Search the archive.

Nowadays, an increasing number of counterfeit leather products are arising in the market. To obtain high profits, some illegal traders counterfeit all kinds of bestselling leather products, which infringes the intellectual property rights of the business, causes huge economic loss, and negatively influence the business enthusiasm for innovation [1–3]. So far, anti-counterfeiting technology has been an effective method to curb the spread of counterfeit products. However, the traditional anticounterfeiting technologies ranging from watermarks [4], holography [5–7], and two-dimensional barcodes [8], are difficult to reach the effective anti-counterfeiting purpose due to the simple preparation process and visible patterns. Invisible anti-counterfeiting materials have attracted the attention of researchers by their high concealment properties [9–11]. The most frequently used invisible anti-counterfeiting technology in leather products is to draw invisible anti-counterfeiting labels (ACLs) with organic fluorescent dyes [12]. Generally, such labels suffer from short service life due to the photobleaching of organic dyes under irradiation [13, 14]. One way to address this issue is to use fluorescent inorganic nanomaterials to prepare these invisible ACLs [15–17], e.g., quantum dots. However, they are toxic[13] and often require ultraviolet (UV) photons to achieve the anti-counterfeiting function. It is well known that UV light may cause the degradation of organic materials in the ACLs and shorten their service life [18–20]. Therefore, searching for a non-toxic inorganic material having good luminescent stability to prepare ACLs remains a grand challenge

Increase in IP theft IP theft has increased in recent years. Investigations of foreign infringement of domestic intellectual property rights have risen in eight of the last ten years, from 17 cases in 2002 to 69 cases in 2011.4 Moreover, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of cases in recent years, with the number of cases investigated by the United States International Trade Commission (U.S. ITC) rising by 80.6 percent and 23.2 percent in 2010 and 2011, respectively (see Figure 1). U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports that consumer electronics (22.0 percent), footwear (14.0 percent) pharmaceuticals (9.0 percent) and optical media (9.0 percent) made up more than half of the total domestic value of counterfeit goods entering the United States in 2011.5 Goods from China accounted for more than three-fourths of the value of counterfeit products seized in the United States from 2004-2009.6 But the problem is not limited to the United States. Counterfeiting and piracy have become increasingly pervasive in international trade. Estimates show that trade in counterfeit and pirated products as a share of all globally-traded commodities increased by 7.6 percent between 2000 and 2007.7 These figures underestimate the full extent of the problem since electronic piracy is excluded. Infringement of intellectual property rights Businesses often experience lost revenue and ultimately lower profits when sales are diverted from authentic goods to counterfeit ones. In addition to lower sales, profits are also adversely affected by the additional costs required to protect the firm from future episodes of intellectual property infringement.8 One estimate found that the average company lost $101.9 million in revenues and incurred costs of $1.4 million in identification and enforcement of intellectual property rights, leading to an average decline in profits of $46.3 million.9 Recent government data help to shed light on the magnitude of foreign infringement. In 2011, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 24,792 counterfeit or pirated goods, a 24.2 percent increase over the amount of goods seized in 2010.10 These seized goods represented more than $1.1 billion in lost sales.11 Prepared by the Chairman’s Staff of the Joint Economic Committee 3 Availability of a counterfeit good can also put downward pressure on the price of the authentic product, causing a further decline in a firm’s revenue. Additionally, a company’s brand may be damaged when consumers who are unaware they have purchased a counterfeit good blame the maker of the genuine product for the poor-quality counterfeit they have bought. Few small businesses bring foreign infringement complaints Small businesses are unlikely to have the financial resources to protect themselves from IP theft or pursue enforcement actions when facing losses. Data on investigations initiated and completed by the U.S. ITC show that while small businesses represent 79.0 percent of all businesses in the U.S., they comprise only 10.5 percent of firms filing complaints regarding intellectual property infringement.12 The vast majority of firms, 78.9 percent, that request an investigation into the infringement of intellectual property are large and often public firms.13 This could be because small firms do not have the resources to pursue enforcement actions but could also reflect a bigger impact of infringement on larger firms. Resolution of foreign infringement cases is a lengthy process Resolution of foreign infringement complaints often take substantial time to resolve. Nearly one-third (30.1 percent) of cases submitted to the U.S. ITC took at least a year to complete (see Figure 2). And 7 out of 10 cases (69.9 percent) took 6 months or longer. The large costs associated with intellectual property infringement may mean that some firms are forced out of business before the infringement investigation is completed. Additionally, protecting intellectual property from the start can be timeconsuming. For example, even with recent improvements in the patent review procedure, new applications take approximately three years to fully process. Prepared by the Chairman’s Staff of the Joint Economic Committee 4 Conclusion Intellectual property is at the core of U.S. competitiveness, productivity gains and economic growth. While creating precise estimates of the magnitude of counterfeiting and piracy is difficult because of the complexities associated with measuring a secret, illegal activity, there is broad agreement that IP theft has increased in recent years. The consequences are many. Foreign infringement of intellectual property harms businesses by raising their costs, lowering revenue, and eroding profits. Consumers can face health or safety hazards from counterfeit pharmaceuticals and automotive products, and pirated software presents a range of threats to computer security and personal privacy. As a result of counterfeiting and piracy, governments have to make do with less tax revenue. Strengthening IP enforcement and providing more timely resolution of foreign infringement complaints can help combat IP theft. The Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator is developing a new Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement. This plan presents an opportunity to improve the protection of intellectual property in the United States, reduce the costs of IP infringement and provide individuals and firms with greater confidence that their ideas and innovations will be protected.

