Why is intellectual property important?

Intellectual property (IP) refers to lots of distinct types of legal monopolies over masterpieces, both creative and commercial, and to corresponding domains of legislations and other types of protection under the law that the law offers for the security of investment in creative work and knowledge creation. Under intellectual property laws, owners are awarded certain exclusive rights to a number of intangible property, such as musical, literary, and imaginative works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, icons, and designs. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, professional design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions are some common types of intellectual property.

Although, there have been several evolution of many of the legal key points regulating intellectual property over centuries, it was only in the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be utilized, and became a commonplace in the overdue 20th century in the United States. The Origin of copyright and patent law result from The English Statute of Anne 1710 and the Statute of monopolies 1623 respectively.

However, intellectual property privileges differ in one fundamental respect. The intangible, abstract items constituting intellectual property haven't any natural, self-defining limitations like physical objects do. In fact, they do not even can be found until they are manufactured by explicit definition and designation. For this reason, in addition to standard property legislation, IPRs are included in specific legal systems, and most kinds of IPR require a specific registration technique. Applications have to be made and examined by specialists in order for an IPR to be founded. Frequently, the exact boundaries of any IPR subsequently end up being the subject of litigation between the holder and holders of related IPRs. In short, the exchange costs of acquiring and positioning IPRs are much higher than for typical physical property. While the subject material of intellectual property is intangible items such as information, knowledge or ideas, intellectual property protection under the law are expressed used as rights over the tangible products resulting from those intangible things. For example, an commercial patent confers the exclusive right to manufacture the secured product or use the safe process, and copyright the exclusive right to perform the safe masterpiece of design or multiply it by means of books, cds, etc.


The main categories of intellectual property protection under the law are

Patents: As the strongest form of IPR, patents are granted subject to an intensive examination technique. They confer a very higher level of exclusive privileges over an technology for an interval of 20 years from the day of the application. Any use of the patented matter, except totally private use, requires agreement (certificate) from the owner. To get a patent, an technology must satisfy three main standards: novelty, non-obviousness (inventive step) and industrial applicability (usefulness). A detailed description of the technology must be submitted, which becomes general population after the grant of the patent.

Copyrights: As the name indicates, and as opposed to patents, copyrights do not protect the intellectual content itself, only the duplication of that content in tangible form. Copyright is granted without any enrollment or application technique to authors of original works, and to computer software and databases. A copyright holder cannot prevent others from using the copyrighted materials in development of other original works, as long as it isn't directly copied. The period of protection is generally granted with the addition of 50 years to the life span of the author, or 50 years only when the author is a corporate body.

Trademarks: Names, indications and icons used to recognize goods or services can be listed as trademarks. There is absolutely no limit to the time of security given the hallmark continues to be used.

Trade secrets: The right to keep trade secrets (confidential business information, undisclosed information) is protected through civil and/or legal law. In the type of the circumstance, there is no registration procedure, nor is there any exclusive right guaranteed.

Industrial designs: The proper execution of an industrial product can be secured. Exact requirements for cover vary greatly between countries.

Layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits: A just lately created Sui generis2 IPR similar to copyright, although with much shorter term of protection, typically 10 years. Only the right to reproduction and distribution is shielded, not utilization in further research and development.

Plant breeders' right: A Sui generis IPR specifically intended to protect new plant varieties. Kinds can be authorized provided they are simply new, stable, homogenous and distinguishable. Protection is comparable to a copyright in that it protects the rights to sell and spread propagating material, while use of the covered variety in further breeding and development is not limited. The word of protection is related to that for patents, around 20 years.

Geographical signs: Typically used for foods and in particular for wines and spirits, these are signs or brands which indicate a service or product originates from a specific physical location.

Utility model: Sometimes referred to as petty patents, this more abnormal form of IPR provides safeguard for models and designs. Although there are usually requirements for novelty and inventive step, they are less strict than for patents, and exam is simpler or sometimes nonexistent. The word of cover is correspondingly shorter, typically less than 10 years.

