Intellectual Property Rights and Crop-Improving R&D under Adaptive Destruction, June 2007

This paper studies how the strength of intellectual property rights (IPRs) affects investments in biological innovations when the value of an innovation is stochastically reduced to zero because of the evolution of pest resistance. We frame the problem as a research and development (R&D) investment game in a duopoly model of sequential innovation. We characterize the incentives to invest in R&D under two competing IPR regimes, which differ in their treatment of the follow-on innovations that become necessary because of pest adaptation. Depending on the magnitude of the R&D cost, ex ante firms might prefer an intellectual property regime with or without a “research exemption” provision. The study of the welfare function that also accounts for benefit spillovers to consumers—which is possible analytically under some parametric conditions, and numerically otherwise—shows that the ranking of the two IPR regimes depends critically on the extent of the R&D cost.

Intellectual property rights and efficient firm organization

I show that intellectual property rights yield static efficiency gains, irrespective oftheir dynamic role in fostering innovation. I develop a property-rights model of firmorganization with two dimensions of non-contractible investment. In equilibrium, thefirst best is attained if and only if ownership of tangible and intangible assets is equallyprotected. If IP rights are weaker, firm structure is distorted and efficiency declines:the entrepreneur must either integrate her suppliers, which prompts a decline in theirinvestment; or else risk their defection, which entails a waste of her human capital. Mymodel predicts greater prevalence of vertical integration where IP rights are weaker,and a switch from integration to outsourcing over the product cycle. Both empiricalpredictions are consistent with evidence on multinational companies. As a normativeimplication, I find that IP rights should be strong but narrowly defined, to protect abusiness without holding up its potential spin-offs.

Hyvitysmaksujärjestelmä - matka kasettimetristä megatavuun

Pro gradu-tutkielman tarkoituksena on selvittää, millaisia vaikutuksia vaihtoehtoisella yksityisen kopioinnin hyvitysmaksujärjestelmällä voisi olla Suomessa. Hyvitysmaksulla tarkoitetaan korvausta, joka maksetaan oikeudesta tehdä teoskappaleesta kopioita yksityiseen käyttöön. Maksu on Suomessa sisällytetty vuodesta 1984 alkaen kopiointilaitteiden hintoihin ja näin vyörytetty valmistajilta ja maahantuojilta kuluttajien maksettavakasi. Maksun alaisia laitteita ovat esimerkiksi C- kasetit, CD- levyt, digiboxit ja ulkoiset kovalevyt. Tutkielmassa kuvataan hyvitysmaksujärjestelmän historiallista kehitystä nykyiseen muotoonsa, sen toimivuutta eri intressiryhmien näkökulmasta sekä arvioidaan varteenotettavia vaihtoehtoja nykyiselle järjestelmälle. Aina uusiutuvan haasteen hyvitysjärjestelmän kehittämisessä muodostaa teknologian jatkuva muuntuminen ja uusien kopiointitekniikoiden yleistyminen. Siihen tekijänoikeuksia koskevat säädökset ovat vastanneet puutteellisesti tai jälkikäteen. Tutkimuskysymyksiä tarkastellaan virallistenlähteiden, kirjallisuuden ja asiasta julkaistujen, eri intressitahojen kannanottojen perusteella. Tutkimuksen toteutus on sekoitus kvalitatiivista, historiallista ja lainopillista tarkastelua sekä oikeustaloustiedettä. Tutkimuksesta selvisi, että hyvitysmaksujärjestelmä ei tällä hetkellä suoriudu sille asetetuista tehtävistä tyydyttävästi, ja vaihtoehtoisen järjestelmän etsiminen on ajankohtaista. Varteenotettavaksi vaihtoehdoksi yksityiseen käyttöön tapahtuvan kopioinnin korvaamiseksi tekijöille ja tuottajille on tässä tutkielmassa arvioitu korvauksen toteuttaminen viestintärahaston kautta. Tämä ratkaisisi monet nykyiset ongelmat, ja näyttäisi tutkimuksen pohjalta arvioituna olevan paras vaihtoehto. Tähän siirtyminen vaatii kuitenkin ratkaisua kohtuullisen hyvityksen määrittämisen ongelmaan.

