Transformation of the Economic World, Basic Books, New York 1986
24 The companies are stimulated by the antitrust policies of governments and realize that only with the development of new technological knowledge it is possible to generate new products that can beat the competition of other companies. In order to do so, it is necessary to strengthen the research and the development inside or through a collaboration with external research laboratories, private or as in Germany, university. In the age of Mill and Comte, there are various types of incentives focused on science and technology: cultural incentives that emphasize the superiority of science and technology than any other form of knowledge, incentives for the affirmation of epistemological hegemony of the scientific method on other types of rationality, social incentives that tend to give a recognition to the professionalism and to the successes got by inventor scientists and innovative entrepreneurs; moral incentives that reward behaviors that symbolically risk in new business activities and seek practical applications economically and socially useful of scientific knowledge; affective and emotional incentives that are generated in the creation of heroes and contemporary examples to follow, represented by charismatic figures or by success stories of entrepreneurs and inventors such as those Edison, Bayer, Ford, Carnegie and Marconi. See R. VIALE, La cultura dell ’ innovazione, comportamenti e ambienti innovativi, il sole 24 ore, Milano, 2008.
25 When we produce a scientific explanation of a phenomenon we obtain two results. The first one is to establish a causal relationship to a higher level of generality. The second one is the possibility, after the identification of a causative agent responsible for the phenomenon, to analyze its empirical characteristics. The scientific explanation of an invention allows the expansion of the boundaries of the development of the original innovation because it "reduces" the ontological level of the causes and expands the predicative scope of the explanation. On the contrary, this extension of innovation is not possible when the knowledge behind the invention is only one empirical generalization that describes the relationship between antecedent and consequent causal. See R. VIALE, La cultura dell ’ innovazione, comportamenti e ambienti innovativi, il sole 24 ore, Milano, 2008.
26 The strengthening of intellectual property rights occurred in the U.S. in 1898 constituted a further boost to the development of research and development. This was implemented through a revision of the Patent Law carried out by the Congress in 1898, the sentences of the Supreme Court among which we remember the famous sentence Continental Bag Company vs Eastern Bag Company and a strengthening and a streamlining in the organization of the Patent Office.
27 See D. FORAY, L ’é conomie de la connaissance, op. cit .
28 R. VIALE, H. ETZKOWITZ, The Capitalization of Knowledge, a tiple heltz of University- Industry Government, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2010.
29 L. LEYDESDORFF , ETZKOWITZ H., “ Emergence of a triple Helix of university- industry- government relations ”, Science and Public Policy, 23, 1996, pp. 279-86.
30 R. TREQUATTRINI, Conoscenza ed economia aziendale, elementi di teoria, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli 2008.
31 The interpretation of the concept of innovation has been repeated in the third edition of the Oslo Manual, OECD/ EUROSTAT, Oslo manual - Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting innovation Data, 3rd edition, OECD, Paris, 2005.
32 See M.A. GOLLIN, Driving Innovation. Intellectual Property Strategies for a Dynamic World, Cambridge University Press, New Intellectual Property Strategies for a Dynamic World, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008
33 J.A. SCHUMPETER, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Allen & Unwin, London, 1987.
34 In some advanced cultural sectors, the company - according to Rifkin - tends to become a huge theatre and the whole organization of the production of services will be set up following the dictates of theatrical art. The creative manager should start with the choice of the sensations to be transmitted, continue with the problem of casting (i.e. the choice of actors who will play several roles), with the elaboration of the material, the script, specifying the acts of the execution process, implementing the quality control of the executive process and checking the cheapness of the initiative. Even people who are involved in the production of innovative services in the field of the 'industry of sensations " tend to assume new characteristics: from production men they will became creative men; their role always will be more defined in game terms. In such contexts we start to “ reinvent the operating environment to make it more compatible with creativity and art , real keystones of the cultural commerce […], and the work environment gradually becomes a game environment reflecting its emphasis on cultural performance and marketing experience. " In essence, a new model of employee and also of original type of business organization is emerging,: in order to create culture it is necessary to free the fantasy and imagination and transform work into play, the ethos of the game is joining the ethos of work . According to Rifkin, Homo faber (typical character of industrial capitalism) is working for now in agreement with the homo ludens. The ethos of the game is spreading as well as among managers and workers who produce new cultural services, even among users, i.e. the customers who benefit from these services. See G. ZANDA, Il governo della grande impresa nella societ à della conoscenza, Giappichelli, Torino, 2009; J. RIFKIN, L ’ era dell ’ accesso, la rivoluzione della new economy, Mondadori, Milano, 2000;
35 The author J. Diamond argues that the heroic theory of innovation is ideal for the patent laws - in other words he believes that an individual or a small group is the inventor of a particular invention that is presented as an invention without precursor. See J. DIAMONDS, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Norton, 1997, p. 231.
