Hubbry Logo
Intangible propertyIntangible propertyMain
Open search
Intangible property
Community hub
Intangible property
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Intangible property
Intangible property
Intangible property
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Intangible property, also known as incorporeal property, is something that a person or corporation can have ownership of and can transfer ownership to another person or corporation, but has no physical substance, for example brand identity or knowledge/intellectual property.

Description

[edit]

Intangible property generally refers to statutory creations, such as copyright, trademarks, or patents. It excludes tangible property like real property (land, buildings, and fixtures) and personal property (ships, automobiles, tools, etc.). In some jurisdictions, intangible property are referred to as choses in action. Intangible property is used in distinction to tangible property. It is useful to note that there are two forms of intangible property: legal intangible property (which is discussed here) and competitive intangible property (which is the source from which legal intangible property is created but cannot be owned, extinguished, or transferred). Competitive intangible property disobeys the intellectual property test of voluntary extinguishment and therefore results in the sources that create intellectual property (knowledge in its source form, collaboration, process-engagement, etc.) escaping quantification.

Generally, ownership of intangible property gives the owner a set of legally enforceable rights over reproduction of personal property containing certain content.[1] For example, a copyright owner can control the reproduction of the work forming the copyright. However, the intangible property forms a set of rights separate from the tangible property that carries the rights. For example, the owner of a copyright can control the printing of books containing the content, but the book itself is personal property which can be bought and sold without concern over the rights of the copyright holder.

In English law and other Commonwealth legal systems, intangible property is traditionally divided in pure intangibles (such as debts, intellectual property rights and goodwill) and documentary intangibles, which obtain their character through the medium of a document (such as a bill of lading, promissory note or bill of exchange). The recent rise of electronic documents has blurred the distinction between pure intangibles and documentary intangibles.

Further reading

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Intangible property

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Intangible property refers to non-physical assets that hold economic value derivable from contractual or legal , lacking inherent physical substance but enforceable through , transfer, and exclusion of others. These assets encompass such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, alongside goodwill, , and certain contractual like licenses or non-compete agreements. Unlike , intangibles derive scarcity and exclusivity primarily from statutory or mechanisms rather than natural limits, enabling their role in fostering while complicating valuation due to subjective assessments of future economic benefits. In contemporary economies, intangible property increasingly dominates balance sheets, often comprising the majority of corporate value in knowledge-driven sectors like and pharmaceuticals, where it underpins competitive advantages through barriers to . Key characteristics include —separable from the entity or arising from —and potential for indefinite useful life, though many, such as patents, have finite durations tied to legal protections averaging 20 years. Legal recognition varies by jurisdiction, with frameworks like the U.S. explicitly defining intangibles to include processes, designs, and literary works for taxation and transfer purposes. Defining debates center on the application of traditional property paradigms to intangibles, questioning whether state-granted monopolies in align with natural rights or stifle broader access, as evidenced in scholarly critiques of overextension in and scopes. Enforcement challenges arise from digital replication ease, prompting ongoing reforms in international treaties and domestic laws to balance incentivization of creation against erosion. Despite these tensions, intangible property remains foundational to capital markets, with empirical studies showing firms rich in such assets outperforming peers in long-term returns due to sustained rents.

Definition and Core Concepts

Definition and Distinction from Tangible Property

Intangible property refers to assets lacking physical form but deriving economic value from enforceable legal rights or contractual entitlements, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and goodwill. These assets encompass exclusionary claims over innovations, expressions, or relational benefits, where ownership is established not through corporeal possession but via statutory or judicial recognition that prohibits unauthorized exploitation. Under standards like IAS 38, intangible assets are defined as identifiable non-monetary assets without physical substance, separable from the holder or arising from contractual or legal rights, enabling their identification, control, and transfer independent of tangible embodiments. Tangible property, by contrast, consists of physical objects—such as , machinery, vehicles, or —that can be directly sensed, possessed, and transferred through material control, with inherent arising from finite natural resources or production limits. Intangibles differ fundamentally in that their underlying elements, like ideas or processes, possess non-rivalrous qualities, allowing infinite replication without depleting the original absent intervention; legal mechanisms thus impose to facilitate , akin to how physical barriers secure tangibles but reliant on institutional rather than self-evident boundaries. This distinction manifests causally in transfer and enforcement: tangible property's value persists through direct handover or destruction of the item, whereas intangibles' worth depends on documented rights and credible deterrence against infringement, as duplication erodes exclusivity without court or administrative remedies. For example, a patented chemical formula grants monopoly rights over its commercial application, enforceable via litigation, in opposition to a physical reactor embodying the same process, whose control stems from locking access to its steel frame rather than abstract claims. Such reliance on state-backed exclusivity highlights intangibles' emergence from deliberate policy to extend property norms beyond natural homesteadable resources, prioritizing institutional credibility over inherent materiality.

