This study describes patterns and trends of intellectual property (IP) use in Chile, drawing on a new database containing all patent, trademark, utility model, and design filings received by the Chilean IP office over the period 1991-2010. Among other things, the study offers insights into the drivers of filing growth, the origin of filings, the distribution of applicants, the importance of different applicant types, the share of filings by different economic sectors, the relevance of IP bundles, and the patenting behavior of Chilean applicants overseas.
We analyze the use of intellectual property (IP) by firms in Chile over the decade 1995-2005 as the then middle-income country experienced rapid economic growth of 4.7 percent per year. We use a novel dataset that contains a combination of detailed firm-level information from the annual manufacturing census, information on firms’ innovative activities from Chile’s innovation surveys, and firms’ patent, industrial design, and trademark filings with the Chilean IP office. We use these data to look at how IP use by companies has changed over time and analyze the determinants of IP use, in particular first-time use. We find that sales growth prompts first-time use of patents and trademarks, though such use does not change the growth trajectory of firms nor does it improve their total factor productivity. We also find that trademark use is associated with new-to-the-world product innovation, which suggests that branding may be an important mechanism to appropriate returns to innovation in a middle-income country like Chile.
This analysis of intellectual property (IP) protection practices among mining equipment, technology and services suppliers (METS) in Chile’s copper mining sector adds to a body of literature that has hitherto focused on high-income countries. It is based on data collated from an online survey of resident METS and on semi-structured interviews of executives from mining companies and suppliers, including two universities. The main conclusion is that, although METS appear to be innovative in relation to the mining sector and the economy as a whole, only a few use intellectual property rights (IPRs) to protect their innovations. The main reasons for this finding appear to be the cost and expected complexity of the registration process. Another noteworthy finding is the view that Chile has the requisite legal IPR expertise, but commercial capabilities (expertise in IPR-based innovation management and business plans) are much less developed. In the last section, four case studies of product and process innovation by four mining suppliers add some interesting insights to the analysis.
In today’s knowledge-based global economy, most inventions are made by employed persons through their employers’ research and development activities. However, methods of establishing rights over an employee’s intellectual property assets are relatively uncertain in the absence of international solutions. Given that increasingly more businesses establish entities in different countries and more employees co-operate across borders, it becomes essential for companies to be able to establish the conditions under which ownership subsists in intellectual property created in employment relationships in various countries. This comparative law publication describes and analyses employers’ acquisition of employees’ intellectual property rights, first in general and then in depth. This second edition of the book considers thirty-four different jurisdictions worldwide. The book was developed within the framework of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), a non-affiliated, non-profit organization dedicated to improving and promoting the protection of intellectual property at both national and international levels. Among the issues and topics covered by the forty-nine distinguished contributors are the following: • different approaches in different law systems; • choice of law for contracts; • harmonizing international jurisdiction rules; • conditions for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; • employees’ rights in copyright, semiconductor chips, inventions, designs, plant varieties and utility models on a country-by-country basis; • employee remuneration right; • parties’ duty to inform; and • instances for disputes. With its wealth of information on an increasingly important subject for practitioners in every jurisdiction, this book is sure to be put to constant use by corporate lawyers and in-house counsel everywhere. It is also exceptionally valuable as a thorough resource for academics and researchers interested in the international harmonization of intellectual property law.
As technological developments multiply around the globeâ€"even as the patenting of human genes comes under serious discussionâ€"nations, companies, and researchers find themselves in conflict over intellectual property rights (IPRs). Now, an international group of experts presents the first multidisciplinary look at IPRs in an age of explosive growth in science and technology. This thought-provoking volume offers an update on current international IPR negotiations and includes case studies on software, computer chips, optoelectronics, and biotechnologyâ€"areas characterized by high development cost and easy reproducibility. The volume covers these and other issues: Modern economic theory as a basis for approaching international IPRs. U.S. intellectual property practices versus those in Japan, India, the European Community, and the developing and newly industrializing countries. Trends in science and technology and how they affect IPRs. Pros and cons of a uniform international IPRs regime versus a system reflecting national differences.
This analysis of intellectual property (IP) protection practices among mining equipment, technology and services suppliers (METS) in Chile's copper mining sector adds to a body of literature that has hitherto focused on high-income countries. It is based on data collated from an online survey of resident METS and on semi-structured interviews of executives from mining companies and suppliers, including two universities. The main conclusion is that, although METS appear to be innovative in relation to the mining sector and the economy as a whole, only a few use intellectual property rights (IPRs) to protect their innovations. The main reasons for this finding appear to be the cost and expected complexity of the registration process. Another noteworthy finding is the view that Chile has the requisite legal IPR expertise, but commercial capabilities (expertise in IPR-based innovation management and business plans) are much less developed. In the last section, four case studies of product and process innovation by four mining suppliers add some interesting insights to the analysis.