Intellectual Property Protection in China in the Cases of Outsourcing and own Manufacturing

The intellectual property (IP) environment in China is still very immature. There are several problems in legal, political, economic, social-cultural, competitive and labor environment which have hindered IP legal enforcement. Under such circumstances, IP misappropriation is a major concern especially for foreign small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) doing business in China. These circumstances require foreign companies, no matter whether they are multinational corporations (MNCs) or SMEs and have own manufacturing in China or not, to take strong IP actions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to discuss how IP can be protected in China in the case of outsourcing and in the case of own manufacturing. The comparison will consider the process of outsourcing and own manufacturing consisting two stages: preparation stage and operation stage. In order to clarify the conceptual arguments, two illustrative case studies were studied. The case data bases on two semi-structured interviews of the managing directors, field notes and archival data. The findings propose that attention in IP protection should be given to following issues: integrating IP strategy into the company’s business strategy, protecting the most critical knowledge, regarding IP steps as a whole in the protection mechanism and making IP strategy as proactive as possible. The major difference between outsourcing and own manufacturing in IP protection is in the operation stage. Besides, the findings also provide managerial advice on IP protection, e.g. foreign managers should be prepared for IP risks in China, they should establish an own IP protection mechanism which matches the company’s situation and they should consider IP protection as an on-going process.

Startup IPR strategies: Why should startup companies protect their intellectual property?

This thesis studies intellectual property right (also: IPR) strategies from the perspective of high growth startup companies. Due to technology development and intellectualization of business, large part of companies’ assets are nowadays intangible. At the same time, the importance of protection instruments designed to protect these intangible assets, intellectual property rights, is increasing. Utilization of these instruments, however, requires understanding of the functioning of the IPR system, as well as financial resources. Startup companies aiming for growth need to be able compete with more established companies also in relation to intangible assets, but they might not have the required knowledge ot resources to fully utilize IPRs in their business. This research aims to understand what are the benefits a startup company can have from protecting their IPRs, and how can the company achieve those benefits. Based on a review of previous literature, altogether 11 benefits of IPR registration were recognized. To answer to the research questions, six half-structured interviews were conducted with experts form different fields, all with experience in working with startup companies and IPR issues. The interviews were analyzed using different methods of qualitative data analysis, mainly derived from grounded theory and case study methods. As a result, out of the 11 benefits recognized from earlier literature, 8 were recognized to be relevant for startup companies. The most central benefits were recognized to be linked with the financial lifecycle of the startup company, including increasing credibility of the startup and stimulating an investment. In addition it was noticed, that startup companies are mainly able to utilize these benefits at later stages of their lifecycle. However, to be able to utilize the benefits at later stages, the startup company needs to be aware of the functioning of the IPR system and might need to apply for appropriate protection already early on. As a result of this study, a three-step model was formed to describe different levels of IPR utilization. The first level of the model represents the minimum level of understanding that every startup company should have regarding IPRs. The second level views IPR strategy from a risk management perspective, including securing the minimum protection of the company’s own IPRs, contract management and establishing processes for handling IPR issues. The last stage reflects strategic use of IPRs. At this third stage intellectual property rights have a central role in the startup company’s business, and they are used in the company’s value creation.

The reform of electronic consumer contracts in Europe: towards an effective legal framework?

Christine Riefa is a lecturer in Consumer Law and Intellectual Property Law at Brunel University in the UK. She is an elected board member of the International Association of Consumer Law and an academic correspondent to the Euro-American Chair for the legal protection of consumers (University of Cantabria, Spain). In 2009-2010, Dr Riefa is a Fulbright EU Scholar-in-Residence at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Ohio USA. A first version of this article was presented at the Summer School in Consumer Law, organised by the GREDICC (Groupe de recherche en droit international et comparé de la consummation), UQAM, Montréal, 29th June – 4th July 2009.

Intellectual property management in M&A transactions

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the intellectual property (IP) aspects of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions. Design/methodology/approach – A holistic approach is proposed that embraces IP as an integral part of the M&A process in the form of a roadmap for the strategic and purposeful management of IP assets in M&A deals. Findings – Addressing IP issues in transactions in isolation can lead to undesirable consequences (e.g. considerable costs for unplanned purchases of rights). IP due diligence and IP integration project processes can be automated using collaborative software solutions. Thereby, risk can be reduced through the creation of a high level of transparency and predefined responsibilities. Practical implications – Although the proposed IP management framework is based on intellectual property matters relevant to German jurisdiction, conclusions derived and the proposed roadmap are transferable to other jurisdictions and hence have a broader relevance. Evidence for this is provided by the successful application of the roadmap in the context of the multinational transaction stated above. Originality/value – This paper is based on the authors' collective experience, insight and reflected observation of M&A practice gained in advisory M&A roles in management consultancies over a period of more than a decade. The paper summarizes the authors' reflections and observations and brings these into the context of the current management literature. Moreover, this paper builds on earlier published research.