Philosophical Foundations of Property Rights in Intangibles

John Locke's , articulated in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), posits that individuals acquire rightful ownership over unowned resources by mixing their labor with them, thereby transforming common elements into private property so long as sufficient resources remain for others (the ). This principle has been extended by proponents of rights to intangibles, arguing that the mental labor invested in creating ideas, inventions, or expressions generates a similar claim, as the creator "homesteads" abstract resources from the realm of undiscovered or unapplied knowledge. However, this extension faces critique for conflating tangible with the non-rivalrous nature of ideas: unlike or objects, which become depleted or rivalrous through use, ideas can be replicated infinitely without reducing the original creator's access, undermining the scarcity-based justification central to Lockean . Locke himself distinguished ideas from material property, viewing the former as potentially exempt from exclusive claims due to their immaterial and shareable essence, which avoids the conflicts inherent in physical . Lysander Spooner, in The Law of Intellectual Property (1855), advanced a natural rights defense of perpetual ownership in intangibles, contending that authors and inventors hold an inherent, unlimited claim to the fruits of their intellectual labor, akin to bodily property, and that statutory time limits on copyrights or patents impose artificial restrictions violating this natural entitlement. Spooner rejected utilitarian balancing acts, insisting that the creator's exclusive control over idea dissemination derives from self-ownership extended to mental products, without needing government-granted monopolies but opposed to any imposed decay of rights. In contrast, extensions of self-ownership to intangibles, as explored in libertarian frameworks, portray ideas as extensions of the "body of the mind," warranting protection against unauthorized replication to preserve the creator's agency over their cognitive output. Yet critics argue this analogy falters because non-rivalrous goods like pure information do not generate the exclusionary conflicts justifying traditional property; one person's use imposes no physical deprivation on another, rendering enforced exclusivity a departure from natural limits rather than their fulfillment. From a causal realist perspective, property rights in intangibles arise not from presumed or utilitarian incentives but from verifiable chains of production: the creator's mind and effort causally generate value in goods, entitling them to exclude free-riders whose uncompensated copying disrupts the causal link between labor input and output reward, potentially leading to underproduction akin to a commons tragedy in incentivized creation. This grounds rights in the objective reality of who originated the good through identifiable effort, prioritizing prevention of demonstrable harm—such as lost control over derivative uses—over blanket monopolies that may exceed causal contributions. Enforcement must thus align with of infringement's effects, avoiding assumptions of inherent in ideas and questioning equivalences with tangibles where replication costs approach zero, as digital reveals no inevitable depletion but potential for widespread access without creator dispossession. Such reasoning subordinates consequentialist defenses to the primacy of causal origins, ensuring rights derive from production realities rather than policy fiat.

Types and Classification

Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights constitute a primary category of intangible property, granting creators and owners statutory exclusivity over innovations, expressions, and identifiers to prevent unauthorized exploitation. These rights derive from legislative enactments rather than natural attributes of the assets, requiring registration or documentation in most jurisdictions for enforceability, with remedies typically pursued through civil courts for infringement damages or injunctions. Patents confer limited-term monopoly rights for novel, inventive, and industrially applicable , excluding mere discoveries or abstract ideas. Under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the , member states must provide a minimum patent term of 20 years from the filing date, calculated from the application submission to compensate for examination delays and public disclosure requirements. This exclusivity enables patentees to exclude others from making, using, or selling the , fostering through temporary market control while eventually enriching the via mandatory technical specifications in patent applications. Copyright safeguards original works of authorship expressed in fixed forms, such as books, musical compositions, software code, or , protecting the expression rather than underlying ideas or facts. The modern copyright system traces to the , enacted by the British Parliament on April 10, 1710, which vested authors with exclusive printing rights for an initial 14 years, renewable once if the author lived, marking the shift from perpetual monopolies to time-bound creator incentives. Contemporary durations vary by jurisdiction but often extend to the author's life plus 50 to 70 years, with automatic protection upon fixation in eligible countries under the , enforceable against reproduction, distribution, or derivative uses without permission. Trademarks secure indefinite protection for distinctive symbols, words, or designs that denote the source of goods or services, preventing consumer confusion. Unlike patents and copyrights, trademark rights persist as long as the mark remains in use and is periodically renewed with proof of commercial activity, such as every 10 years in the under the framework. Registration with bodies like the Patent and Trademark Office confers nationwide priority and presumptive validity, allowing owners to enjoin infringing uses that dilute brand distinctiveness or mislead markets. Trade secrets protect confidential business information deriving economic value from secrecy, such as formulas, processes, or customer lists, without formal registration but through reasonable efforts to maintain nondisclosure, like nondisclosure agreements or restricted access. These rights endure perpetually while secrecy holds, contrasting with patents' disclosure mandate, as disclosure places the information in the public domain without recourse. The Coca-Cola Company's beverage formula, safeguarded since 1886 through vault storage and limited employee access, exemplifies this mechanism, enabling over 135 years of exclusivity absent reverse engineering or breach. Enforcement targets misappropriation via theft, breach, or improper means, with remedies including injunctions and damages under statutes like the U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. Overlaps exist among IP subtypes, notably design patents, which shield novel ornamental appearances of articles, intersecting utility patents' functional claims by addressing aesthetic innovations ineligible for pure due to utility. In the U.S., design patents last 15 years from grant, complementing trademarks for product configurations when source-identifying. Such hybrid protections underscore IP's as court-enforced privileges, verifiable through grant records and infringement precedents rather than intrinsic asset qualities.

Contractual and Relational Intangibles

Contractual intangibles refer to property rights derived from enforceable agreements, where value originates from the legal obligation of one party to perform for another, rather than from independent creation or inherent scarcity. These rights, often termed choses in action, represent abstract claims enforceable only through judicial process, such as the creditor's entitlement to repayment under a instrument or the holder's option to purchase at a predetermined price. Unlike tangible assets, they lack physical form and possession, existing solely as personal rights backed by the counterparty's duty, which courts recognize as assignable property subject to legal remedies like or upon breach. Examples include contractual licenses permitting specified uses of assets and leases of non-physical resources, such as rights to broadcast frequencies or access databases, where the lessee holds an intangible interest contingent on the lessor's continued compliance. These differ from by their secondary, derivative nature—stemming from bargained-for promises rather than statutory exclusivity—and are vulnerable to termination clauses or mutual rescission, underscoring their reliance on relational enforcement rather than absolute ownership. In jurisdictions, such rights evolved as incorporeal property, transferable via assignment but requiring to the obligor to bind successors. Relational intangibles arise from ongoing business associations, formalized through covenants that safeguard expected benefits from counterparties, such as non-compete clauses restricting former employees or partners from soliciting established . Customer lists, when protected by contractual provisions, exemplify these assets, deriving worth from the anticipated continuity of commercial ties rather than list compilation alone, though courts scrutinize enforceability based on legitimate interests like preventing unfair diversion of goodwill. Breach of these covenants disrupts the causal link to future performance, as seen in cases where non-compliance erodes relational value through lost , enforceable via injunctions tied to the original agreement's terms. The enforceability of these intangibles hinges on principles of contract law, where implied rights—such as covenants of —bolster explicit terms, ensuring the obligor's performance aligns with the parties' intent without extending to non-parties. This framework, rooted in precedents affirming choses as suable interests, highlights their fragility: value evaporates if the defaults or disputes validity, necessitating robust drafting to mitigate risks like in relational scopes.