C. The Damage to Brands Caused by Counterfeiting As the internet aids and abets the sale of counterfeit goods of all types to American consumers, the actual and potential damage to brand owners and their reputations grows more severe. Fraudulent goods are now competing for sales directly with the genuine product, so brand owners are suffering quantifiable revenue losses. Small businesses in particular can suffer massive drops in sales and fall into a death spiral once counterfeits start appearing on sites like Amazon. 35 [*1206] When consumers receive fake products, and are inevitably disappointed in their performance, it erodes the reputation of the counterfeited brand. Since consumers may not recognize the counterfeit as a fake, when it fails to work properly, or falls apart quickly, or does not meet their expectations, they are likely to blame the authentic brand owner. 36 Dissatisfied consumers may spread their view by word of mouth and/or by leaving negative reviews online. 37 Companies that sell to businesses should also concern themselves with counterfeiting because counterfeits have infected the B2B 38 online marketplace. 39 The damage is even more severe when the counterfeit goods result in harm to health or welfare. The threats posed by counterfeits include defective airbags, fake airplane parts, copycat medications with no active ingredients, and contaminated baby formula. 40 Those industries where consumer trust is vital are particularly vulnerable to brand destruction from counterfeits. 41 With counterfeit goods so widespread, and the harm to brands so damaging, it is incumbent [*1207] on trademark owners to be more proactive than ever in policing their brands.

Shares of COVID-19 vaccine makers fell on Thursday as governments debated plans to waive patent protection for the shots, with analysts saying the move could rattle investor sentiment or weigh on longer-term business prospects. The declines came even as some analysts raised doubts about any near-term pressure on COVID-19 vaccine sales from discussions of waiving intellectual property rights, given the manufacturing complexity and scarcity of raw materials. Combined, Pfizer Inc (PFE.N), opens new tab and Moderna Inc (MRNA.O), opens new tab have forecast a total of over $45 billion in sales this year for their COVID-19 vaccines. Among companies with COVID-19 vaccines, shares of Pfizer fell 1.7% and were among the biggest weights on the benchmark S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab, while U.S. shares of its German partner BioNTech SE shed 0.6% after falling as much as 15% earlier. Moderna was off 1.3%, recovering after being down nearly 12%, while Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N), opens new tab and AstraZeneca Plc (AZN.L), opens new tab were little changed, as the broad S&P 500 rose 0.2%. "This measure is a potential risk to the long-term tail for the vaccine players – though we remind investors that the Street and share prices were already skeptical on the longer-term sustainability of these businesses," Barclays analysts said in a note. Shares were initially rattled late on Wednesday after U.S. President Joe Biden backed a proposed waiver for intellectual property rights. read more The Biden administration move was welcomed by patent activists and the World Health Organization as it could increase availability of vaccines to poorer nations including India, which has become the latest epicenter of the pandemic with its hospitals overwhelmed and shortages of oxygen and medicines. The stocks pared steeper earlier losses on Thursday after a German government spokeswoman said the U.S. proposal would have significant implications for production. Despite Biden's backing, it could take months for the World Trade Organization (WTO) to hammer out any deal. read more Shares of other U.S. companies developing COVID-19 vaccines were shaken. Novavax Inc (NVAX.O), opens new tab, whose vaccine has yet to be authorized by any country but is gearing up for deliveries later this year, fell nearly 10% initially but were up 1.6% in afternoon trade. Vaccine maker shares lost ground elsewhere, with Germany's Curevac NV (5CV.DE), opens new tab, which has sought approval for its COVID-19 vaccine, tumbling 18%. Shares of China's CanSino Biologics Inc (6185.HK), opens new tab, which makes a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, were off 15%. The slide in stocks was understandable given patent headlines, but is likely an over-reaction, said Zhiqiang Shu, biotechnology analyst at Berenberg in New York. "The production of mRNA vaccines is not just about intellectual property," he said of the technology used to make the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech shots. "A lot of other things are in play, such as manufacturing know-how and capacity. Other companies or countries are unlikely to produce mRNA shots quickly." Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said while the proposal was not a good "headline" for biotech and could weigh on valuations, "the bottleneck is neither access nor patents (or price) but simply that there aren't enough vials, raw materials, etc to manufacture it regardless of patents." Moderna said on Thursday it believes countries around the globe would continue buying its COVID-19 vaccine for years even if its patents are waived, noting that rivals would face significant hurdles in scaling up manufacturing. read more Morgan Stanley analyst Matthew Harrison said he did not see significant practical implications for Moderna from this news. "We do not believe the WTO has any mechanism to force management to teach other manufacturers how to make their vaccine," he said, adding that it could take six to nine months to scale production.