Expanding IPRs in Growing countries is still a major matter for policy designers and a regular topic of talk and debate on the list of civil society. You can find significant speculation on the impact that development in IPRs will have on Research & Development, technology transfer, and economical development in expanding countries.


Developing countries a term referring a region with a low level of material well being. There exists no one solitary agreed after internationally-recognized explanation of developed country, where in fact the levels of development can vary greatly greatly within some developing countries, which bring about some growing countries having high average specifications of living.

Some international organizations like the planet Bank strictly use numerical classifications. THE EARTH Lender considers all low- and middle- income countries as "developing". In its latest classification, economies were divided using 2008 Gross Country wide Income per capita. In 2008, countries with GNI per capita below US$11, 905 were considered as expanding countries. While other institutions use less specific definitions.

Newly industrialised countries are those countries with a more advanced current economic climate than other producing nations, but which have not yet completely confirmed the symptoms of developed country.

Therefore, it appears very difficult to get an exact definition for expanding countries. The characteristics of producing countries can vary in one person or company to another. THE ENTIRE WORLD Trade Corporation (WTO), for example, recognizes some nations as producing countries but mainly allows the customers to classify themselves. Therefore for every, the benchmarks and explanation could differ.

Generally, everyone agrees that expanding countries are poor. But what's the meaning of poor? The range of poverty found greatly varies in developing countries. A person from one producing country may travel to another which seems richer and may not realize that both nations take the same position.

This reveals the misconception; which is, people believe in developing nations everyone is poor. In almost every developing country, we will get wealth and luxury. However, these riches and luxury is usually concentrated only among a little portion of the population, thus, the majority of the people are usually poor.

The lack of income, skills and knowledge often affect the foundation of revenue and standard of living of the average citizens; Going out of large servings of the population, without drinking water or electricity in their homes, and limited usage of quality medical care. There may be inadequate military services resources to safeguard the populace during times of strike or unrest.

Developing countries generally suffer from inadequate public services programs, if they have them whatsoever. Because of this, it's quite common to find aid groups productive in expanding countries which provide the people with items, such as food, medication, and education, which would be inaccessible to them normally. Other aid groupings' work is to safeguard human privileges, which are generally violated.

In the following portions, we present a conceptual research of the issues, difficulties and options experienced by growing countries in growing their IPR construction.

For quite a while, Expanding countries have been facing demand from developed countries to execute intellectual property privileges. The main concern by the developed countries was to safeguard the inventions or inventions in the developing countries from the dishonest replication and copying. The controversy among both developed and growing nations gets more prevailing since the last two decades. The coverage for the development has been prolonged from innovation to discovery, from mechanical devices to living organisms (Bystr¶m et al. , 1999; chakravathi, 1999); from privately funded research and development to publicly funded methodical and technological results; from it to information about technological information (David, 2000); from professional products and technical functions to services, financial and administrative methods (Lerner, 2000) and from `brick' to `click' trademarks (Bubert and Bning, 2001). Nevertheless the rising countries are divided on the basis of their economical situation, foreign direct investment and scientific sophistication. The concern for the expanding countries is the economical implications for the execution of such intellectual property regimes in their respective countries. The situation can be even more harsh for minimal Developed Countries (LDCs), where intellectual property rights have emerged as the driver for the high technology cost, problems to gain access to technology by the general public. Alternatively, higher technology transfer with foreign direct investment may somehow excuse such establishment. However such `profitable' offers in exchange for intellectual property protection under the law in the developing countries, are relating to some developing countries, in view of the developed nations' benefits and not to raise the financial conditions of these developing countries using their company present areas. The controversy for the release of `proper' intellectual property privileges in the developed countries is encouraged since the modern countries faced a menace with their innovative technological and non-technological innovations and their commercialization in the emergent countries. Until now, several measures, particularly led by america have indeed enforced the execution of intellectual property rights in the producing countries, specifically supported by the strong business communities in america.