Business and Financial Intangibles

Business and financial intangibles encompass enterprise-specific assets that contribute to a firm's ongoing operational value, such as goodwill and assembled , which arise from synergies and relational factors rather than discrete legal entitlements like patents. These assets enhance the going-concern value by facilitating continued operations and competitive advantages derived from market-observed behaviors, including acquisition premiums paid for established customer bases or trained personnel, contrasting with property's reliance on statutory grants. Goodwill represents the residual excess of purchase consideration over the of identifiable net assets acquired in a business combination, capturing unidentifiable elements like , synergies, and post-merger operational efficiencies. Under IFRS 3, goodwill is recognized as an asset embodying future economic benefits from assets not individually identifiable, such as the premium paid in acquisitions where buyers value entrenched market positions—evidenced by empirical data from firm exits showing capitalized intangibles tied to observable transaction prices from 1978 to 2017. This valuation stems from market behaviors, like bidding premiums reflecting proven streams, rather than speculative potentials. Assembled , as a intangible, denotes the cohesive collection of skilled employees enabling seamless business continuity post-acquisition, often subsumed within goodwill rather than recognized separately due to its non-separable nature under standards like ASC 805. It includes value from proprietary training and institutional , empirically inferred from reduced turnover costs and sustained in acquired entities, but lacks standalone as it cannot be sold without disrupting operations. Identifiable financial intangibles, such as franchise agreements or favorable contract-based rights, are recognized under IAS 38 when they meet criteria of controllability and separability, exemplified by licensing deals granting exclusive operational rights that generate verifiable cash flows. These differ from broader financial instruments like , which fall under as monetary assets, by deriving value from contractual terms observable in market transactions, such as franchise fees reflecting branded network synergies. Valuation relies on empirical inputs like discounted cash flows from historical agreement performance, ensuring grounding in realized over abstract projections.

Historical Development

In medieval , craft guilds provided the primary mechanism for protecting intangible knowledge such as proprietary techniques and recipes, enforcing through internal rules, oaths, and penalties like fines or expulsion for unauthorized disclosure. These guilds treated technical know-how as tied to the system, where masters invested labor in training, deriving exclusive use from verifiable efforts rather than abstract rights; breaches were addressed via customary tribunals rather than state courts, reflecting a practical recognition that uncontrolled undermined the economic value created by such labor. The advent of the movable-type , developed by around 1440, intensified concerns over unauthorized replication by enabling mass production of texts, leading rulers to issue ad hoc privileges granting printers temporary monopolies on specific works to recoup investments and curb . In , such privileges evolved into formalized protections; by 1469, the state awarded exclusive printing rights, culminating in the Senate's decree of March 19, 1474, which established Europe's first statutory , awarding inventors a 10-year to "any new and ingenious device" not previously made in the dominion, provided they disclosed the method and refrained from exporting key artisans. This measure balanced incentives for disclosure against , fostering in glassmaking and machinery while limiting scope to utility and novelty verifiable by officials. English , influenced by Venetian practices, saw early royal granting inventors limited monopolies from the late , often for imported techniques, but these were prone to abuse as favors rather than merit-based rewards. Courts of equity, prior to statutory codification, intervened in cases of misappropriated confidences obtained through trust or , issuing injunctions against disclosure based on the equitable that one acquiring secrets under of could not exploit them unjustly, as seen in precedents enforcing apprentices' non-disclosure covenants. Such protections remained narrow, secondary to tangible assets like land, and contingent on demonstrated harm from breach, without presuming inherent in ideas apart from their embodiment or contractual bounds.

19th-20th Century Codification and Expansion

The U.S. Constitution of 1787 granted Congress explicit authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 to secure exclusive rights for authors and inventors to promote science and useful arts, laying early groundwork for federal codification of patents and copyrights amid growing industrialization. In the , the Act of consolidated prior statutes, extending protection to authors' lifetimes plus seven years or 42 years from , whichever was longer, thereby standardizing literary copyrights in response to expanded technologies and trade demands. International harmonization accelerated with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed on March 20, 1883, which established reciprocal national treatment for patents, trademarks, and industrial designs among member states, addressing cross-border exploitation driven by 19th-century trade growth. Similarly, the of September 9, 1886, introduced automatic protection without formalities for literary and artistic works, with revisions such as the 1908 Berlin update extending coverage to emerging formats like . These treaties marked a shift from purely national regimes to institutionalized frameworks, spurred by causal pressures from technological proliferation, including Thomas Edison's 1877 invention, which necessitated extensions for mechanical reproductions as evidenced by the U.S. granting composers rights over sound recordings. Twentieth-century expansions reflected surging innovation, with U.S. grants rising from 24,598 in 1900 to 175,923 utility s in 2000, correlating with industrialization and post-war economic booms that amplified filings. Berne and conventions underwent multiple revisions, enhancing enforcement and scope, while the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), evolving from , increasingly linked IP to trade disciplines, culminating in the Uruguay Round's 1986–1994 negotiations that produced the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Rights (TRIPS), mandating minimum standards enforceable via WTO mechanisms. This progression formalized intangible property as a of global , driven by verifiable surges in applications amid mechanical and electrical advancements rather than mere advocacy.

