IP protection is a balancing act. On the one hand, awarding IP protection may reward the inventor's ground-breaking endeavor and incentivize future discoveries in the research/creative field. On the other hand, IP protection may create a road block for others to use and/or improve the current discoveries due to the monopoly right associated with IP protection. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the goal of awarding IP right should be to maximize the overall benefits to the society as a whole and accelerate the development of technology/humanity instead of hamper the progress thereof.

Accordingly, it is logical to state that the criteria to award IP protection is: Only award those discoveries that would not have been made without the assurance of IP protection. In other words, affording IP protection to those technologies or writings which would naturally/spontaneously be discovered or disclosed in due course would be a misuse, if not an abuse, of this incentive mechanism to shorten the discovery path/time. The subject matter of IP protection should reflect the above criteria as well.

Why patent historical knowledge, inventions, discoveries? The case some US based 'chaebol' trying to patent anti-fungal property  of Indian neem tree extract is a good example. See this news item:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4333627.stm

IMO, originality of the idea should the ONLY criterion for patents and IP.. 

My understanding with recent experience with IP law is that tangible products that enact mechanical processes are covered by IP whereas the algorithms themselves, abstract, disembodied plans for how tangible products might work are not covered by IP.  This distinction was recently decided in the US Supreme Court, and I believe that it's a novel development. As soon as you've scribbled down the plan for how to build your formalism as anything but math, then you have a reportable item for IP.

Hello Sridhar,

It seems that greed is such a motivating factor that if the legal system permits it, some people are willing to steal just about anything.

Traditional fertile seeds that have been used for hundreds or possibly thousands of years in older cultures are being continually "stolen" by large corporations in the similar vein.

Hello Damian,

One slight modification... the US patent office also changed the validity of original idea as to when it happened and consequently who deserves to be the patent holder. In the past, definition of the original thought included a credible proof, such as jotting it down on paper, as you stated. Now, however, date of application when you approach the patent office is all that matters.

Sridhar, Damian, & Tausif,

         Thank you for providing me with that valuable information.  My research through WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) has been an extremely valuable resource providing me extensive resources related to subject matters pertaining to IP. From their website in a brief introduction to IP they posted what I have attached below.

© WIPO/OMPI

Now the term "intellectual property" is reserved for types of property that

result from creations of the human mind, the intellect. Interestingly, the term

intellectual property in the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, or "WIPO", does not have a more formal definition. The States that drafted the Convention chose to offer an inclusive list of the rights as relating to:

“Literary artistic and scientific works; performances of performing artists, phonograms, and broadcasts; inventions in all fields of human endeavor; scientific discoveries; industrial designs; trademarks, service marks, and commercial names

and designations; protection against unfair competition; and "all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields.” (Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, Signed at Stockholm on July 14, 1967; Article 2, § viii)

4

© WIPO/OMPI

For various administrative and historical reasons, intellectual property is usually dealt with under the following main headings:

1) Literary, artistic and scientific works e.g. books.

Protection of this property is governed by laws concerning Copyright.

2)Performances, broadcasts e.g. concerts. Protection of this property is governed by laws concerning Copyright's Related Rights.

3)Inventions e.g. a new form of jet engine. Protection of inventions is covered by laws concerning Patents.

4)Industrial designs e.g. the shape of a soft drinks bottle. Industrial Designs may be protected by its own specialized laws, or those of Industrial Property or Copyright.

5)Trademarks, service marks and commercial names and designations e.g. logos or names for a product with unique geographical origin, such as Champagne. Protection is normally available under various laws. In this course the laws are covered within the Trademark module.

6)Protection against unfair competition. e.g. false claims against a competitor or imitating a competitor with a view to deceive the customer. This is a theme that occurs in many of the modules in this course and is in fact the subject of a separate module.

Thanks again for all of your input, I look forward to hearing more about what you all have to say.

http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html

For patents, the two usual tests are 'novelty' (is it new, never been done before) and 'obviousness' (would someone in your field have thought of doing it). In the example of existing seeds being used as an anti-fungal, you would not be able to patent the seeds themselves, but using them to produce a fungicide could be patented, unless it was clear that they have already been used for this in the past. Even if they have been, if you can show that your process (extracting the active substance, combining it with another substance) provides a clear advantage, then this could be protected, but still not the actual seeds (or, in this case, their use as fungicide in the 'untreated' state).