Intellectual Property Privileges are among those very sensitive areas for growing countries whose correct execution and timing could boost the socio-economical situation of the developing countries. However, debates on the procedures on intellectual property rights in the growing country have implemented a pendulum like activity (Forero-Pineda, 2006). US took the responsibility to highlight the importance of technology in trade and development, cooperated by impartial economists from developing countries. The primary dispute was the condition of monopoly and oligopoly in the technology market segments thus preventing expanding countries from having reasonable usage of technology (Cruz, 1998) and its own associated benefits. Penrose in 1951 also stressed that it's virtually inevitable for the growing countries to benefit from the strong intellectual property privileges held by inventors in the urbanized countries. From global welfare point of view, arguments on the fact that developing countries having weaker intellectual property automatically means that inventors in industrialised countries would lose is incorrect, however only the comparative financial benefits associated with such inventions could be less.

From the years 1950s to 1980s, producing countries could actually abstain from the execution of intellectual property privileges, maintaining a special status in the IPR system (David, 1993, p. 19). Regional trading blocs like Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA), the Andean Pact, and other pacts among the list of developing countries pursued the common system of intellectual property protection under the law. In 1970, India was the first developing country to look at a patent rules with substantial restrictions on the patent holders (SUNS/IPS, 1995)3. Raghavan in 2001 argued that the choice of process patents somewhat than product patents allowed local production of brought in products given that the use of your different process was shown. Such legislation in India possessed the biggest impact on its pharmaceutical industry, which makes it one of most competitive in pharmaceutical research and development. Those routines were carried out in Brazil and Argentina which create their own national offices that have been charge of managing technology transfer and contracting. Yet those practices and initiatives could not pilot a consolidated intellectual property and technology transfer offices, in lines to the Europe (Cruz, 1998). Inside the middle 1980s, a move in this circumstance began to occur on the United States Government initiative. Giving an answer to the concerns of the united states based organizations, and in context to the agreements with advanced countries, David, in the entire year 1993, concluded that US implemented `a direct, unilateral course of action', instead of renegotiating the international intellectual property rights contracts i. e. , Paris or Bern Conventions. Such kind of intellectual property rules was further enacted in Uruguay round of 1990s discussions, within conditions to become listed on the planet Trade Firm.

In growing countries, the conditions of the argument transformed beyond what could be likely; Local interests in support of enforcing more robust intellectual property security had emerged, alongside the commercialization of brought in goods and with the development of local technology. Products such as software, video tutorial movies and music are better to duplicate than traditional commercial products are to duplicate. For this reason, copyrights have been the center point of question for less developed countries, whereas in newly industrialized countries, both in Asia and Latin America, patents and trademarks are issues.

Passing from 1970s and 1980s, very recently the question for advantages of intellectual property protection under the law in different systems within different regions of growing countries have spurred. The main concern, as apparent grew up by the highly influential business lobbies and connection in most the developed countries, led by USA. As discussed earlier, United States rebound to the similar kind of strategy by offering market access, technology transfers and foreign immediate ventures in the (developing) countries, that may successfully put into action the intellectual property regimes. Somehow, this is and still an extremely lucrative motivation for the expanding countries, which would increase their present inexpensive conditions, however the insurance plan makers in these countries have different perspective. The u-turn in the developed countries strategy is to position in a different way the impact of execution of intellectual property cover in developing countries, as it was done in discussions at Doha Round of the WTO on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Privileges (Journeys). The Doha Circular of conversation was designed to exclude the development related IPR issues as the price tag on drugs, agricultural products, bio-diversity or genetic materials (Lall, 2003). Doha Declaration grouped the countries based on their domestic scientific imports, research and development and their creativity system.


According to World Bank or investment company Global Economic Perspective, there are specific specific known reasons for developed countries, and interestingly for the producing countries to follow the TRIPS agreement, i. e. , it could provide producing countries better usage of agricultural and attire markets in wealthy nations, an expectation that better IPRs would also encourage additional technology transfer and development.

However, relating to World Bank, the assurance for long-term benefits seems uncertain and costly to accomplish in many nations, especially the Least Developed Countries (LDC's). Furthermore, the administrative costs and problems with higher prices for medicines and key technological inputs loom large in intellects of coverage makers in developing countries. Many are forcing for significant procedures in the agreement. Certain developing countries also requested the provisions in implementation for the patent safeguard, specifically in pharmaceutical industry.

