An analysis of the characteristics of small and medium enterprises that use intellectual property

This report documents the creation of a major new database that links IP activity to all UK firms. It then analyses the characteristics of IP active firms, with a specific focus on SMEs.

Intellectual property activity by service sector and manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom, 1996-2000

This paper provides evidence from a newly constructed database of UK firms about the extent of their intellectual property acquisition activities over five years. We focus on service sector firms, which have not previously been studied, with comparisons for firms in manufacturing and other sectors, such as agriculture. The measures of IP include both trade marks, which are most important in services, and patents, which are predominantly sought by manufacturing firms. The analysis includes patents and trade marks applied for via both the UK and European routes. While IP assets sought through the UK Patent Office remained strong, more services firms were seeking European Community trade marks and more manufacturing firms were seeking patents via European Patent Office through time. Firm characteristics that are positively correlated with IP activity include larger firm size, stock market listed status and high product market diversification.

Taxation of intellectual property: the new regime for companies

Central aspects of new regime for taxation of intangible assets introduced by FA 2002 which seeks to align tax treatment with accounting treatment of intellectual property

Firm performance and investment in R&D and intellectual property

This paper analyses the relationship between innovation - proxied by Research and Development (R&D), patent and trade mark activity – and profitability in a panel of Australian firms (1995 to 1998). Special attention is given to assessing the nature of competitive conditions faced by different firms, as the nature of competition is likely to affect the returns to innovation. The hypothesis is that lower levels of competition will imply higher returns to innovation. To allow for a time lag time before any return to innovation, the market value of the firms is used as a proxy for expected future profits. The results give some support for the main hypothesis: the market’s valuation of R&D activity is higher in industries where competition is lower. However, the paper highlights the difficulty in assessing competitive conditions and finds a number of results that challenge the simple hypothesis.

Market value, R&D and intellectual property:an empirical analysis of large Australian firms

This paper considers the value of innovation to large Australian firms. Specifically, we investigate how R&D and intellectual property activity influences the market value of firms, using a Tobin’s q approach. R&D data are available for the period 1994–96 and data on patent, trade mark and design applications for 1996. The findings suggest that R&D and patent activity are positively and significantly associated with market value. The results also suggest that private returns to R&D in Australia are low by international standards.

“I didn’t mean to steal someone else’s words!”:a forensic linguistic approach to detecting intentional plagiarism