Post-2000 Globalization and Digital Era Shifts

The post-2000 era saw intensified global enforcement of intangible property rights under the WTO's , with developed nations pushing bilateral and plurilateral initiatives to address non-compliance in emerging markets and counterfeiting surges. Efforts included agreements incorporating TRIPS-plus standards, such as enhanced border measures and criminal penalties for IP violations, reflecting a causal link between weak enforcement and economic losses estimated at hundreds of billions annually in in counterfeit goods. Digital technologies amplified challenges to traditional intangible protections, prompting responses like the (ACTA) negotiated in 2011 among parties including the , , , and others to standardize enforcement against and counterfeits, including provisions for and intermediary liability. Though signed by several nations, ACTA faced widespread protests over perceived overreach on and failed ratification in the EU Parliament in 2012, highlighting tensions between global harmonization and domestic sovereignty. In parallel, the EU's Directive on Copyright in the (2019/790), adopted April 17, 2019, modernized rules for online content sharing, mandating platforms to filter uploads for infringing material and negotiate licenses with rightholders, aiming to balance creator remuneration with digital access amid streaming's dominance. Emerging technologies like AI and tested intangible property boundaries, with the US Copyright Office's 2023-2025 initiatives analyzing generative AI training on copyrighted works as potentially qualifying as on a case-by-case basis, depending on transformative purpose, market harm, and input scale, without a blanket exemption. Software patents, post the US Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank () decision narrowing abstract idea eligibility, nonetheless proliferated in areas like AI algorithms and , underpinning innovation in tech sectors. Blockchain-based non-fungible tokens (NFTs) peaked in 2021 with global sales volumes exceeding $17 billion, experimenting with tokenized ownership of digital intangibles like art and collectibles, though subsequent market corrections exposed volatility and unresolved legal status under traditional IP regimes. Empirically, these shifts correlated with intangibles comprising 90% of market value by 2020, up from 17% in 1975, driven by software, data, and brands in knowledge economies, as firms leveraged patents and copyrights to capture digital value amid globalization's integrations. This trend underscored causal realism in policy: stronger intangible protections incentivized R&D investment, with studies linking IP-intensive industries to higher productivity growth, though enforcement gaps in digital domains persisted.

National and International Regimes

In the , intangible property rights are protected through a federal statutory framework rooted in traditions, where the of 1946 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.) governs trademarks by establishing a national registration system and remedies against infringing uses. are regulated under Title 35 of the U.S. Code (35 U.S.C.), which outlines criteria, examination procedures, and a term of 20 years from filing for utility patents, administered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. approaches in such systems integrate judicial precedents to interpret statutes, allowing flexibility in addressing novel disputes like or patent obviousness. The contrasts with a civil law-oriented unitary regime, exemplified by the European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) system, which grants a single right effective across all 27 member states upon registration with the , covering absolute and relative grounds for refusal without requiring use for initial validity. Civil law jurisdictions emphasize comprehensive statutory codes over expansive , leading to harmonized protections like the EU's 10-year renewable trademark term, though national courts apply interpretations aligned with EU directives. This unitary model reduces fragmentation compared to decentralized filings but mandates uniform enforcement standards. Internationally, the (WIPO) administers foundational treaties, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), which establishes priority rights for s and trademarks across member states, and the for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), providing automatic protection without formalities for life plus 50 years minimum. The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) sets binding minimum standards for WTO members, mandating availability for inventions in all technology fields with a non-extendable term of 20 years from filing, alongside national treatment and most-favored-nation principles. Variations persist in implementation, as in , where state-driven regimes have incorporated reforms via the 2020 U.S.-China Phase One Economic and Trade Agreement, which committed to strengthened linkages with regulatory approvals, criminal penalties for theft, and improved administrative enforcement. WIPO statistics reflect these dynamics, with global filings reaching 3.5 million in 2023—a 1.7% increase—led by accounting for 49% of applications, indicating rising activity amid ongoing regime adaptations.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedies

Enforcement of intangible property rights, particularly , primarily occurs through civil litigation, where courts issue injunctions to halt infringing activities and award to compensate owners. In the United States, under the , owners may elect statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per infringed work, escalating to $150,000 for willful infringement, as an alternative to proving actual damages such as lost profits or licensing fees. Actual damages require of direct financial harm, while statutory damages simplify recovery when quantification is challenging. For patents and trademarks, injunctions remain a core remedy, though post-2006 Inc. v. MercExchange standards require courts to assess irreparable harm, balance equities, and consider before granting permanent injunctions, reducing automatic relief. Criminal penalties target willful and large-scale infringement to deter severe violations. The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997 amended U.S. law to impose charges for reproducing or distributing copyrighted works exceeding $1,000 in value over 180 days, even without commercial advantage or private financial gain, with penalties up to five years imprisonment for first offenses and fines. This shifted focus from profit-driven to non-commercial willful acts, enhancing deterrence through imprisonment and . Technological measures bolster enforcement by preventing unauthorized access and use. systems encrypt content, restrict copying, and track usage via licenses, effectively controlling distribution of software, media, and digital assets as a proactive complement to legal remedies. These tools enforce rights causally by rendering infringement technically infeasible, though circumvention itself may violate laws like the . International cooperation addresses cross-border infringement through organizations like , which supports IP crime investigations via training programs such as the International IP Crime Investigators College (IIPCIC), offering courses to over 600 agencies in 150 countries on detecting counterfeit goods and digital piracy. Operations target illicit markets, including pharmaceuticals, with units focused on IP crime and public health risks. High-profile cases illustrate enforcement outcomes. In Oracle America, Inc. v. LLC (2021), the U.S. ruled 6-2 that 's replication of 11,500 lines of API declaring code for Android constituted , denying infringement remedies despite initial jury findings of copying, as the use was transformative and did not harm the market for Java. This decision limited copyright enforcement scope for functional software elements, emphasizing innovation over strict property exclusion. Empirical data highlights enforcement challenges, particularly for small holders. Patent litigation costs average $2.3 million to $4 million per case, spanning one to three years, creating barriers that deter individual inventors from pursuing claims against larger infringers. Successful plaintiffs obtain injunctions in about 75% of cases post-eBay, but overall litigation success rates for rights holders remain low due to settlement pressures and proof burdens, with inter partes review (IPR) challenges succeeding against s 70% of the time in 2023. These costs and variable outcomes underscore that while mechanisms exist, practical deterrence favors well-resourced owners.