Certainly there are specific short-term costs associated with intellectual property rights for the developing countries, like higher prices for the technology and shielded products. With all this, the situation for more powerful intellectual property rights in these countries must rest on permanent benefits like much larger technology or international direct investment inflows and more powerful stimuli to local technology. This might be an economical case only when the present value of these benefits is more than the present value of these costs. Given the mechanics of the compound interest, this means that the long-term benefits would have to be very large indeed, particularly if they accrue after some time.

Some countries also have decided to support TRIPS in substitution for the concessions in other (non technological) spheres of economic activity, such as greater aid, freer usage of developed country market segments for key exports and so on. If they actually benefited in these ways remains an open up question, since neither the costs nor the advantages of Vacations related concessions have been properly measured.

However the talk might be productive, if the execution of intellectual property privileges are from the state of current economic climate of the country where it is being implemented, for illustration in the case of producing countries. One main fact about the IPR is the certainness of the huge benefits to developed countries by applying the intellectual property protection under the law in producing countries. Nevertheless such execution would also energize the local innovation in the expanding countries, permitting them to import the foreign technologies and have hands-on experience in learning and using the systems. The state in which present producing countries is analogy of their state where the developed countries were in the era of the industrialization, by having weak intellectual property protection under the law, to market, build and foster the introduction of local businesses and market sectors. Theory also suggests that the advantages of IPRs go up with income and that at very low levels the expenses of strengthening IPRs may outweigh increases in size.

In a world where so many commercial country firms are acquiring strong intellectual property rights, often covering fundamental research tools (e. g. , tools used for genetic transformation) and marketable products, it is now difficult for producing countries to learn isolationist and disregard IPR policies. Given the concerns outlined in the previous sections, the task for insurance plan makers in growing countries is to affect a balance between their need to access modern solutions and developed countries' need to access the markets and biodiversity. Insurance policy makers in producing countries need to also ensure that the study and Development sector acts the united states well and secure the pursuits of local companies

Scope of protection

Policy makers face the trial of defining the opportunity and breadth of safeguard (within the least standards framework described by WTO) so as to maximize cultural welfare and also to achieve certain distributional aims. Too weak safety may lead companies to invest significantly less than socially desired in the creation of new knowledge. Extremely stringent protection may lead to wasteful research spending as firms remain competitive to be first to innovate, which might make general population research more socially suitable than private Research & Development. Only almost never will a single level of cover for all technology or sectors boost home welfare as the trade-off between your economic advantages of innovation and imitation depends upon the sector involved.

Complying with various international treaties.

Developing countries are under pressures of not only the Travels Arrangement but also other international treaties and conventions such as CBD, which have conflicting requirements in terms of guarding a country's natural resources and intellectual property. The regulations for intellectual property safeguard in expanding countries have to meet the international requirements and practices given in the Travels Agreement and, the CBD (if they're participants of both treaties). If they chose to become a member of UPOV they will also be destined to accept the requirements of the UPOV Convention.

Social and Administrative costs.

IPRs may have communal costs if the granting of short-term monopolies, lead to increased hire seeking by organizations. To reduce these cultural costs, governments will need to ensure competition from both private and public sector. The public sector may have to play an important role in carrying on research in traditional vegetation and technology and strengthening capacity in modern biotechnology research.

Legislation without execution is of little value; and putting into action the IPR system requires lots of administrative and institutional costs to the contemporary society. These include the costs involved in expanding the appropriate regulations and enforcement mechanisms within each country. Patent examiners need special training to deal with biotechnological applications or countries need to hire new examiners with degrees in biology and biotechnology. For PVP, an appropriate administrative system must be established. WIPO and UPOV operate training plans for producing countries and provide assist with those seeking to implement the TRIPS Agreement. Empirical facts shows that these immediate costs to the culture could be particularly large in a growing country.

Enforcement legislation.

