Intellectual Property in an Innovation-based Economy

Abstract

The process of transformation into an innovation-based economy has had a considerable impact on the intellectual property (IP) system. IP has become an integral part of innovative processes. These developments have led to changes in IP concepts. The authors argue that the notion of IP must include both legal (IP as rights) and economic (IP as an asset) aspects. The balance between different kinds of IP (copyright, related rights, industrial property) within innovation processes should be reviewed in order to acknowledge the rightful place of copyright as the core of IP and IP culture. Nevertheless, the major tools for enhancing innovation are still based on industrial property. The role of IP in different kinds of policy documents should be increased. In order to fully exploit the potential of IP, it is necessary to enhance the development of supportive infrastructure for the utilization and commercialization of IP (intellectual infrastructure). Such infrastructure should support the functioning of IP systems, identifying new knowledge and transfering knowledge from entrepreneurial universities to industry. Raising public awareness about practical aspects of IP and fostering IP competencies are of paramount importance. Teaching IP at universities and adopting university IP policies form an important part of this process. According to the vision of the authors, a basic course on IP should be taught at every university to all students. Specialized IP courses should be part of the curricula at the faculties of law, economics, engineering, biology, philosophy, etc. The authors outline the Estonian experience with regard to these issues.

Research on the innovation of time-honored brands from the perspective of dual ethical patterns

“…A relatively strong market competition will effectively drive the innovation investment of enterprises ( Norbäck and Persson, 2012 ; Zhou et al, 2014 ; Marshall and Parra, 2019 ; Parra, 2019 ). Secondly, the lack of effective protection of the proprietary technology and intellectual property rights is an essential factor hindering the innovative development of time-honored brands ( Pisuke and Kelli, 2008 ; Hussain and Terziovski, 2016 ; Liu and Jiang, 2016 ). In areas with a relatively low level of marketization, the intellectual property rights of technological achievements cannot be effectively protected, which will reduce the innovation motivation of time-honored brands.…”

Mediating impact of the protection and exploitation of intellectual property rights of local intellectual property on tourism development: An empirical study in Central Vietnam

“…They provide advice and support in establishing and enforcing rights related to intellectual property and promote community awareness of intellectual property ownership (Le, 2016). Government support and policies that prioritize intellectual property protection can foster an environment conducive to innovation and creativity (Pisuke & Kelli, 2008). When individuals and businesses are aware of the value and benefits of protecting intellectual property, they are more likely to invest in research and development, create new products and services, and contribute to local economic growth (Chen & Puttitanun, 2005).…”

From patent counting towards the system of IP strategic indicators

“…In the (innovation based) knowledge economy (for further discussion on the innovation-based economy, see, e.g., Powell & Snellman, 2004;Kelli & Pisuke, 2008), along with domestic patenting, international protection of one's competitive advantage on global markets assumes priority (Hanel, 2006). Therefore, PCT patent applications are just the features to further that aim.…”