Jurisdictional Variations and Conflicts

Significant variations in the treatment of intangible property arise between jurisdictions, particularly in copyright regimes where the employs a flexible doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107, allowing courts to weigh factors such as purpose, nature, amount, and market effect of unauthorized uses, in contrast to the European Union's closed list of enumerated exceptions in Directive 2001/29/EC, which lacks equivalent flexibility. in the EU, encompassing attribution and integrity, are inalienable and often perpetual—extending beyond economic rights' lifespan in countries like —while the U.S. provides no federal for most works, prioritizing economic transferability under the of 1990's narrow scope. These divergences create enforcement frictions, as U.S. entities may defend transformative uses domestically but face stricter liability abroad, complicating cross-border licensing and litigation. Developing nations leverage flexibilities for compulsory licensing to address needs, permitting governments to authorize generic production without holder consent under WTO Article 31 if conditions like national emergencies or inadequate supply are met. A prominent example occurred in on March 12, 2012, when the granted a for Bayer's tosylate (Nexavar), a kidney and drug, citing its unaffordable pricing—approximately 280,000 rupees monthly—and failure to meet local working requirements under Section 84 of the Patents Act, reducing costs to 8,800 rupees and enabling broader access despite Bayer's objections. Such measures, while compliant with TRIPS safeguards, provoke disputes with originator nations, as they undermine exclusive rights incentivizing innovation, leading to bilateral pressures and WTO challenges. Forum shopping exacerbates jurisdictional conflicts, with rights holders selecting venues perceived as favorable for injunctions or , such as U.S. district courts known for patent-friendly outcomes versus fragmented EU national courts. Extraterritorial assertions amplify tensions, exemplified by the EU's (GDPR), effective May 25, 2018, which imposes compliance on non-EU entities processing personal data of EU residents—treating data as a protectable intangible—through fines up to 4% of global turnover, as seen in enforcement against U.S. tech firms like Meta for transatlantic data transfers. This has compelled global redesigns of data architectures, raising concerns over U.S. objections to EU overreach via mechanisms like the Privacy Shield invalidation in 2020. U.S.-China trade disputes from 2018 to 2020 spotlighted systemic enforcement gaps, with the 2013 IP Commission Report estimating annual U.S. losses from Chinese state-sponsored theft, counterfeiting, and cyber intrusions at $225-600 billion, encompassing trade secrets and proprietary intangibles critical to sectors like semiconductors. Phase One of the January 2020 agreement mandated China enhance IP protections and curb forced technology transfers, yet persistent discrepancies—such as divergent standards for trade secret validity and remedies—underscore causal barriers to mutual recognition, perpetuating reliance on tariffs and unilateral sanctions over harmonized regimes.

Economic Role and Valuation

Contribution to Modern Economies

In advanced economies, intangible property has driven a profound shift toward knowledge-based value creation, with investments in such assets increasingly outpacing those in . In the United States, spending on intangible assets surpassed tangible investments as a share of GDP in the late , a trend that has since accelerated, reflecting broader economic reliance on for growth. By 2017, U.S. intangible stood at 1.4 times the level of tangible investment, underscoring the of intangibles, which can be replicated at near-zero unlike physical assets. Globally, intangible expanded to 13.6% of GDP by 2024, up from 10% in 1995, growing over four times faster than tangible investment during this period and fueling in sectors dependent on ideas and data. This macro-level dominance manifests in IP-intensive industries, which leverage patents, copyrights, and trademarks to capture value from innovations. In the U.S., these industries generated $7.8 trillion in in 2019, equivalent to about 36% of total GDP, while employing 44% of the workforce at wages 60% above the national average. Comparable contributions appear in other advanced economies; for instance, in high-income nations like and the U.S., intangible investment exceeded 16% of GDP in 2023, primarily through software, databases, and R&D that enable efficient idea dissemination and specialization. Post-1980s developments, including expanded IP frameworks, amplified this by promoting cross-border in disembodied , allowing firms to specialize in high-value abstractions rather than resource-intensive . Intangible property thus underpins modern economic structures by facilitating the transition to service- and tech-dominated output, where assets like algorithms and designs generate outsized returns through network effects and global licensing. In firms, for example, robust IP portfolios protect core competencies, contributing to market leadership in an era where physical goods increasingly commoditize. This causal dynamic—rooted in exclusive rights enabling investment recovery via idea trading—has elevated intangibles as the primary engine of wealth in economies, distinct from traditional .

Methods of Valuation and Accounting Treatment

The valuation of intangible assets employs three principal approaches as defined in International Valuation Standards (IVS) 210: the income approach, market approach, and cost approach. The income approach estimates value based on the of expected future economic benefits attributable to the asset, such as discounted flows (DCF) from royalties or cost savings, requiring projections of revenue streams, discount rates, and growth assumptions specific to the intangible. The market approach derives value from comparable transactions or sales of similar intangibles, such as auctions or licensing deals, adjusted for differences in attributes like maturity or market conditions. The cost approach measures the expense to reproduce or replace the asset's functionality, including development costs minus , suitable for assets lacking active markets or reliable income forecasts. In accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP, finite-lived intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives, while indefinite-lived intangibles, including goodwill, undergo annual impairment testing per FASB ASC 350. Impairment occurs when an asset's carrying amount exceeds its , determined via the aforementioned valuation approaches, with qualitative assessments optional before quantitative analysis to assess triggering events like adverse market changes. For business combinations, identifies and values intangibles separately from goodwill; in Microsoft's October 13, 2023, acquisition of for $68.7 billion, this resulted in $22.0 billion allocated to identifiable intangible assets (e.g., customer relationships and trademarks) and $50.4 billion to goodwill. Challenges in these methods stem from inherent subjectivity, particularly in DCF projections under the income approach, where assumptions about future flows and discount rates can vary widely and lead to overstated values if overly optimistic. External audits mitigate but do not eliminate this risk, as evidenced in Enron's pre-2001 shift toward intangible-dominated assets, which amplified reporting volatility and facilitated aggressive mark-to-market practices contributing to the firm's $63.4 billion asset collapse in 2001. Market and cost approaches face limitations from scarce comparables for unique intangibles, underscoring the need for triangulation across methods to enhance reliability.