TRIPS is the first arrangement in the IPR field to make direct responsibilities to enforce the safeguard granted. It sets criteria both for civil and unlawful law. Inside the domains of copyrights and trademarks, it also requires that traditions regulators assist right holders in protecting against trade with counterfeited or pirated goods. For some developing countries, you will see a need both for new legislation and perhaps even more for strengthening capacity in the judiciary, in customs, and in the police force. Especially in countries where against the law trade in copyrighted or trademarked goods is popular, this may be a major implication of Outings.

Infrastructure and human capacity.

In many situations, Outings will entail a considerable dependence on investment in infrastructure and human capacity. New types of IPR, as well as expansion of existing systems to new domains of protection, will demand increased amounts of staff, better training, and new computer and administrative systems. The enlargement of IPRs to living organisms will demand usage of systems for deposition of natural materials and facilities for identification of plant varieties, both completely new branches of activity for most growing country IPR administrations.

Costs of implementation.

Apparently, no efforts at estimating the costs of TRIPS execution were made before the finalization of the agreement. Some rough estimations done later by UNCTAD and the earth Bank or investment company (UNCTAD 1996, Finger & Schuler 1999) have not yielded reliable statistics but reveal that the costs may be substantial, in the magnitude of 10 or more million dollars per country. Costs should be expected to be relatively higher in less developed countries, because they start from a lower level of IPR legislation. It is likely that in many producing countries, much of this cost should be included in development assistance money, at least the initial investment in new legislation, infrastructure and real human capacity. At the very least, especially in LDCs, Journeys implementation will directly compete for resources with other development needs.

However, IPRs can also be beneficial to Producing countries. It is extensively assumed, especially at the coverage level in developed countries, that strengthened IPR security will generate monetary benefits for expanding countries. It has also been argued that will more than offset the price of TRIPS implementation. Specifically, the importance of strong IPRs for attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) is consistently cited as a key mechanism to this effect.

The scientific books is however inconclusive upon this point. You can find studies which show some correlation. But there are also studies which record substantial increases in FDI despite vulnerable IPR protection (Kirim 1985, cited in South Centre 1997), and studies which show little relationship between strengthened IPR cover and changes in FDI. The provisional medical consensus appears to be that the amount of IPR protection probably is one factor influencing FDI decisions, but definately not the only person and not usually the decisive one. With standardization of IPR coverage under TRIPS, distinctions in this admiration won't are present and other factors will decide FDI choices. In addition, it has been argued that the Vacations agreement may also lead to reductions in the move of FDI (South Centre, 1997); with more robust IP protection, the risk of imitation will be lower and title-holders may prefer export of products alternatively than local creation in export market countries.

It in addition has been remarked that any benefits will likely be focused in NICs, while LDCs and other countries at the contrary end of the development size will risk net costs even within the long run (UNCTAD 1996).

Strictly speaking, however, even if economical advantages from strengthened IPR safety could be conclusively shown, they might not be benefits associated with TRIPS execution, but of IPR execution. Also before Travels, producing countries were absolve to implement TRIPS levels of IPR protection, or indeed higher levels, if they saw fit. Nothing of the potential benefits of IPRs be based upon the living of Journeys. What would have to be demonstrated are benefits associated with having mandatory minimum requirements of IPR safety, which is the only real new contribution of Excursions.

These administrative costs may only be partially borne by government authorities. Patent and hallmark offices can be self-financing functions through the levies from program and renewal fees. A careful balance needs to be struck, however, between making revenues for the administrative office and keeping fees sufficiently low so as never to exclude small-scale inventors from the IPR system. An alternative to reduce administrative costs is to contract researchers at universities and other institutions to provide complex reports (the expense of that ought to be borne by the candidates). Another alternate is to give a "deferred system" (which is accessible in many countries), whereby a particular request for evaluation needs to be made by the applicant throughout a certain period (UNCTAD 1996). The rationale for this system is that some inventors may decide to abandon the application, thus reducing the number of applications to be reviewed by the patent office. Another option for keeping the expenses of jogging the patent system down, as is the situation in South Africa, is to not require any patent examinations and let the patent holders defend their patents in judge.