The concept of plagiarism is not uncommonly associated with the concept of intellectual property, both for historical and legal reasons: the approach to the ownership of ‘moral’, nonmaterial goods has evolved to the right to individual property, and consequently a need was raised to establish a legal framework to cope with the infringement of those rights. The solution to plagiarism therefore falls most often under two categories: ethical and legal. On the ethical side, education and intercultural studies have addressed plagiarism critically, not only as a means to improve academic ethics policies (PlagiarismAdvice.org, 2008), but mainly to demonstrate that if anything the concept of plagiarism is far from being universal (Howard & Robillard, 2008). Even if differently, Howard (1995) and Scollon (1994, 1995) argued, and Angèlil-Carter (2000) and Pecorari (2008) later emphasised that the concept of plagiarism cannot be studied on the grounds that one definition is clearly understandable by everyone. Scollon (1994, 1995), for example, claimed that authorship attribution is particularly a problem in non-native writing in English, and so did Pecorari (2008) in her comprehensive analysis of academic plagiarism. If among higher education students plagiarism is often a problem of literacy, with prior, conflicting social discourses that may interfere with academic discourse, as Angèlil-Carter (2000) demonstrates, we then have to aver that a distinction should be made between intentional and inadvertent plagiarism: plagiarism should be prosecuted when intentional, but if it is part of the learning process and results from the plagiarist’s unfamiliarity with the text or topic it should be considered ‘positive plagiarism’ (Howard, 1995: 796) and hence not an offense. Determining the intention behind the instances of plagiarism therefore determines the nature of the disciplinary action adopted. Unfortunately, in order to demonstrate the intention to deceive and charge students with accusations of plagiarism, teachers necessarily have to position themselves as ‘plagiarism police’, although it has been argued otherwise (Robillard, 2008). Practice demonstrates that in their daily activities teachers will find themselves being required a command of investigative skills and tools that they most often lack. We thus claim that the ‘intention to deceive’ cannot inevitably be dissociated from plagiarism as a legal issue, even if Garner (2009) asserts that generally plagiarism is immoral but not illegal, and Goldstein (2003) makes the same severance. However, these claims, and the claim that only cases of copyright infringement tend to go to court, have recently been challenged, mainly by forensic linguists, who have been actively involved in cases of plagiarism. Turell (2008), for instance, demonstrated that plagiarism is often connoted with an illegal appropriation of ideas. Previously, she (Turell, 2004) had demonstrated by comparison of four translations of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar to Spanish that the use of linguistic evidence is able to demonstrate instances of plagiarism. This challenge is also reinforced by practice in international organisations, such as the IEEE, to whom plagiarism potentially has ‘severe ethical and legal consequences’ (IEEE, 2006: 57). What plagiarism definitions used by publishers and organisations have in common – and which the academia usually lacks – is their focus on the legal nature. We speculate that this is due to the relation they intentionally establish with copyright laws, whereas in education the focus tends to shift from the legal to the ethical aspects. However, the number of plagiarism cases taken to court is very small, and jurisprudence is still being developed on the topic. In countries within the Civil Law tradition, Turell (2008) claims, (forensic) linguists are seldom called upon as expert witnesses in cases of plagiarism, either because plagiarists are rarely taken to court or because there is little tradition of accepting linguistic evidence. In spite of the investigative and evidential potential of forensic linguistics to demonstrate the plagiarist’s intention or otherwise, this potential is restricted by the ability to identify a text as being suspect of plagiarism. In an era with such a massive textual production, ‘policing’ plagiarism thus becomes an extraordinarily difficult task without the assistance of plagiarism detection systems. Although plagiarism detection has attracted the attention of computer engineers and software developers for years, a lot of research is still needed. Given the investigative nature of academic plagiarism, plagiarism detection has of necessity to consider not only concepts of education and computational linguistics, but also forensic linguistics. Especially, if intended to counter claims of being a ‘simplistic response’ (Robillard & Howard, 2008). In this paper, we use a corpus of essays written by university students who were accused of plagiarism, to demonstrate that a forensic linguistic analysis of improper paraphrasing in suspect texts has the potential to identify and provide evidence of intention. A linguistic analysis of the corpus texts shows that the plagiarist acts on the paradigmatic axis to replace relevant lexical items with a related word from the same semantic field, i.e. a synonym, a subordinate, a superordinate, etc. In other words, relevant lexical items were replaced with related, but not identical, ones. Additionally, the analysis demonstrates that the word order is often changed intentionally to disguise the borrowing. On the other hand, the linguistic analysis of linking and explanatory verbs (i.e. referencing verbs) and prepositions shows that these have the potential to discriminate instances of ‘patchwriting’ and instances of plagiarism. This research demonstrates that the referencing verbs are borrowed from the original in an attempt to construct the new text cohesively when the plagiarism is inadvertent, and that the plagiarist has made an effort to prevent the reader from identifying the text as plagiarism, when it is intentional. In some of these cases, the referencing elements prove being able to identify direct quotations and thus ‘betray’ and denounce plagiarism. Finally, we demonstrate that a forensic linguistic analysis of these verbs is critical to allow detection software to identify them as proper paraphrasing and not – mistakenly and simplistically – as plagiarism.

Extra compensation for inventive employees:is our system equitable, unbiased and motivating?

There is a presumption that invention is good. It provides us with innovative goods, services and ways of doing things leading to greater employment, wealth and health. This article looks at the two recent UK cases regarding statutory extra compensation that may be awarded to employee inventors under the Patents Act 1977. Most universities worldwide and many companies have individual inventor reward schemes. Researchers now work in teams made up of both industry and academic researchers who are often based in different countries where different legal regimes apply. Is leaving the decision to award employees extra financial compensation up to individual companies unfair, unequal and de-motivating? Is having differing legislative systems in different European countries counter productive and a barrier to economic growth? There must be a balance between the inventor and the innovator. Do we have it right and if not what should it be? Legislation: Patents Act 1977 s.39 , s.40 , s.41 Cases: Kelly v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat); [2009] R.P.C. 12 (Ch D (Patents Ct)) Shanks v Unilever Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1283; [2011] R.P.C. 12 (CA (Civ Div))

Trade marks, registered designs and the monopolisation of functional shapes:a consideration of Lego and Dyson

Legislation: Regulation 6/2002 on Community designs art.3(3)(e) Directive 98/71 on the legal protection of designs art.7(1) Cases: Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2010] EWHC 1923 (Pat); [2011] Bus. L.R. 232 (Ch D (Patents Ct)) Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-48/09 P) Unreported September 14, 2010 (ECJ) *E.I.P.R. 60 In Lego, the Court of Justice of the European Union denied registration for an exclusively functional shape mark despite the availability of other shapes capable of fulfilling the same function and in Dyson v Vax Mr Justice Arnold established that a design can not be registered for a purely functional shape even though another shape could fulfil the same required function.