Empirical Evidence on Incentives and Growth

Empirical studies on the incentives provided by and other intangible property rights reveal a generally positive but context-dependent impact on and growth. A comprehensive survey of over 200 studies by Hall and Helmers (2018) finds that stronger patent protections correlate with increased R&D expenditures and outputs, particularly through incentives that encourage firms to invest in uncertain projects with high fixed costs. Cross-country analyses further support this, showing that higher patenting intensity is associated with sectoral gains; for example, a one-standard-deviation increase in log-patenting activity raises output per worker growth by approximately 1.1 percentage points on average across industries. These findings rebut claims by Boldrin and (2013), who assert no empirical link between patents and based on selective historical , as broader econometric evidence from panel regressions demonstrates causal spillovers from patent-induced R&D to downstream and growth. Sectoral variations highlight the role of enforcement and technology characteristics in mediating effects. In pharmaceuticals, where development timelines often exceed 10-15 years and costs reach billions per drug, exclusivity demonstrably drives R&D investment; empirical analyses of disease-specific from 1990-2006 show that extended protections increase funding and output in patented areas, with firms recouping investments only through temporary monopoly pricing. Conversely, in software and , where is highly cumulative and low-cost to imitate, studies indicate weaker direct from patents to breakthrough inventions, as thickets of overlapping claims can raise transaction costs and deter follow-on work without commensurate incentive gains. Meta-analyses from organizations like WIPO underscore this context-dependency, with stronger positive effects on innovation observed in high-enforcement jurisdictions that minimize litigation frictions and ensure predictable rights. For instance, WIPO's examination of global IP trends in the 2020s reveals that robust intangible protections amplify spillovers to economic growth in knowledge-intensive sectors, though diminished returns emerge in low-IP regimes or mature technologies where alternative incentives like first-mover advantages dominate. Overall, causal evidence from instrumental variable approaches and natural experiments consistently affirms that intangible property incentivizes growth by internalizing knowledge externalities, albeit with diminishing marginal returns as patent stocks accumulate.

Controversies and Critical Perspectives

Debates on Scarcity and Natural Rights

Proponents of (IP) from a natural rights perspective argue that such rights extend the foundational of in tangible goods to the intangible products of mental labor, positing that creators hold a moral claim to the fruits of their effort akin to physical ownership. This view, influenced by Lockean labor theory, contends that IP enforces where natural abundance might otherwise undermine incentives, thereby internalizing the externalities of creation by granting exclusive control over reproduction and use. articulated this as patents and copyrights being "the legal implementation of the base of all rights: a man's right to the product of his mind," emphasizing that without such protections, the mind's output would be expropriated, violating the creator's . Opponents counter that ideas, unlike physical objects, possess no inherent , rendering IP an artificial imposition that contravenes natural rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-rivalrous goods. , in correspondence dated August 13, 1813, asserted that "inventions cannot, in nature, be a subject of ," as their dissemination imposes no natural rivalry or depletion, and any exclusive rights derive solely from societal policy to spur utility, not pre-existing entitlement. This ontological distinction highlights that copying an idea leaves the original intact and unimpaired, challenging claims of "" as metaphorical rather than literal, with IP thus creating ex nihilo to favor select creators at the expense of communal access. Central to these disputes is the requirement for causal evidence of harm from unpropertized ideas, rather than presuming loss from hypothetical underinvestment; first-principles analysis questions whether state intervention legitimately fabricates property where natural conditions preclude rivalry, demanding empirical demonstration that replication directly diminishes the originator's yield absent IP. Critics like Mark Lemley note that while IP simulates to mimic tangible property's economics, advancing technologies erode even this constructed limit, underscoring the contingency of such rights on verifiable, non-speculative injury rather than abstract moral desert. Proponents, however, maintain that without enforced exclusivity, the labor invested in ideation yields no reciprocal control, akin to uncompensated seizure, though this hinges on accepting mental products as ontologically equivalent to scarce resources—a contested by the infinite replicability of thought itself.

Economic and Innovation Critiques

regimes incentivize by granting temporary monopolies that enable recoupment of high upfront costs, exemplified by the patent-driven race among firms to develop mRNA vaccines against , where protections facilitated rapid commercialization by companies like and following decades of foundational work. This mechanism has been credited with accelerating breakthroughs in high-risk fields, as exclusive rights allow firms to capture returns sufficient to justify investments otherwise deterred by free-rider problems in generation. However, such monopolies impose deadweight losses through elevated prices and restricted , reducing societal utilization of inventions below socially optimal levels and potentially yielding net welfare reductions if innovation incentives prove overstated relative to access costs. Critiques emphasize how practices like patent evergreening—minor formulation changes or secondary patents on existing drugs—prolong exclusivity without commensurate innovative gains, deterring Schumpeterian by erecting barriers to generic entry and follow-on research in pharmaceuticals. Empirical analyses indicate these strategies shift dynamic toward defensive accumulation rather than novel advancements, with originators and generics alike facing heightened and reduced incentives for substantial improvements. In the United States, non-practicing entities (often labeled patent trolls) exacerbate these inefficiencies by acquiring broad or vague s primarily for litigation, comprising 62% of infringement suits by 2013 and generating annual direct out-of-pocket costs exceeding $29 billion for defendants, predominantly without producing new technologies or advancing . This surge in defensive patenting and assertion raises transaction costs across industries, diverting resources from productive R&D to legal maneuvers and eroding the system's utilitarian rationale. Developing countries highlight access tradeoffs, where stringent IP enforcement on pharmaceuticals has historically inflated prices for critical treatments; prior to generic entry via compulsory licensing, patented antiretrovirals cost thousands annually per patient in regions like , limiting treatment to millions until price drops of over 90% followed patent circumvention or expiration, as in Brazil's program saving equivalent to treating 100,000 additional patients yearly. While patents arguably sustain global R&D funding—correlating with higher unsubsidized drug availability—causal evidence from low-income contexts shows they independently elevate prices, prompting debates on whether alternative mechanisms, like prizes, could better align incentives with broad dissemination without monopoly distortions.

