|
on Intellectual Property Rights |
| By: | Tatsuro Iwaisako (Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University) |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the welfare-maximizing degree of patent protection in a growth model where the engines of economic growth are R&D and public services. We find that an increase in public services enhances the positive and negative effects of strengthening patent protection on R&D and the volume of production, respectively. However, if public services are relatively small, the negative welfare effect associated with the decrease in production volume tends to outweigh the positive welfare effect from the increase in the growth rate, and so the welfare-maximizing degree of patent protection tends to be lower. This result provides one possible explanation for why developing countries tend to prefer weaker patent protection. |
| Keywords: | endogenous growth, patent protection, public services, welfare analysis |
| JEL: | O34 O38 O40 |
| Date: | 2012–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osk:wpaper:1219&r=ipr |
| By: | Simplice A, Asongu |
| Abstract: | With the proliferation of technology used to prate software, this paper answers some key questions in policy decision making. Dynamic panel Generalized Methods of Moments and Two Stage Least Squares are employed. IPRs laws (treaties) are instrumented with government quality dynamics to assess their incidence on software piracy. The following findings are established. (1) Government institutions are crucial in enforcing IPRs laws (treaties) in the fight against software piracy. (2) Main IP laws enacted by the legislature and Multilateral IP laws are most effective in combating piracy. (3) IPRs laws, WIPO Treaties and Bilateral Treaties do not have significant negative incidences on software piracy. Policy implications are discussed. |
| Keywords: | Software piracy; Intellectual property rights; Panel data; Africa |
| JEL: | F42 O38 O34 O57 K42 |
| Date: | 2012–08–16 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:43590&r=ipr |
| By: | Nofal, Christopher |
| Abstract: | This article posits that the JPML and Federal Circuit, despite their range of differences, can benefit from one another and remedy each other’s complex institutional challenges. The Federal Circuit can eliminate the unfairness in multidistrict litigation practice and can guide multidistrict litigation by providing uniform federal precedent. Multidistrict litigation, which is as procedurally complex as it is substantively broad, can enable the Federal Circuit to speak on non-patent law and can position the circuit to see more clearly how patents affect the overall economy. Through these mutual benefits, these institutions can promote justice and cost-effectiveness for each litigant in every patent action and every MDL proceeding. To that end, this article proposes that Congress vest in the Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the JPML and MDL courts. |
| Keywords: | JPML; Federal Circuit; intellectual property; courts; Federal Jurisdiction |
| JEL: | O34 K10 |
| Date: | 2012–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:43515&r=ipr |
| By: | Simplice A, Asongu |
| Abstract: | This paper assesses the relevance of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the knowledge economy (KE)-finance nexus using the four variables identified under the World Bank’s knowledge economy index (KEI) and seven financial intermediary dynamics of depth, efficiency, activity and size. Three main findings are established: (1) education increases financial dynamics of depth and size; (2) economic incentives by means of credit facilities (trade openness) mitigate financial dynamics of efficiency and activity (financial dynamics of depth and size) and; (3) ICT and FDI both improve financial depth and decrease financial size (with FDI having an additional edge of improving financial activity). As a policy implication, the enforcement of IPRs is not a general and sufficient condition for positive KE-finance nexuses. Hence, blanket upholding of IPRs to achieve such positive linkages may not be successful unless policy is contingent on the prevailing ‘KE specific component’ trends and dynamics of financial development. |
| Keywords: | Financial development; Knowledge economy; Intellectual property rights |
| JEL: | O38 O10 O34 K42 P48 |
| Date: | 2013–01–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:43541&r=ipr |