36 For example, James Watt is credited with the invention of the steam engine in 1769, even if it is possible to find models of steam engines at least hundred years earlier.
In general this is true for other inventions such as: Edison’s bulb, Wright’s airplane. According to him, if these people had not invented anything, someone else would have done it.
37 Competition drives the inventors. There are many examples of technical improvements made simultaneously by two groups: Bell and Grey, Kilby and Noyce, Gould and Townes, Gallo and Montagnier, Venter and Collins. Competition drives many artists. For this reason is naïve to think that these competitions do not need to create incentives or rewards. Metaphorically speaking, patents and intellectual property help to promote the competition for the innovation.
38 J. DIAMOND, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Random House, London, 1998.
39 D. FORAY, L ’ economia della conoscenza, see p.84, writes "The third characteristic of knowledge concerns its cumulative effect. In science and technology knowledge is cumulative and progressive. Knowledge is always the main factor behind the creation of new ideas. This means that the externalities generate the pleasure of users, the accumulation of knowledge and the collective progress too; for some people it is the ability to "climb on giants’ shoulders”. In other words, what expands and can be used an infinite number of times is not just a consumer good (eg a poem or a musical work), but mostly a factor of production, capable of generating new goods that will be used over and over again”. In this sense, E Rullani, La fabbrica dell ’ immateriale. Produrre valore con la conoscenza, see. pp. 23-64, deals with , paraphrasing the famous Sraffa’ work, “production of knowledge by means of knowledge. "
40 According to the studies carried out by the Australia Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, the best way to represent the innovation is through a circular process, a true cycle defined as "The innovation cycle. "
41 As stated by Edward O. Wilson, a creative scientist "should be confident enough to sail offshore and leave sight of land, " while an artist combines exceptional knowledge, technical skill, originality, sensitivity to details, ambition , courage and an innate intuitive understanding of human nature. E.O. WILSON, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf, 1998 pp. 58- 213.
42 Personal creative acts, without sharing, do not increase the level of innovation. Each of us is creative every day, even in small ways. Creative ideas may derive from reading, from nature, from the study; we can solve scientific or commercial problems, express ourselves artistically and socially. Such acts can give meaning to our lives but they don’t have any economic or historical significance. If we don’t produce anything, innovation won’t emerge, so that if we produce something in secret, we won’t feed the innovation cycle. For example, the fresco of the Sistine Chapel, for centuries at people’s disposal, has had a wide influence on art and religion, but it would have been irrelevant if it had been painted in a private place and only admired by the artist . The creativity that is not expressed and shared with others is lost.
43 Music offers a clear example of how the innovation cycle can be spread in countries such as Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. In fact, modern electronics and Internet technology make relatively easy the spreading and the recording of local artists’ compositions, even if they do not receive any reward.
44 K. MARX, Il Capitale, Newton Compton, 2005.
45 The ancient Romans used lead to build the pipes in order to improve the hygienic conditions of the citizens.
46 Davoll vs Brown, 1 Woodbury & Minot 53, 57 (1st Cir, 1845)
47 The 1995 Agreement of the World Trade Organization concerning the aspects of the trade of intellectual property, defines, for the member countries, minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property, defining the copyright and the rights related to it, geographical indications, industrial designs and patents.
48 “ Those who can ’ t remember the past are condemned to repeat it ». G. SANTAYANA, Reason in common sense, in The Life of Reason or the Phase of Human Progress, vol. 1, Dover Publications, 1980.
49 The above comments are clearly evident from the analysis of the Stele C-14 of Irtisen, a tablet written in hieroglyphics dating back to 2000 BC, see fig. 1. From the translation of this tablet, Irtisen identifies himself as the scribe and craft chief of the Egyptian Pharaoh Mentuhotep Nebhepetra of the eleventh Egyptian dynasty and he boasts of his extensive knowledge of hieroglyphics, of magic, his ability to make the ink, the weights and structures, the way of torturing a prisoner and of making sculptures and color. Irtisen swears that nobody but him and his eldest son, will become acquainted with these secrets, having received permission from the divine Pharaoh. Although the Stele C-14 refers to a political and religious order of 4000 years ago, it shows the typical features of a modern confidentiality agreement in which an employee promises to keep confidential the employer’s secret within a limited group of people. Obviously, the punishment for breaking the promise of confidentiality would have been different - the modern worker could face a lawsuit and pay damages while more likely Irtisen would have been executed. See S. ROSMERDUC, Hieroglyphic text, www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/rosmord/hieroglyphes/ hieroglyphs.html, 28 January 2008.