As your last post makes clear, patents are only one form of IP, which also covers Copyright, Trademarks, and even know-how, which doesn't get published, but can be formally protected through non-diclosure agreements.

Please note that I'm not an expert in this, so might not be exactly right in what I've said, and am happy to be corrected on it by anyone who really knows what they're talking about!

novel, non-obvious (the one involving an inventive step; whether incremental or major/radical/disruptive), and industrially applicable (worthy of manufacture and commercial use; in positive sense only) inventions, works (arrangement of ideas), trademarks (branding tool), geographical indications of goods (involving both location and users impact on the goods in the particular form available for commerce), lay out of integrated circuits, undisclosed information, plant varieties can be subject matter of IP protection whereas dumping of goods for trade in foreign jurisdictions can be safeguarded afainst under the IP concept.  

I am  a novice and Sudhir Kochhar comment could not be digested and tried to glance his contributions which again led me to the following quote and link

^‘We are like dwarfs [the moderns]

sitting on the shoulders of giants [the ancients]. Our glance can

thus take in more things and reach farther than theirs. It is not

because our sight is sharper nor our height greater than theirs;

it is that we are carried and elevated by the high stature of

the giants’ (from the Dictionary of Science Quotations at http: ⁄ ⁄

www.todayinsci.com ⁄ B ⁄ Bernard%20of%20Chartres⁄ Bernard%20of

%20Chartres-Quotations.htm). While the image is the same,the spirit is rather different.^

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00048.x/pdf

In a 'good conversation' it is not as important to defend your own argument as to know it.

The point here is, are we trying to 'respond to the question' or are we merely using the context of the question posed to start our own trajectory (of argument).

What I have tried to describe is that among the other better known forms of IP worth protection for commerce/exclusivity, the provision for anti-dumping in the TRIPS Agreement should not be forgotten.

Further to that why single out USA in context of the development of global IP systems and awareness. Historically one would find so many European examples setting the trends or for the evolution of IP regimes. Nevertheless the Plant Patents Act, 1930 of USA was unique and a trend setter in this (agriculture) sector.

IP protection is a balancing act. On the one hand, awarding IP protection may reward the inventor's ground-breaking endeavor and incentivize future discoveries in the research/creative field. On the other hand, IP protection may create a road block for others to use and/or improve the current discoveries due to the monopoly right associated with IP protection. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the goal of awarding IP right should be to maximize the overall benefits to the society as a whole and accelerate the development of technology/humanity instead of hamper the progress thereof.

Accordingly, it is logical to state that the criteria to award IP protection is: Only award those discoveries that would not have been made without the assurance of IP protection. In other words, affording IP protection to those technologies or writings which would naturally/spontaneously be discovered or disclosed in due course would be a misuse, if not an abuse, of this incentive mechanism to shorten the discovery path/time. The subject matter of IP protection should reflect the above criteria as well.

Intellectual creations that are the subject matter of IP, among others, can be as follows: patents, research papers, figures, models, write ups, trademarks, designs, registered names, music, videos, pictures, formula. 

Sorry to self-advertise, but you might care to look at Sterckx & Cockbain 'Exclusions from patentability', Cambridge University Press, 2012. It discusses at length what can and cannot (or should not) be patentable in Europe. The US is a different matter though.

Besides patents, protection of Geographically Indicated Goods of Europe, particularly, special protection for wines and spirits, and also protection of cheese of many geographical regions in the continent has been close to the hearts of Europeans for successfully seeking their protection under the TRIPS Agreement. The European Patent Office tends to provide a global picure of what is patented anywhere in the world as compated to USPTO which focuses on patent grants in the US alone.

Any Innovation That is Going to Simplify or Can be used for Commercial Gain;  By an individual , Group of Individuals or a Conglomorate, can be broadly classified under IP (not completely encompassing).

For example you have created a poem Which is a literary creation, Some one however has used it in his or her Website (Without referencing Your Creation) and you come to know about it, you have legal right to question the validity of their usage (Considering you have filed for, or you possess enough documental evidence : That can prove your Ownership of the said poem)

Basically It is a subjective (phenomena) and If  you are filing Patents you need to have the might of the Buck ($$). So, to even file for one and to be able to protect it, in every continent first and then in the respective countries (You need to have moolah)

So to Answer your Question: If the returns ($$$) are going to be big, then it is meaningful to pursue a IP.

