Insights on Intellectual Property Rights: Determination of Strategic Managment Strategies

 
 
 
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract


    As of recent days in December 2018, the essential locus of significant worth for some, partnerships has been found in their licensed innovation rights. By one educated gauge from the late 1990s, some seventy five percent of the Fortune 100's aggregate market capitalization was spoken by immaterial resources, for example, licenses, copyrights and trademarks. In this Environment, IP the board can't be left to innovation chiefs or corporate legitimate staff alone. Given that the age of profits from IP rights is a capital-­‐escalated, long haul action and that choices influencing protected innovation are usually irreversible with ease, IP the executives must involve worry for useful and specialty unit pioneers and additionally an enterprise's most senior officers. Little of the composition regarding the matter of licensed innovation rights, nonetheless, has been coordinated at best dimension officials; rather it has every now and again been finished by masters, for pros. This paper has strived to determine some of the strategic management strategies that are worth embracing to ensure that the goals and objectives of the principle of intellectual property rights are achieved. Form the findings, it is evident that regular feedback provision and the decision by senior executives to embrace both top-down and bottom-up communication strategies constitute key approaches through which the mission and vision of the aspect of intellectual property rights could be achieved.


     


  • Keywords


    IPR, Intellectual Property Rights, Strategies in IPR

  • References


      [1] Peter J. King, managing partner of Arthur Andersen’s Intellectual Property Asset Management Practice, quoted in the introduction to K. Rivette and D. Kline, “Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents” (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999).

      [2] The particular order of the questions is inspired by G. Saloner, A. Shepard and J. Podolny, “Strategic Management” (New York: John Wiley, 2000), 160, 165.

      [3] Next to the specifically mentioned references in the following endN notes, this article builds on the following major contributions: G. Rahn, “Patenstrategien japanischer Unternehmen,” Gewerblicher Rechts schutz und Urheberrecht (international) 5, (1994): 377-­‐382; E. Kaufer, “The Economics of the Patent System” (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1989); S. Scotchmer, “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (winter 1991): 29-­‐42; N.T. Gallini, “Patent Policy and Costly Imitation,” RAND Journal of Economics 23 (spring 1992): 52-­‐63; J.R. Green and S. Scotchmer, “On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation,” RAND Journal of Economics 26 (spring 1995): 20-­‐33; P.C. Grindley and D.J. Teece, “Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-­‐Licensing in Semiconductors and ElecC tronics,” California Management Review 39 (winter 1997): 8-­‐41; D.J. Teece, “Capturing Value From Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-­‐How and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review 40 (spring 1998): 55-­‐79; R.C. Levin, A.K. Klevorick, R.R. NelR son and S.G. Winter, “Appropriating the Returns From Industrial Research and Development,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

      [4] (1987): 783-­‐820; and C. Shapiro, “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools and

      [5] Standard-­‐Setting,” Innovation Policy and the Economy 1 (2001): 119-­‐150.

      [6] In 1926 Novo Nordisk started exporting insulin to the rest of ScandiI navia and Germany. In 1936 Novo was supplying insulin to not fewer than 40 countries.

      [7] For a comprehensive empirical study of this industry, seeR. Bekkers, G.M. Duysters and B. Verspagen, “Intellectual Property Rights, Strategic Technology Agreements and Market Structure: The Case of the GSM,” Research Policy 31 (2002): 1,141-­‐1,161.

      [8] Ibid. According to the literature, however, it seems legitimate to say that Motorola did not fully sustain this advantage to the present.

      [9] J. Hudson, “Generic Take-­‐Up in the Pharmaceutical Market FollowG ing Patent Expiry: A Multi-­‐Country Study,” International Review of Law and Economics 20, no. 2 (2000): 205-­‐221. For discussions of patent fences, see O. Granstrand, “The EconomT ics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capi italism” (Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1999): 6-­‐8, W.M. Cohen, R.R. Nelson and J.P. Walsh, “Protecting Their IntellecP tual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not),” working paper w7552, National Bureau of Eco nomic Research, Cambridge, Massachsuetts, 2000; and M. Reitzig, “The Private Value of ‘Thickets’ and ‘Fences’ — Towards an Updated Picture of the Use of Patents Across Industries,” Economics of Innova tion and New Technology, in press.

      [10] A. Arora, “Patents Licensing and Market Structure in the Chemical Industry,” Research Policy 26, no. 4-­‐ 5 (1997): 391-­‐403.