Administrative costs will probably increase with the execution of the IPR framework. But these should be viewed in light of the expenses of alternatives. Thus, an important question that policy makers need to address is if the costs of setting up a patent or a PVP system are large in accordance with the price tag on strengthening open public sector research and development in agriculture? Intellectual property protection provides greater benefits than costs in the advancement of science, technology, and monetary performance. However, the benefits associated with intellectual property protection often accrue in the foreseeable future, in so doing making the near-term costs seem to be large. The security benefits both private and the public sectors which is the allocation of the come back, which depends upon public policy. Just one more factor that insurance policy producers need to consider in establishing an IP system is the expense of safeguard to the innovators as well. The typical system of patenting would be inaccessible for many small enterprisers and grassroots innovators credited to limited resources and their risk-averse mother nature. National governments may need to think about building innovative low priced system like Petty Patents that can ensure coverage for shorter time at less expensive (Gupta 1999). 12 Petty patent will help small business people to explore the commercial program of their technology in confirmed (shorter) time. Later they can make going for regular patent if not their petty patent expires and their invention becomes part of regular "prior skill. "

Some recommendations on how developing countries can reduce the price tag on implementing IPR

Developing countries have to be given a larger sense of possession and participation in the IPR system. Many see TRIPs as primarily a device for shifting profits to creative interests in wealthy countries. Thus it is important for developed countries and multilateral organizations to provide enough complex and financial assistance for implementation of the new specifications in developing countries, to remove impediments to future technology flows, and to meet and lengthen their own commitments to liberalize market access for products of interest to poorer countries (notably attire and agriculture). Assistance should try to develop protection under the law and opportunities suited to the needs of internet marketers, inventors, and performers in poor economies. Examination is also needed of potential mechanisms for protecting the privileges of developing countries to export passions of their own such as physical signs, traditional knowledge, and genetic resources.

Sensible methods have to be found for balancing protection under the law of patent holders in pharmaceuticals against users' needs for product availability at fair cost. Information in the booklet points to possibly large raises in medication prices in expanding countries as patents are executed. Government authorities should work to offset these influences by using impressive procurement programs. Specifically, development and copy of treatments and vaccines for diseases in the poorest countries should be broadened via public-private partnerships.

WTO members shouldn't rush to develop multilateral cover in controversial areas until we realize more about how exactly new systems function. Needing broad opportunity for biotechnology patents, and extending them to plant and animal varieties, could affect the interests of lagging countries in substitution for little gain in invention. Many countries need to look at or reinforce systems of flower breeders' rights and it would be early to require global patents in this field before such systems receive an opportunity to work. Neither is it sensible at the moment to force for a worldwide code on territorial exhaustion of rights (parallel imports).


The debate for intellectual property privileges implementation in expanding countries supplies the base for the demarcation among developed, developing and poor or least developed countries (LDC). Every member group has their own reservations, depending on the local technical system, economic conditions and the amount of their prosperity. Using one side, growing countries views the Outings agreements, in association to intellectual property rights as an intimidation for their present monetary systems, which can eventually improve the access to technological products by increasing their cost.

However such an implementation, with accessibility to developed countries market segments, technology copy and foreign immediate investment, becomes uncommon for a developing country with relatively lower exports and limited technology accessibility. Presently, there is a need to establish a platform on the base of TRIPS agreement which could allow the uniform implementation of strong or relatively better IPR regimes in the expanding economies, excluding the LDCs.

An appropriate research for the price and benefit for TRIPS agreement might provide a solid logical for putting into action it in the expanding countries, justifying the bigger costs of brought in technology, pharmaceutical and medical products and the impact of imitation which is performed in the producing countries. Furthermore, the research may possibly also help the economists to deliver the Excursions benefits in conditions of its value for the producing countries.

All these arguments for weaker IPRs from developing countries might not exactly evenly qualify or justify the value of the more robust IPRs which has already been exhibited from the industrialization, success and wealth of the developed nations which got already carried out strong intellectual property rights for sufficient time frame, and in spite of this, realizing higher growths in their economies as compared to producing countries.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)