Libertarian and Property Rights Objections

Libertarian critics of (IP) regimes contend that such laws create state-enforced monopolies that infringe on the property rights of individuals over their tangible resources, rather than extending genuine ownership to abstract ideas or patterns. In his 2001 essay "Against Intellectual Property," published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, patent attorney N. Stephan Kinsella argues that IP rights, including copyrights and patents, do not qualify as true property because ideas are non-scarce and non-rivalrous; enforcing them requires restricting others' use of their own physical property, such as ink, paper, or machinery, to replicate independently conceived similar works. Kinsella maintains that this violates the libertarian by privileging intangible claims over concrete ownership, effectively granting creators a perpetual over rivals' productive activities without scarce resources. Within libertarian thought, significant divisions exist on IP's legitimacy, reflecting tensions between natural rights absolutism and contractual alternatives to state intervention. Pro-IP advocates like viewed ideas as ownable through voluntary contracts, enforceable in a without patents, while Andrew J. Galambos extended property to primary ideas derivable from one's mind, proposing private enforcement mechanisms over statutory monopolies. In contrast, expressed ambivalence, rejecting patents as unjustified grants but tentatively accepting limited copyrights achievable through contract rather than legislation. Nineteenth-century individualist anarchists further highlighted this split: defended perpetual copyrights and patents as natural extensions of labor-mixing with ideas, binding even without state backing, whereas denounced them as monopolistic barriers to free exchange and speech, incompatible with due to their reliance on statutory privileges that limit competition. Tucker's opposition emphasized that IP laws impose on non-scarce information, echoing Spooner's own contractual leanings but rejecting any coercive enforcement as a flaw in state-like overreach. Critics highlight IP's practical overreach, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, which enables notice-and-takedown processes often abused for censoring non-infringing speech, including political criticism and fair use, under threat of intermediary liability. Kinsella and like-minded libertarians advocate replacing IP with private covenants, such as non-disclosure agreements or trade secrecy enforced via contract in a stateless order, which avoid blanket prohibitions on independent creation and align with homesteading principles for tangible goods. These views find contemporary resonance in open-source software communities and cryptocurrency projects, where Bitcoin's open protocol—released without IP claims in 2008—embodies an ethos of permissionless innovation, prioritizing decentralized code sharing over proprietary restrictions to foster rapid, voluntary collaboration.