50 S. LIONEL, B. LIONEL, B. LIONEL, The making of Modern Intellectual Property, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
51 P. LONG, Invention, Authorship, Intellectual Property and the Origin of Patents: Notes forward a conceptual history, Technology and Culture, 1991.
52 With regard to this , you are reminded that the Royal Library of Alexandria was the largest and richest library in the ancient world and one of the main pole of the Hellenistic culture. It was destroyed in ancient times in an unknown date (presumably around the year 270 or maybe around the year 400 in mysterious circumstances). The Library of Alexandria was built around the third century B.C. during the reign of Ptolemy II Filadelfo (the dynasty of the Ptolemies is a Greek-Egyptian dynasty that traces its origins in 305 BC, from one of the "Diadochi" of Alexander the Great "). It is likely that Ptolemy I Sotore had the idea of building the library and he also had the idea of building the annexed temple of the Muses. It is assumed that at the time of Filadelfo the preserved scrolls were about 490,000. To Filadelfo is attributed the impetus given to the acquisition of works, especially with the so-called "bottom of ships. " According to a pharaoh's edict, this collection takes its name from the fact that all the books that were on ships in port of Alexandria were to be left in the library in exchange for copies. See .L. CANFORA, La biblioteca scomparsa, Sellerio Editore Palermo, the tenth edition, 1986; G. CAVALLO, Le biblioteche nel mondo antico e medioevale, Editori Laterza, Roma - Bari, 1988; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioteca_di_Alessandria.
53 S. SCOTCHMER, Innovation and Incentives, MIT Press, Boston, 2005.
54 B. BUGBEE, Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law, Washington D.C. Public Affairs Press, 1967.
55 The patent system has ensured to the inventor the exclusive use of his inventions, adding fuel of the interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things. See L. ABRAHAM, Complete works, J. NICOLAY; J. HAY, eds century 1907 .
56 The origins of modern Italian legislation concerning intellectual property date back to the fifteenth century and in particular to an anecdote related to the city of Florence that gave an award to a shipbuilder to get him to build a ship using methods that he threatened to keep secret. During the same period the city of Venice began to assign privileges to the printers, giving them the right to publish books in a temporary exclusivity for a particular language or a particular character. The decree of the Venetian patent is the first formal law on intellectual property and is strikingly similar to a modern patent statute. The dawning of our modern system of patents and copyrights can be admired in the research room of the Archives of the City of Venice, in Campo dei Frari. In this room you can find old sheets of parchment sewn into volumes dating back to the XV and to the XVI century. The decree of the Venetian patent is preserved in this room. For the first time this decree recognized the exclusivity of a work to its inventor. So, the Venetians would have exercised their genius and invented and produced works worthy of recognition if and only if the state would have protected their work from any imitations. Within the city, the Venetians and visitors could make public their inventions, their names would have been recorded and copies without permission would have been forbidden. The Venetian statute obtained the desired effect because in the years that followed its creation, hundreds of patents were registered. The Venetian model spread throughout Europe thanks to the trades. In England the immoderate recognition of the King led to adopt the Statute of Monopolies of 1623, which regularized its use. The peculiarity of the Venetian statute is that it anticipated changes occurred in other jurisdictions 400 years later. The Venetian statute explicitly includes all main features of modern patent laws, in particular: - It recognizes the public interest in innovation; - It recognizes the benefits of public disclosure; - It establishes the basic rules for a full disclosure by an inventor in exchange for exclusive rights for a limited period as an incentive for the same disclosure; - It does not make a distinction between the Venetians and foreign visitors; - It establishes an administrative procedure for obtaining a patent; - It provides execution and injuries; - It establishes the principle of compulsory licensing under which the state preserves a certain freedom to use the invention for itself; - It is the result of a vote with : 116 votes for, 10 against and 3 abstentions. See M. A. GOLLIN, Driving Innovation Intellectual Property Strategies for Dynamic World, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008; M BIAGIOLI, Patent Republic:Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors, Goliath, Social Research (2006), available at http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi-0199-6605515/Patent - Republic-representing-inventions- constructing.html.
57 […] every man has a property in his own “person”: this nobody has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body, and the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with and joined to its something that his own, and thereby makes it his property. J.LOCKE, The Second Treaties of Government, Barns & Noble, New York, 2004
58 In this regard, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1790, forbids the destruction or modification of artistic works by those who own the physical asset. In addition, the Berne Convention of 1886 grants these rights to inventors in order to avoid distortions of the artistic model.
59 In particular, the patent on the antibiotic did not create a monopoly on this product because other antibiotics are freely available on the market. The thin existing criticism concerns the centralization of innovation and creativity of big corporations such as IBM which, possessing thousands of patents, creates barriers for other companies by reducing competition and the entry into the market.
60 In this sense, the Public Interest Intellectual Property provides professional assistance to organizations in need of help which can’t protect their own set of knowledge.
