Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
monopolistic vs oligopoly
monopolistic vs oligopoly
pros and cons of copyright laws
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: monopolistic vs oligopoly
The idea of giving creators a limited exclusive right to their intellectual property began in England in 1710. The “Statute of Anne,” inspired our Founding Fathers and was incorporated into the United State’s Constitution. There are three types of intellectual property. Trademark ™, Copyright ©, and Patents. The last two are more controversial because they both give the creator exclusive rights to their invention/writing for a limited time. They were meant to benefit both society and creator. Unlike copyright, patents further prevents another company from reverse-engineering the product and selling it for less. Patents are also harder to get; To get a patent it has to be approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Although the fashion industry has benefited from not having patents; Competitors constantly steal ideas from each other and cost for consumers are lower as a result. The existential U.S. Patent laws we have today are counter productive and slow the process of innovation in other fields.
The fundamental idea of patents is that it is an agreement between inventors and society. The inventor is encouraged to keep inventing to benefit society and as a return the government grants the inventor with a monopoly over its sale. Patents were written about when the Constitution was framed. The Founding Fathers believed they should “Promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts, [by] securing for limited times the exclusive rights to their [invention].” (Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) This one clause was originally meant to give an inventor a limited monopoly so that they can make profit, while also the society will benefit from the disclosure of the information about the invention and can build...
... middle of paper ...
...article/58705>.
Roth, Zachary. “The Monopoly Factory.” Washington Monthly Vol. 37, No. 6. June 2005: 12-19. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Streitfeld, David. “Note: This Headline Is Patented.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA). Feb. 7 2003: A1+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
Teachout, Terry. “Copyright Protection That Serves to Destroy.” Wall Street Journal. 15 Mar. 2013: D.6. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.
“When Patents Attack!” Hosted by Ira Glass. Prod. Ben Calhoun, Jane Feltes, and Sarah Koenig. Episode #441. This American Life. Hosted by Ira Glass. NPR. WGBH, Boston, 22 July 2011. Print. Transcript.
“When Patents Attack... Part Two!” Hosted by Ira Glass and Zoe Chase. Prod. Alex Blumberg, Julie Snyder, and Ben Calhoun. Episode #496. This American Life. Hosted by Ira Glass. NPR. WBEZ, Boston, 31 May 2013. Print. Transcript.
The patent system grants an exclusive right of manufacturing, selling, and profiting from a specific invention. It is designed with the purpose of providing advance research and development and to encourage broader economic activity; however, complete disclosure is required in exchange for the twenty year protection to become monopoly.
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
Pharmaceuticals are arguably one of the most contentious of all goods and services traded in the market. While medicines are as much a necessity as foods and water, they require more technical expertise and official approbation in the manufacture. Above all, they carry a moral weight that most market products do not (The Economist, 2014). This idea of moral can be linked to the recurring debate over whether a good health (which is represented by medicines, in this case) should be considered a basic human right, or just a normal commodity. A large portion of such controversy actually lies in an existence of drug patents: should we promote for longer-lasting patents or should we have their duration shortened?
Opposition to intellectual property laws are becoming increasingly common. The moral aspects of intellectual property rights are coming into question, as limiting information and ideas is not benefiting anyone but major corporations. According to Libertarians, advancements may well come to a halt in future years if monopolized ideas are not disseminated for the greater good. On the other hand, disregarding current intellectual property rights internationally is leading to corporations “losing market share dramatically” to copycats producing generic versions of otherwise brand-exclusive medications (Shah, Warsh & Kesselheim. 2013). Priorities must be considered, what is important or beneficial to citizens is rarely what is important to corporations.
Solving the invention market failure is the less daunting problem of the two as existing intellectual property regulations, like patent law, already do this to a significant degree. However, the positive environmental externality market failure presents new difficulties for intellectual property law. Solving externality problems require internalizing the costs and benefits of externalities. Patent law must bring environmental innovators’ incentives to innovate in line with the actual societal or environmental value of their potential inventions. Placing private innovators’ incentives in accord with the social value of innovation will lead private innovators to engage in the socially or environmentally optimal level of
An opponent of our current patent law and system may make the argument that absent our intellectual property rights, innovations and discoveries would more closely exhibit the characteristics found in “pure public goods” such as national defense and education7. These examples are non-rival in consumption, there is enough to go around for everybody, and they are also non-excludable; no one is prevented from enjoying the good7. What these critics of our system fail to acknowledge is that an inventor could possibly bear the cost of making their discovery while everyone benefits on this free ride and prevents the original developer from ever recovering their initial investment of time and money. This flaw in the competitive system we would have absent IP law would potentially discourage some pioneers from their R&D. This would indicate that in some instances of innovation, the short-term monopoly provided by our patent law is a necessity to provide adequate incentive. The pharmaceutical industry is the poster child for this necessary protection provided by patents. In this sector, and to...