References

  1. https://wyoleg.gov/2004/interim/rev/PropDef.pdf
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-1746766792-1866294569&term_occur=21&term_src=title:26:subtitle:B:chapter:12:subchapter:A:section:2501
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intangible-personal-property.asp
  4. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-107-6279?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  5. https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-38-intangible-assets/
  6. https://www.numeric.io/glossary/intangible-assets
  7. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intangibleasset.asp
  8. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-are-intangible-assets-in-economics-and-why-are-they-important
  9. https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/business_combination/business_combination__28_US/chapter_4_intangible_US/43_types_of_identifi_US.html
  10. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/621/
  11. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/intellectual-property-rights-are-complicated-creatures/
  12. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intangible_property
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=26-USC-1746766792-1866294569&term_occur=21&term_src=title:26:subtitle:B:chapter:12:subchapter:A:section:2501
  14. https://www.brmmlaw.com/blog/2024/august/tangible-vs-intangible-property/
  15. https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/entrepreneur-toolkit/templates-business-guides/glossary/tangible-and-intangible-assets
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9244109/
  17. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/intangible-assets
  18. https://www.millerlawattorneys.com/single-post/understanding-tangible-and-intangible-property-in-the-legal-world
  19. https://lawliberty.org/forum/why-intellectual-property-rights-a-lockean-justification/
  20. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=sdlr
  21. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-the-law-of-intellectual-property-1855
  22. https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/liberty-matters/2016-01-29-lysander-spooner-s-theory-of-property
  23. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3208&context=facpubs
  24. https://www.tracinskiletter.com/p/the-causal-theory-of-property
  25. https://ndlawreview.org/intellectual-property-and-the-myth-of-nonrivalry/
  26. https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/mengers-principles-economics-praise-causal-realism
  27. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm
  28. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/pharma_ato186_e.htm
  29. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/anne_1710.asp
  30. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright
  31. https://www.klemchuk.com/ideate/coca-cola-trade-secrets-patents-ip-strategy
  32. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/patents
  33. https://assignments.uslegal.com/subject-matter-of-assignments/choses-in-action/
  34. https://hallellis.co.uk/chose-in-action/
  35. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=flr
  36. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2838&context=ilj
  37. https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2023/01/noncompete-agreements-protecting-referral-relationships-legitimate-business-interests/
  38. https://www.thebusinessdivorcelawyer.com/protect-the-intagible-assets-of-a-closely-held-business-with-bulletproofing/
  39. https://asma3.theoraclelegalgroup.com/the-role-of-non-compete-agreements-in-business-acquisitions/
  40. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-107-5828?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  41. https://www.everedgeglobal.com/news/without-non-competes-how-can-you-protect-intangible-assets/
  42. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp
  43. https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/business_combination/business_combination__28_US/chapter_1_scope_US/12_definition_of_a_b_US.html
  44. https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ifrs/ifrs3
  45. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02058
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296398001210
  47. https://dart.deloitte.com/USDART/home/codification/broad-transactions/asc805-10/roadmap-business-combinations/chapter-4-recognizing-measuring-identifiable-assets/4-10-intangible-assets
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092911991630092X
  49. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-trade-secrets-and-innovation/en/foreword.html
  50. https://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJIPR/VOLUME_13_ISSUE_2/IJIPR_13_02_001.pdf
  51. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8014.html
  52. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24118/w24118.pdf
  53. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2078&context=faculty_publications
  54. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/literary-copyright-reform-in-early-victorian-england/copyright-act-1842/B14A5C56C680E18A7965ECB45DA04431
  56. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514
  57. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698
  58. https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2017/05/copyright-law-and-new-technologies-a-long-and-complex-relationship/
  59. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm
  60. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm
  61. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ipenforcement_e.htm
  62. https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally/
  63. https://ustr.gov/acta
  64. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj/eng
  65. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
  66. https://www.copyright.gov/policy/artificial-intelligence/
  67. https://oceantomo.com/intangible-asset-market-value-study/
  68. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tradeinknowledge22_e.htm
  69. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21469
  70. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35
  71. https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/trade-marks
  72. https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/history.html
  73. https://ustr.gov/phase-one
  74. https://www.wipo.int/web/ip-statistics/w/world-intellectual-property-indicators-report-global-patent-filings-reach-record-high-in-2023
  75. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
  76. https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/statutory-damages-why-do-they-matter/
  77. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
  78. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-deterioration-of-appropriate-remedies-in-patent-disputes
  79. https://www.copyright.gov/docs/2265_stat.html
  80. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/no-electronic-theft-act.html
  81. https://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju48724.000/hju48724_0f.htm
  82. https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/digital-rights-management-drm
  83. https://business.adobe.com/blog/basics/digital-rights-management
  84. https://www.iipcic.org/
  85. https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Illicit-goods/Pharmaceutical-crime-operations
  86. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
  87. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/171112652/download
  88. https://damore-mckim.northeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/actw_efficiency_patent_litigation.pdf
  89. https://patentpc.com/blog/patent-litigation-statistics-an-overview-of-recent-trends
  90. https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACUS%2520Report%2520on%2520Patent%2520Small%2520Claims%25202023.pdf
  91. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1013cebf-9e8e-41a0-bac0-595f0e04133b
  92. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2020/08/04/10-ways-eu-copyright-is-different-from-the-us/
  93. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/pharmpatent_e.htm
  94. https://msfaccess.org/background-information-indias-first-compulsory-licence
  95. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=mtlr
  96. https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/publications/2019/07/the-extra-territorial-reach-of-eu-data-protection-law
  97. https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/IP_Commission_Report_Update.pdf
  98. https://apnews.com/counterfeiters-hackers-cost-us-up-to-600-billion-a-year-2234bddc68c14ba18d4d403442187c59
  99. https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/IP_Commission_Report.pdf
  100. https://www.counterfire.org/article/intangibles-does-it-change-things/
  101. https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/articles/article_onejob.pdf
  102. https://ponsip.com/en/ip-news/news/investment-in-intangible-assets-grows-four-times-faster-than-tangible-investment-and-consolidates-itself-as-a-driving-force-behind-the-global-economy/
  103. https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/03/17/uspto-report-says-ip-intensive-industries-account-44-us-employment-pay-60-more/
  104. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/world-intangible-investment-highlights-better-data-for-better-policy/en/world-intangible-investment-highlights.html
  105. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/trade-investment-and-intangibles_750f13e6-en.html
  106. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.36.3.3
  107. https://www.ivsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/IVS210IntangibleAssets.pdf
  108. https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/business_combination/business_combination__28_US/chapter_8_accounting_US/83_impairment_of_ind_US.html
  109. https://microsoft.gcs-web.com/static-files/e2931fdb-9823-4130-b2a8-f6b8db0b15a9
  110. https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-best-methods-identify-value-intangible-assets
  111. https://www.wcu.edu/gpae/Vol3/Enron%2520and%2520Aurhur%2520Andersen.pdf
  112. https://woodbridgegrp.com/blog-posts/challenges-in-valuing-intangible-assets-in-your-mid-sized-business/
  113. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25383/w25383.pdf
  114. https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/publications/working-papers/2022/wp2022-15-pdf.pdf?sc_lang=en
  115. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.27.1.3
  116. https://www.ifpma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/i2023_5.-Patent-Protection-as-a-Key-Driver-for-Pharmaceutical-Innovation.pdf
  117. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-944-2022-en-world-intellectual-property-report-2022.pdf
  118. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4526
  119. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18631/w18631.pdf
  120. https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
  121. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-constitutional-foundations-of-intellectual-property-a-natural-rights-perspective
  122. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0322
  123. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
  124. https://nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-90-number-2/ip-in-a-world-without-scarcity/
  125. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/95psa.html
  126. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01376-1
  127. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/27971/chapter/211602821
  128. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/Roin_ART.pdf
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7592140/
  130. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf
  131. https://hbr.org/2022/09/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-tackle-patent-trolls
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1118638/
  133. https://msfaccess.org/impact-patents-access-medicines
  134. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840500438954
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10124861/
  136. https://stephankinsella.com/publications/against-intellectual-property/
  137. https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf
  138. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-views-intellectual-property-rothbard-tucker-spooner-rand
  139. https://c4ss.org/content/59393
  140. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-intellectual-property
  141. https://c4sif.org/2022/07/benjamin-tucker-and-the-great-nineteenth-century-ip-debates-in-liberty-magazine/
  142. https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/censorship
  143. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella_a_patent_attorney_and/
  144. https://fee.org/articles/the-ideological-origins-of-bitcoin/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.