Intellectual property | 3D PRINTING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Welcome to the Learn site for the Intellectual Property module. This module is core part of the Entrepreneurship & Innovation Management, as well as the Innovation Management in Creative Organizations programmes. It is also a part of a number other programmes as an optional course.
This module aims to equip students with knowledge of the various types of intellectual property, searching intellectual property databases, the legal basis of intellectual property rights, the application process for obtaining intellectual property and its importance to the innovation process and the entrepreneur.
- Case study, individual, 75% of grade, 2000 words essay.
Students write an individual essay about an infringement of a patent- or copyright-protected innovation of one firm by another firm. How have both firms operated, legally and strategically? How has the case affected the subsequent strategy of each firm, if at all (in which case: why not?)? And how has the case affected industry structure and dynamics?
Course work due: May 12, 2016 (3pm; submit through LEARN [turnitin]).
Core Readings & References:
- Teece, David J. (1986) “Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy” Research Policy 15(6): 285-305.
- Dolfsma (2008) “Patents & Copyrights” pp.498-503, in: Ph. O’Hara (ed) International Encyclopedia of Public Policy. Vol 4, Perth: GPERU. (available on LEARN).
- Bos, B., T.L.J. Broekhuizen& P. de Faria (2015) “A dynamic view on secrecy management” Journal of Business Research 68(12): 2619-2627.
- Leiponen, A. &Byma, J. (2009) “If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies” Research Policy 38(9): 1478–1488.
- Bittlingmayer, G (1988) “Property Rights, Progress, and the Aircraft Patent Agreement.” Journal of Law and Economics 31(1): 227–248.
- McGahan, A.M., & Silverman, B.S. (2006) “Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value” Research Policy 35(8): 1222–1242.
- Somaya, D. (2012) “Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda” Journal of Management 38(4): 1084–1114.
- Dolfsma (2011) “Patent Strategizing” Journal of Intellectual Capital 12(2): 168-178.
- Granstrand, O. (1999) The economics and management of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (Chapters 6-9).
- Intellectual Property Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office
- EPO, https://www.epo.org/index.html
- USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/
- SIPO, http://english.sipo.gov.cn/
- Arundel, A (2001) “The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation” Research Policy 30(4): 611–624.
- Dolfsma, W (2006) “IPRs, Technological Development and Economic Development” Journal of Economic Issues 40(2): 333-342.
- Griliches, Z (1990) “Patent Statistics as economic indicators” Journal of Economic Literature 28(4): 1661-1707.
- Helpman, E (1993) “Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights” Econometrica61(6):1247–1280.
- Hettinger, EC (1989) “Justifying Intellectual Property” Philosophy and Public Affairs 18(1): 31–52.
- Lev, B (201) Intangibles, Brookings Institute: New York.
- Schmidt, A, W Dolfsma& W Keuvelaar (2007) Fighting the War on File Sharing. T.M.C. Asser Press &Cambridge UP (IT and Law Series, #14).
- Towse, R & R Holzhauer (eds., 202) The Economics of Intellectual Property, 4 volumes. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
- Von Hippel, E (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Report an abuse for product Intellectual property | 3D PRINTING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
In the recent past, the world has witnessed a revolution in technology that has permeated to all sectors of life. The revolution in technology has however come with a major challenge to the intellectual properties industry because of misalignment of some aspect of the industry with the provision of the intellectual property laws (Arundel, 2001). In other worlds, the evolution of technology is faster than the development of intellectual property laws (Von Hippel, 1988). One of the areas that require close monitoring is the 3D technology. Although 3D technology is one of the most promising technologies, it still has a long way towards full development, especially in the area of intellectual property as can be evidenced by the case of Golubev against