Taking the emotional and financial aspects out of the definition of what constitutes an intellectual property, it tends to come to the practical aspects of what can be protected by the contemporary laws of various countries in which one may be interested in seeking legal protection of their intellectual property. From that perspective, all one has to do is to look at the regional laws as to what they will allow through patents to be protected. Protection through patents comes with a finite time limit.

There is another way of intellectual property protection, which is assured through copy rights or trade secrets. This requires persistent vigilance involving fights in courts to maintain control of ownership. 

Dear Lars,

To address your question, we have to trace the origin of IP.   IP came into laws as a result of imitations which made original inventors discouraging.  Imitators, on the the other hand ore creators: innovative exploiters. Shouldn't they deserve an intensive for their exploitative behavior?

According to above argument, IP should be the matter of exploitative behavior not just the imitation..

Upananda

Sorry Upanananda, IPR may be held out to the public as an incentive to innovate, but that is not what it in fact is (or ever has been). It was (centuries back) an incentive to bring new technology into the state (think goods, jobs, taxes) or to avoid loss of secret technology on the departure of the knowledge possessor (emigration or death) (again think goods, jobs, taxes). Since then it has become a tool to give some assurance to investors that they may see a profit rather than a loss.

Dear Julian,

Thanks for your comment but IPR, I argue, now it  is a innovation of capitalistic society to safeguard its stake holders.  What you have stated may be primary purpose centuries ago. but it is not the case now.

In Eastern societies  IPR is not a money making strategy but strategy for improving people's living conditions.  In capitalistic societies, IPR is confined to their citizen but no IPR for innovations of other nations (e.g., getting patent rights for herbal medicine discovered by ancestors of countries where these plants are  grown). 

Returning to the Lars's qeustion, the subject matter of IP should be aimed at the level of benefits accrue to the society as a whole and not the money accrued the investors.

 Dear Tausif,

Thanks for your comment. Our discussion is to  determine  the types of intellectual creations that could  be the subject matter of IP. I argue that  IP should be governed by benefit accrue to the society and not the profit accrued to the investor.

Julian had explained the  the Purpose of IP is to provide incentives to bring new technology to the society and to protect them from losses. those are noble purposes which would applicable to any developing society.  However, we need a unit of measurement to rank intellectual creation and I suggested benefit accrue to the society.  If this argument takes into consideration, then limitation goes beyond the geographical boundaries and trace back to the original innovators.

Considering the Tausif argument, about the governing systems (monarchical and Democratic rule of government) is not valid here since   innovations come out of the society irrespective of governing systems.

Upananda

Upananda, I have deleted my previous comments primarily because they were merely my opinions on things that can be subject to a great deal of speculations.

Regards,

Alam

There are many, many different subjects covered within this one question. I will address only one of them. That subject is culture.

Perception, cognition, and reality are shaped by one's cultural environment.

Here is one simple but clear example. Many people in the Western Hemisphere cannot hear certain musical tones that are elements of music in India. You cannot recognize creativity in musical composition when you cannot hear it. One has to perceive the existence of intellectual property before it can be categorized.

Even where people both perceive the same object, the recognition of intellectual property varies with culture. A clear example is the difference between the patent systems in the United States and Europe. In the United States, a patent claim may be phrased as a narrative describing a complete apparatus without pointing out which part is different. Patentability of inventions is based on the invention "as a whole." The question is whether the combination of all components is obvious.

The European view looks for an "inventive step." This is best seen in the classic form of German patent claims. An apparatus is described and then the claim recites that the invention "is characterized in that" there is a particular feature. 

The same invention, having the same effect on society, is viewed differently in different cultures.

This is an excellent question in that is a vehicle for examining so many aspects of who and what we are.

dear upanandra

i'm sorry if i upset you - which i obviously did.

but ipr IS a western construct, built up and enforced for non-communal values. to think otherwise is to be naive in the extreme.

j

To provide a non-political answer to the question, today most nations recognize IP protection for utilitarian innovation (machines, drugs, some times methods of doing business) under patent and/or trade secret regimes; for original creative expression (books, art, music) under copyright regimes; restricting commercial exploitation of an individual's name, likeness, or persona under publicity rights (not as widely recognized as other forms of IP); and for distinctive source indicators of products or services under trademark regimes. Those are the major categories of innovative or creative output typically recognized as IP; the key is fitting the out put into one of these regimes AND satisfying the regime's particular prerequisites to protection (for example, in the US, fixation in a tangible medium such as on paper or film is a prerequisite to copyright protection, which is not the case for some other copyright regimes).