61 In England, from the twelfth to the nineteenth century, the dispute concerned the common lands and the way they had been fenced off and made private. Today anyone can walk along the paths, through farmers' fields, yards and other private properties. Owners can fence their fields for their own purposes but they may also decide to provide access roads to the other people so that they can enter the property.
62 The British Museum proposed the balance, as ideal concept, as a manifesto of intellectual property: “ Copyright law has traditionally sought to strike an appropriate balance between the right of creators to be recognised and rewarded for their work, and the public interest in ensuring access to information and idea. Getting the balance right is intrinsic to healthy creative economy and our education sector, for without reward there is nothing to be gained in innovation, and without access to the ideas that have come before, there is no inspiration for the future ” .
63 G. B. DINWOODIE, International Intellectual property law and policy, LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2008.
64 This category includes old books, music and anything else with an expired copyright. Moreover, a clear example would be the patent of Bayer on the aspirin in 1897. In this case, the original patents have expired, the trade secrets have been changed and the trademark has been invalidated in the U.S. as part of the compensation that the Germany owed after the First World War. Aspirin is still a registered trademark in Germany and it is present in many countries. For this reason it is considered to be accessible to all.
65 An innovator can’t reproduce any article that is subject to copyright but he can use the information freely.
66 On the relationship between technological progress, innovation and corporate strategy, see, among others, D. ABELL, Defining the Business, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1980, BURGELMAN BA, MA MAIDIQUE, Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, RD IRWIN, Homewood, 1988; A. COOPER, D. SCHENDEL, Strategic Responses to Technological Threats, Business Horizons, February 1976, ID., Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper and Row, New York, 1985; R. HAYES, S. WHEELWRIGHT, Regaining Our Competitive Edge, John Wiley, New York, 1984; M. HORWITCH (ed.), Technology in the Modern Corporation, Pergamon Press, New York, 1986; ROSEMBLOOM RS (ed.), Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, vol.1 to 3, JAI Press, Greenwich from 1981 to 1986.
67 With this order of effort is being pursued in order to provide a set of knowledge systems without, however, treat directly the time of application of the laws discovered, it aims at creating systems of knowledge about phenomena that are not subject to immediate and practices.
68 Applied research realizes, however, practical objectives and is closely linked to specific policy issues, whose resolution is required by the needs identified by management, followed in turn by design, an activity system that takes the lead to review, edit, improve and adapt the results achieved in order to identify the most appropriate manner that will lead to affordable production and industrial use of new goods and original devices.
69 According to P. SARACENO, industrial production, Libreria Universitaria Editrice, Venice, 1967, pp. 4 -5, the increased efficiency of human labor has been achieved "by moving the point of application of the direct execution of a productive activity to the government machinery, through which productive effort is provided by other power generators, and it is the effect of this change in industrial production, which had first a secondary role compared to agriculture, becomes the central activity and conditioning the entire development, not only economic, of modern societies, the conditioning of agricultural activity itself which may In fact, progress at a pace not too much lower than those of industrial production to the extent that can benefit from sources of energy, mechanical and other aids as well as organizational forms that are typical of the industry. "In another part of the work (p. 3) the author points out that "if two centuries since the industrial revolution we consider the effects of using the machine has had on economic activity and life in general 's man and those who act in progress in science and technology prospects for the future, not only deepens the impression in our minds that the machine has opened a new chapter in human history, but we also realize only now are emerging that the most important effects of this event. "
70 On the complex relationship between technology and firm size, see, among others, the contributions of W. ADAMS, JW BROCK, The Bigness Complex, Pantheon Books, New York, 1986; TB GALE, Market Share and Rate of Return, in Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1972, PORTER ME, The Structure Within Industries and Companies Performance, in Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1979 EAC ROBINSON, The Structure of Competitive Industry, Cambridge Economic Handbooks, London, 1931; FM SHERER, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1980, J. SCHMOOKLER, Technological progress and the modern American corporations, E. MASON (ed.), The Corporation in Modern Society, Angeli, Milano, 1970, LG THOMAS, The Economics of Strategic Planning, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1986; LW WEISS, The Concentrations Profit Relationship and Antitrust, in GOLDSMITH , MANN, WESTON, Industrial Concentration, L. Brown and Co., Boston, 1974.Extensive observations on the broader relationship between environmental variables and the structure and size of business were made by G. FERRERO,Principles of business economics, Giuffrè, Milan, 1968, Chapter X, especially p. 187 ff.And also Chapter XI, p. 227 ff.
Magisterarbeit, 82 Seiten
Forschungsarbeit, 47 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 149 Seiten
Magisterarbeit, 81 Seiten
Magisterarbeit, 82 Seiten
Magisterarbeit, 81 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!