In the scholarly book, “TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond”, Hoen describes the need and uses of patents in the pharmaceutical industry. The World Trade Organization and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement help facilitate the ever growing industry. In order to protect intellectual property, these organizations set out patents to these companies. The article states that there are many drawbacks such as how patents increase the price of these drugs and limiting its consumers ability to acquire them. The source is outdated, as it was published in 2006, but it was helpful in understanding the way patents are incorporated in this industry. The insight from the pharmaceutical patents book allowed me to understanding the next book about the business aspect of the pharmaceutical industry. In the book, “Pricing, Profits, and Technological Progress in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, Scherer discusses the business of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The necessity of medicines throughout the world is a driving force of this sustaining industry. The U.S. health care costs in 2013 was 17.1% of the gross domestic product. The significance of this is that it is the second highest only to Tuvalu, which only has a population of 9,876. This high cost of pharmaceuticals leaves the people of the United States with an economic burden. Although being a country that is a world leader, the U.S. continues to struggle in the ability to provide sufficient medication to everyone in need of them. In the book, “International Pharmaceuticals,” Gary Banks delves into the factors of the international pharmaceutical industry. He discusses the roles of g...
Intellectual property abounds in our society, it is the direct result of the expression of an idea or other intangible material (Zuber, 2014). Our laws provide rights which are specific to the owner of the intellectual property. Furthermore, intellectual property is protected by laws just like tangible property is protected (Lau & Johnson, 2014). The most widely known forms of intellectual property rights include: trade secrets for confidential information, patents for a process/invention, copyrights for creative items and trademarks for brands (Lau & Johnson, 2014). While these rights may appear very defined, there are times when questions
For several decades, patents have been issued for the genes of various life forms including plants, animals, and segments of human DNA. Typically, gene patent holders are researchers in federal organizations, colleges, and companies; they often collect patents as a means for protecting their investment in research. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allows for genes to be protected as intellectual property with the intention of encouraging research and innovation, just as with any patent. However, gene patents have proliferated while leaving fundamental questions unanswered: do gene patents truly nourish innovation as other patents do, and what are their implications on society and on the lifeforms whose genes are subject to patenting? With further investigation, their negative impact will become apparent.
Intellectual property protection has become increasingly popular in the last century. Many factors have probed interest in this area of the law. A few of those factors include musicians seeking protection of their musical talents through use of copyrights, companies seek to protect inventions of advanced production capabilities, companies create trademarks that differentiate their unique goods from competitors, and companies like Coca-Cola protect their undisclosed ingredients for their products through use of trade secrets. These examples are to gain an understanding of how and why intellectual property rights help companies seek advantages in the marketplace. Furthermore, as the world shrinks because of advancements in transportation and computer technology, intellectual property rights become a large part of entrepreneurship and product development. This paper will discuss the interesting and challenging topic of intellectual property protection. The four basic types of intellectual property include copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets; we will discuss the intellectual properties in the order in which they are listed.
Intellectual property is an incredibly complicated facet of the law. In the United States, we have many laws in place to control and limit profiting from others intellectual property. The issue is not only profiting from others intellectual property, but not purchasing the property from the originator as well. We will discuss why it is important to protect this property as well as why it is tremendously difficult to regulate all these safe guards. “Intellectual Property has the shelf life of a banana.” Bill Gates
Ingber, Stanley. “The Marketplace of Ideas: Legitimizing a Myth. Scholarship.law.duke.edu. 2013. 15. Web. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=dlj 5 Dec 2013.
This week case is about Luxor technologies, a company that for four years (1992-1996) grew exponentially thanks to a strong technical community that produced low cost, high quality applications of the state of the art technology. Their production was characterized by secrecy, and they never shared license with any other company. More than that, all their complete production was from their own shelf in order to protect the patent. Their success allowed them to dismiss the need for technical risk management on the company, even when their product did not reached the desired specifications.
Intellectual property is property resulting from intellectual, creative processes. A product that was created because of someone’s individual thought process. Examples includes books, designs, music, art work, and computer files. (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 114) In the music industry a copyright is an important tool for artist to use to protect themselves from infringers. A copyright is the exclusive right of an author or originator of a literary or artistic production to publish, print, or sell that production for a statutory period of time. A copyright has the same monopolistic nature as a patent or trademark, but it differs in that it applies exclusively to works of art, literature, and other works of authorship (including computer programs). (Miller R. J., 2011, p. 125)
Because of its intangible nature, and particularly the increase of the digital domain and the internet as a whole, computers and cyber piracy make it easier for people to steal many forms of intellectual property. Due to this major threat, intellectual property rights owners’ should take every single measure to protect their rights. Unless these rights are either sold, exchanged, transferred, or appropriately licensed for use in exchange for a monetary fee, they should be protected at all cost. In order to protect these rights, the federal and states governments have passed numerous laws and statutes to protect intellectual property from misappropriation and infringement. “The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the Copyright and Patent ...