      [11] B.H. Hall and R.H. Ziedonis, “The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-­‐1995,” RAND Journal of Economics 32, no. 1 (2001): 101-­‐128.

      [12] Arora, “Patents Licensing and Market Structure inthe Chemical Industry,” 393.

      [13] See I. Horstmann, G. MacDonald and A. Slivinski, “Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not To Patent,” Journal of Political Economy 93 (October 1985): 837-­‐858, for a more fundamental discussion of the trade-­‐off between patenting and secrecy.

      [14] C. Heath, J. Henkel and M. Reitzig, “Who Really Profits From Patent Infringements? Innovative Incentives and Disincentives From Patent Indemnification,” working paper 2002-­‐18, Center for Law, Eco nomics and Financial Institutions at Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002.

      [15] T.J. Calabrese, A.C. Baum and B.S. Silverman, “Canadian Biotechnology Start-­‐Ups, 1991-­‐1997: The Role of Incumbents’ Patents and Strategic Alliances in Controlling Competition,” Social Science Research 29, no. 4 (2000): 503-­‐534.

      [16] H. Ernst, C. Leptien and J. Vitt, “Inventors Are Not Alike: The DisI tribution of Patenting Output Among Industrial R&D Personnel,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47, no. 2 (2000): 184-­‐

      [17] According to the database of the German Patent Office, Henkel’s national trademark protection in Germany for detergents comprises 64 trademarks in connection with Persil, 19 in connection with Weisser Riese, 11 with Spee, 13 with Fewa and 9with Perwoll — to mention five of its nine brands.

      [18] Granstrand, “The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property”; see also R.H. Pitkethly, “Intellectual Property Strategy in Japanese and U.K. Companies: Patent Licensing Decisions and Learning Opportunities,” Research Policy 30, no. 3 (2001): 425-­‐442.

      [19] According to the European Patent Register, Toshiba (which includes Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba as well as those corporations beari ing the fragment Toshiba in their corporate name) had filed for 8,427 European patents between 1978 and October 2003. Patents were disE tributed over 2,430 subgroups.

      [20] Alexander, G. L., Madsen, R. W. & Miller, E. L. et al. (2017). A national report of nursing home information technology: year 1 results. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(1), 67–73. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw051

      [21] Abramson, E. L., McGinnis, S. & Moore, J. et al. (2014). A statewide assessment of electronic health record adoption and health information exchange among nursing homes. Health Serv Res., 49(2), 361-372. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12137

      [22] Adler-Milstein, J., DesRoches, C. M. & Furukawa, M. F. et al. (2014). WEB FIRST. More than half of US hospitals have at least a basic EHR, but stage 2 criteria remain challenging for most. Health Aff., 33(9), 1664-1671. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0453

      [23] Feldman, S. S., Schooley, B. L. & Bhavsar, G. P. (2014). Health information exchange implementation: lessons learned and critical success factors from a case study. JMIR Med Inf., 2(2), 19. doi: 10.2196/medinform.3455

      [24] Gabriel, M. H., Jones, E. B. & Samy, L. et al. (2014). Progress and challenges: implementation and use of health information technology among critical-access hospitals. Health Aff., 33(7), 1262-1270. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0279

      [25] Militello, L. G., Arbuckle, N. B. & Saleem, J. J. et al. (2014). Sources of variation in primary care clinical workflow: implications for the design of cognitive support. Health Inform J., 20(1), 35-49. doi: 10.1177/1460458213476968

      [26] Richardson, J., Malhotra, S. & Kaushal, R. (2014). A case report in health information exchange for inter-organizational patient transfers. ACI, 5(3), 642-650. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2014-02-CR-0016

      [27] Sanchez, S. H., Sethi, S. S., Santos, S. L. & Boockvar, K. (2014). Implementing medication reconciliation from the planner's perspective: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 290. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-290

      [28] Thorn, S. A., Carter, M. A. & Bailey, J. E. (2014). Emergency physicians' perspectives on their use of health information exchange. Ann Emerg Med, 63(3), 329-337. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.09.024

      [29] Winden, T., Boland, L., Frey, N., Satterlee, P. & Hokanson, J. (2014). Care everywhere, a point-to-point HIE tool: utilization and impact on patient care in the ED. ACI, 5(2), 388. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2013-12-RA-0100


 

View

Download

Article ID: 28397
 
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v8i1.10.28397




Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.