In creating innovation in any form, aren't we give priority to sharing and share it to other scientists? Our findings could have been continued by other scientists, then happened the cooperation and to be better or perfect, but if the product or innovation is lined by copyright and patent rights, then the others become afraid of continuing or developing a product or innovation We produce. Isn't this being cons productive? given the copyright rights and patens contain "fence" and the legal consequences!??
I think Copyright was first introduced in England at the beginning of the 18th century. Today, it has become a separate scientific discipline. Copyright is copyrighted in the field of literature, art, and science. It provides protection to the moral and material rights of the author.
Today's copyright law lasts for the life of the author, and els 70 years after the death of the author. Therefore, copyright is the right of limited duration. Copyright is the right of the author to benefit from his own intellectual property. This property, as well as every property, is expressed through the principle - usus, fructus, abusus. Of course copy right represents a limitation of the use of scientific achievements, innovations, and the like, because the personal property of the author must be taken into account.
Other scientists may, through a contract, acquire the right to use or redeem some segments, or innovate some work by an author, but moral rights always remain the property of the author.
The author has the right to emphasize his name in his work and the right to material, the monetary benefit of his work.
R&D has a cost. Public institutions may take the decision that the results of R&D are public and free. But private institutions and enterprises (and sometimes also public institutions) may decide that they want to have an economic return from their investment in R&D. In this case, patent rights may help. In any case, patent rights are more focused on applied research than on pure research, as they are always linked to "something" that may have an industrial apllication. Patent rights block only economical activities and not research as such, i.e., you can further develop a patented device or process, but you cannot industrialize it. Patents protect against "unfair" economical benefit of a third party, but do not block the research as such.
I think the reason is obvious, because scientific theft is widespread. Many thieves have mastered the method of scientific theft and made it a trade for them and even spent their lives to develop ways to attack the rights of others. Therefore, the necessity of strict laws to punish copyright and patent infringers is no less important than those laws that protect people's money or state funds and so on.
I think Copyright was first introduced in England at the beginning of the 18th century. Today, it has become a separate scientific discipline. Copyright is copyrighted in the field of literature, art, and science. It provides protection to the moral and material rights of the author.
Today's copyright law lasts for the life of the author, and els 70 years after the death of the author. Therefore, copyright is the right of limited duration. Copyright is the right of the author to benefit from his own intellectual property. This property, as well as every property, is expressed through the principle - usus, fructus, abusus. Of course copy right represents a limitation of the use of scientific achievements, innovations, and the like, because the personal property of the author must be taken into account.
Other scientists may, through a contract, acquire the right to use or redeem some segments, or innovate some work by an author, but moral rights always remain the property of the author.
The author has the right to emphasize his name in his work and the right to material, the monetary benefit of his work.
Dear : Santiago Jordá Petersen, Alaa Nafea Kttafah, Harun Hadžić Thank you very much for the explanation given, I can make conclusions, it is important about intellectual property rights in writing, innovation products, or someone's scientific work that indeed must be protected by someone's hard work in thinking and acting to produce a useful work for industry, society and science in general for the welfare of the community itself. If someone creates or makes a work, then he must obtain his rights which have a legal basis, namely moral rights and economic rights for sacrifices that have been made. On the other hand, one's work must be protected from all unethical actions that can cause harm both morally and economically from the work owner. I understand and agree.
Please note that copyright is automatic - you get it whether you want it or not, though you can choose to waive your copyright, such as through a creative commons zero licence. Patents have to be applied for, cost money to acquire, and most patent applications actually fail to get granted by the local patent-issuing authority.
@Charles Oppenheim, Thank you for sharing the information, good evening.
Please note also that the counterpart of protection and rights given by the patent is the dissemination of its fabrication process... A patent becomes free of use at the end of rights granted (globally 20 years or as soon as the payment is not effective: that represents more than 95% of patents). Hence, a patent database like the EPO is a kind of technical encyclopedia. But that marginal to the initial question...
You have to distinguish between the rights and objective of intellectual property (I will limit the discussion to Patents and Copyright).
When you obtain an intellectual property right, you get the right to enforce an exclusion from attribution or copying of the work you have done. This is not the reason for intellectual property rights.
The reason is to avoid the use of trade secrets (which in itself is an intellectual property right but based on secrecy). Imagine, that you are a pharmaceutical and you invest millions in R&D, are you going to give it away??!! The simple answer is no. But then, how would you advance the R&D in this space. The answer is to obtain a "right to exclude others" (in quotes because you can only sue them after the fact and stop them from continuing and not preemptively exclude Per Se) in exchange for disclosure. Disclosure is the objective.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation