<p>Background: Today, an increased need to value patents is expressed in several different situations. For example, banks more frequently accept patents as collateral for loans and patents are being exchanged more often between companies. It is argued that a hindrance for the recognition of the value of patents, and other assets lacking physical form, is that the current methods of valuation are not developed for this type of assets. </p><p>Purpose: Our objective is to investigate the practical relevance of four theoretical valuation approaches in the context of patent valuation and to point out crucial factors affecting the choice of valuation approach. </p><p>Procedure: Interviews were conducted with professionals working in the field of corporate finance and with an expert in the field of patents and intellectual property rights. </p><p>Results: The respondents are not of the same opinion whether relevant approaches for patent valuation exist at all. Among the respondents who find it possible to value patents, the income approach is the dominating approach. The theoretical correctness of this approach, derived from the definition of value, is stressed as the primary argument for the use of it. Methods such as Decision Tree Analysis, within the income approach, and Relief from Royalty, a hybrid of the market- and income approach, are used as complements.</p>

<p>The development of software was considered until the beginning of the 1990th as a cathedral like product development in closed companies. This way of development changed in the last decade. Open source software (OSS) development challenged this consideration significantly. OSS is produced in co-operation by skilled people, distributed and used by many moral agents. The result, the software itself, can be studied and modified. Herein is the main incentive for people to develop the software. In such a mode of production the freedom to access knowledge and information (=source code) is a necessity to produce the artifact (software).</p><p>Software is a digital entity. The main difference in comparison to natural resources like oil, land, minerals is that it can be used and reproduced without losses. It lacks the capacity of getting naturally scarce. Contemporary intellectual property rights assume implicitly that goods might getting scarce one day. Imbedded in the term intellectual property is also an idea of "fencing" objects. In this thesis I will argue that anartificial"encing"of digital objects might cause unintentional bad consequences for the society. An other quality intellectual property rights are claimed to have is that they serve as an incentive for inventors/authors to produce new inventions and ideas. The practice of OSS development works without such an incentive provided by intellectual property rights.</p><p>The moral conflict, which I attempt to unravel in this work deals with the question to what extend the application of intellectual property rights in software is necessary and how restrictive particular property rights in digital objects should be - if there should be any at all. Knowledge as the factor of production is of the same value in knowledge societies as land was for agrarian societies. The difference is in the mode of production and the un-limitless availability of digitalized knowledge. I argue that the"protection"of knowledge, and software is knowledge, has to be carefully revised in so called knowledge societies.</p>

<p>For many years pharmaceutical patents and their impact on prices have been at the centre of the international debate over insufficient access to lifesaving HIV/AIDS medicines in developing countries. The conflict has largely revolved around the implementation of an intellectual property system in the developing world, subsequent the adaptation of the TRIPS Agreement, which has made a 20 year pharmaceutical patent protection mandatory for these countries and consequently contributed to high drug prices for patented medicines as well as limited the use of generic drugs.</p><p>Developing countries, where patents are already in place, have sought to reduce high drug prices by making use of compulsory licensing, a safeguarding practice allowing the production or importation of a generic medicine without the consent of the patent holder. Compulsory licences are allowed under the TRIPS Agreement, but disagreements about the conditions, under which compulsory licences are available for ‘essential medicines’, have restricted their use. A definition of the extent to which compulsory licensees can export generic drugs to developing countries unable to manufacture their own has been missing, but on 30 August 2003 the WTO announced that it had resolved this problem by lifting the TRIPS Agreement’s restrictions on exports and permitting exports of drugs produced under a compulsory license as an exception to a patent right. The main question is whether the compulsory licensing system as prescribed in the recent Decision is an ample means of improving access to patented AIDS medicines in the developing world.</p><p>By means of legal and economic reasoning this master thesis argues that the 30 August Decision on lifting TRIPS’ restrictions on exports of patented pharmaceuticals produced under compulsory licences provides complex and uncertain rules, rendering an unreliable employment of compulsory licensing. It is desirable that further recommendations are given on which generic producing companies should be awarded compulsory licences and also on which premises. In reality, the debate about compulsory licensing is part of a much wider structural problem in development policy. The solution to the inaccessibility problem requires a mix of courses of action with a functioning compulsory licensing system included. However, disagreements such as how necessary funding should be divided equitably between developed countries could protract the reaching of a pragmatic solution.</p>

<p>There is no commonly accepted definition of a business method. It ought to consist of a method or a process of doing business. Business methods constitutes a broad category of patents, it is hard to tell exactly what can be interpreted in to the term. Most of the world's legal systems have made an exception from patentability for business methods. In the USA the exception was abolished in a case 1998. Business methods were to be examined on the same criteria as other patent categories. Methods and processes, that traditionally has not been excepted from patentability, like methods for investing capital in financial markets, can now be issued patents in the USA. The business method patents could bring substantial economic values to the patent holder, and have a great impact on the development of internet-related businesses. Sweden and the European Patent Organization (EPO), which in this paper represents Europe, also has exceptions from patentability for business methods, but they have not yet been examined in a court of law. There are signs that the EPO, which includes Sweden, has taken a path similar to that of the USA.</p>

<p>Trademarks are distinguishing marks that are used by companies to highlight their goods or services to separate them from other companies. In Sweden, trademarks are protected by a certain Trademark Law called Varumärkeslagen. The law is a result of many years of improvements from earlier trademark laws. Since Sweden is member of the European Union, its laws are affected and in many cases inferior to laws of the Union. A new Trademark Law is about to be implemented in Sweden, thanks to a directive from the European Union.</p><p>When a trademark is registered it is possible to use the symbol ® along with the trademark. This symbol indicates that the good or service can be trusted and also tells other companies that the trademark can be protected from possible infringements. Originally the symbol comes from American trademark law and in the USA there are certain regulations on how to use the symbol, regulations that we don’t have in Sweden or Europe.</p><p>However, trademark registrations are done approximately in the same way in USA, Sweden and EU. In the USA an application is sent to USPTO which is correspondent to PRV in Sweden and OHIM in the EU. There are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled before and registration can take place and these conditions are also very similar if we compare the different systems. There are different systems for registration of trademarks, except the national systems. If you want to register a trademark in the EU there’s a certain system and if you’re looking to get a registration outside the Union you can do this through another system.</p><p>Occasionally, some companies use the ® symbol without actually having a registration in the country where the good or service is promoted and sometimes they don’t even have a registration at all, in any country. When this happens, these companies are most often suited in court. One of these cases occurred in Germany in 1989. A German company had been marketing a blood filter that was imported from Italy. The trademark was registered in Italy but not in Germany and another operator on the German reacted. The German court found that the use of the ® symbol without a German registration was improper but considered that a prohibition might be restrictive to the principle of free movement of goods in the EU. This consideration proved to be accurate after a decision from the EU court of the. There are further cases like this one from the market courts of Sweden and Finland but in these particular cases there were no registration existing at all, not in any country. The courts passed sentence on these companies for misleading advertising.</p><p>It has been proven that cases like these are not always easy to settle since national laws are affected and sometimes controlled by laws or directives of the EU. Hopefully, the new harmonized marketing law will make it easier further on. Still, there are no regulations on the use of the ® symbol in Sweden or the EU and since it seems to cause problems, if not very often, I think it would be good to introduce some common rules for this.</p>

Background: Today, an increased need to value patents is expressed in several different situations. For example, banks more frequently accept patents as collateral for loans and patents are being exchanged more often between companies. It is argued that a hindrance for the recognition of the value of patents, and other assets lacking physical form, is that the current methods of valuation are not developed for this type of assets. Purpose: Our objective is to investigate the practical relevance of four theoretical valuation approaches in the context of patent valuation and to point out crucial factors affecting the choice of valuation approach. Procedure: Interviews were conducted with professionals working in the field of corporate finance and with an expert in the field of patents and intellectual property rights. Results: The respondents are not of the same opinion whether relevant approaches for patent valuation exist at all. Among the respondents who find it possible to value patents, the income approach is the dominating approach. The theoretical correctness of this approach, derived from the definition of value, is stressed as the primary argument for the use of it. Methods such as Decision Tree Analysis, within the income approach, and Relief from Royalty, a hybrid of the market- and income approach, are used as complements.

There is no commonly accepted definition of a business method. It ought to consist of a method or a process of doing business. Business methods constitutes a broad category of patents, it is hard to tell exactly what can be interpreted in to the term. Most of the world's legal systems have made an exception from patentability for business methods. In the USA the exception was abolished in a case 1998. Business methods were to be examined on the same criteria as other patent categories. Methods and processes, that traditionally has not been excepted from patentability, like methods for investing capital in financial markets, can now be issued patents in the USA. The business method patents could bring substantial economic values to the patent holder, and have a great impact on the development of internet-related businesses. Sweden and the European Patent Organization (EPO), which in this paper represents Europe, also has exceptions from patentability for business methods, but they have not yet been examined in a court of law. There are signs that the EPO, which includes Sweden, has taken a path similar to that of the USA.

Trademarks are distinguishing marks that are used by companies to highlight their goods or services to separate them from other companies. In Sweden, trademarks are protected by a certain Trademark Law called Varumärkeslagen. The law is a result of many years of improvements from earlier trademark laws. Since Sweden is member of the European Union, its laws are affected and in many cases inferior to laws of the Union. A new Trademark Law is about to be implemented in Sweden, thanks to a directive from the European Union. When a trademark is registered it is possible to use the symbol ® along with the trademark. This symbol indicates that the good or service can be trusted and also tells other companies that the trademark can be protected from possible infringements. Originally the symbol comes from American trademark law and in the USA there are certain regulations on how to use the symbol, regulations that we don’t have in Sweden or Europe. However, trademark registrations are done approximately in the same way in USA, Sweden and EU. In the USA an application is sent to USPTO which is correspondent to PRV in Sweden and OHIM in the EU. There are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled before and registration can take place and these conditions are also very similar if we compare the different systems. There are different systems for registration of trademarks, except the national systems. If you want to register a trademark in the EU there’s a certain system and if you’re looking to get a registration outside the Union you can do this through another system. Occasionally, some companies use the ® symbol without actually having a registration in the country where the good or service is promoted and sometimes they don’t even have a registration at all, in any country. When this happens, these companies are most often suited in court. One of these cases occurred in Germany in 1989. A German company had been marketing a blood filter that was imported from Italy. The trademark was registered in Italy but not in Germany and another operator on the German reacted. The German court found that the use of the ® symbol without a German registration was improper but considered that a prohibition might be restrictive to the principle of free movement of goods in the EU. This consideration proved to be accurate after a decision from the EU court of the. There are further cases like this one from the market courts of Sweden and Finland but in these particular cases there were no registration existing at all, not in any country. The courts passed sentence on these companies for misleading advertising. It has been proven that cases like these are not always easy to settle since national laws are affected and sometimes controlled by laws or directives of the EU. Hopefully, the new harmonized marketing law will make it easier further on. Still, there are no regulations on the use of the ® symbol in Sweden or the EU and since it seems to cause problems, if not very often, I think it would be good to introduce some common rules for this.

<p>In the academic world, open access institutional repositories (IRs) are beginning to play a vital role in storing and disseminating scholarly communication. Through this method, higher education institutions are able to showcase their intellectual outputs and to contribute to sharing and building knowledge. This evolutionary process of scholarly communication is an important feature of knowledge societies. Furthermore, IRs allow scholars to make known the research they are involved in, which can result in their academic reputation improving, as well as the reputations of the institutions they represent.</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to examine the processes of establishing IRs in the four tertiary education institutions in the Western Cape, which form part of the Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC). Within this consortium is the collaborative library project, the Cape Library Consortium (CALICO), which represents the four academic library services. The researcher investigated whether the four Western Cape Higher Education Institutions have established IRs and their experiences in doing so. They are examined in the light of the guidelines for successful IRs already established in the international professional literature on IRs. Throughout the study, the partnerships that are needed for the success of IRs, with a specific emphasis on the crucial role that the librarian might play in this regard, are a central focus.</p> <p>The study is a qualitative case study, relying on interviews with key informants from the four HEIs and analysing policy and other supporting documents. The study confirms comment in the literature that IRs evolve in &ldquo / messy&rdquo / and &ldquo / spotty&rdquo / ways. The key findings might be summarised in the form of four assertions:</p> <ul> <li>&ldquo / It is all about people&rdquo / </li> <li>Philosophical differences are significant</li> <li>Context and history cannot be ignored</li> <li>The role of the university library is ambiguous.</li> </ul> <p>It is hoped that the study of fledgling IR projects might provide insights useful to the broader IR research and professional literature.</p>

The Canadian canola breeding sector met a transition from publicly funded breeding research to large private investments in research and development (R&D). The increasing use of biotechnology tools in the mid 1990s made the assignment of plant ownership technically possible while the legislative safeguards that were put in place during the same period enabled owners to take juristic actions against potential infringers. Today, canola breeding sector is dominated by large multinational firms. The generation of proprietary knowledge in the canola breeding sector has caused a freedom to operate issue. Private and public firms conducting canola R&D are seriously concerned about their ability to gain and preserve access to key technologies in an IPR world. <p>This thesis uses the tragedy of the anticommons framework to analyze the consequences of increased intellectual property protection in the canola breeding sector. Theory suggests that when a common resource is owned by multiple owners, each of the owners has the incentive to overcharge potential users, leading to the underuse of the resource. In R&D, different owners of complementary technologies may overcharge potential R&D firms that want to assemble different technological pieces to produce a new one. The result is forgoing research and development of new products.<p>The results of personal interviews with thirteen canola researchers and IP officers are presented and analyzed. The results suggest that the increase in the intellectual property protection in the last two decades in the canola breeding sector has led to difficulties with canola R&D. These difficulties take the form of reduced access to current, proprietary and public material. With hampered access to research input material, research output is not maximized and potential research may be forgone. Interviewees described how the increase in the intellectual property protection affects their personal and organizations ability to conduct research as well as some the implications of the new IP regime on the canola breeding sector. There is indication that canola breeding sector is moving towards a super-protectionism. Under these conditions, canola R&D firms, private and public, are in search for ways that will open access to enabling technologies and research areas. The creation of platform technologies and collaborations are the most prominent ones and are observed to increase in occurrence world wide.