The threat a TRIPS waiver poses for SAB Biotherapeutics’ IP portfolio is faced by many biotechs, Sullivan explained. Companies must alter decisions about how they will allocate future R&D capital and how they approach the investor community. The threat can discourage investment, “especially from pre-revenue early-stage biopharmaceutical companies whose most important assets are their IP,” he said. Investor concerns are already impacting investment. “Stock prices of SME biotech firms that have invested in COVID-19 related R&D have on average suffered more (-73 percent) than the average stock in the U.S. (-5.4 percent) and more than the average SME biotech company not working on COVID-19 related R&D (-55 percent) since February 2021,” he testified. Along with preventing the pursuit of innovative treatments, the threat of a waiver also harms a vital segment of the U.S. economy. “The innovative U.S. biotech sector” directly employs 2.14 million, and contributes 10.3 million additional jobs. It has a $2.9 trillion impact on the U.S. economy, Sullivan said. “Reduced investment, brought on by increased risk to underlying IP assets, will affect research and manufacturing jobs in the United States and undermine our ability to harness the innovative potential of the U.S. private sector to timely and robustly respond to future global public health challenges.” Congress members concur “Unbridled enthusiasm as we have seen with the TRIPS waiver leads to unbridled disaster,” said Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. (R-NC). “I can’t think of anything more destructive than the TRIPS waiver for American innovation.” He added that weakening IP rights is not only harmful to business. “It is an absolute national security issue.” Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) credited strong IP protections with enabling the United States to lead in the fight against COVID-19. “I’m proud of the fact that as the world looks for inoculations for vaccines for COVID, it’s the U.S. who led that way. And as the world looks for treatments, it is the U.S. that continues to lead the way,” he said. “It’s our intellectual property system.” “Recent independent analysis by the International Trade Commission (ITC) found that IP is not a barrier to access for COVID-19 treatments,” said Chair Smith, referring to a report by the USITC. Sullivan agreed. “With news of the WHO declaring the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 5, 2023, and with global supply of therapeutics far exceeding demand, a waiver is wholly unnecessary,” said Sullivan. It’s obvious the proposed waiver is not based on public health concerns, he added. “Rather, the debate suggests that proponents of the waiver are keen on leveraging the COVID pandemic to achieve a goal that has been decades in the making—the radical undermining of the existing global IP rights system.”

On the other side, proponents of PERA argue that it addresses three key problems with Alice/Mayo. First, they assert that the Alice/Mayo test is vague and unpredictable, which hampers start-ups, reduces investment, and ultimately undermines innovation. Kimberly A. Moore, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, expressed that Federal Circuit judges were “at a loss” in how to apply the current patent eligibility provisions. Some IP legal professionals claim that they are unable to provide clear guidance to businesses due to Alice/Mayo. Legal uncertainty ultimately hampers economic activity, and uncertainty in patent eligibility may lead investors to avoid companies with patents in fields strongly impacted by Alice/Mayo such as life sciences and information technology.

Second, proponents of PERA argue that Alice/Mayo unduly restricts what is patent-eligible. In the biotechnology industry for instance, stakeholders contend that Alice/Mayo constrains their capacity to secure patents for diagnostic methods and personalized medicine, ultimately reducing the economic viability of developing these new technologies. Further, some of the subject matter rendered unpatentable by Alice/Mayo is patent-eligible in Europe, China, and other jurisdictions, potentially diverting R&D investment away from the United States and undermining the competitiveness of U.S. businesses.

The finding that younger people prefer weaker intellectual property rights is consistent with past studies that have found similar results when examining attitudes toward file sharing on the Internet.145 There does appear to be a generational divide concerning intellectual property protection. Interesting, here, is that most past research has focused on individual attitudes towards copyright protection, primarily in the context of the Internet, while the present study finds an age effect for the full population, across the patent and copyright conditions. This study appears to be the first to indicate that the generational divide concerning intellectual property rights cuts across intellectual property domains. Perhaps more surprising, the regressions reveal that having lower income correlates with a desire for stronger intellectual property rights. One possible explanation for this result is that the popular notion of the small innovator hitting it big with a creative achievement may be particularly attractive to those with lower income.146 For those with higher income, intellectual property rights may be perceived as being more likely to interfere with established business operations. Consistent with this analysis, smaller companies tend to prefer stronger patent rights than larger companies, in part for these reasons.147 The study also finds an overall effect on intellectual property strength preferences with respect to an individual’s education: being more educated correlates with a preference for greater intellectual property protection. Though the causal explanation for this relationship is not necessarily clear, more educated individuals may tend to perceive a greater likelihood of being able to personally profit off of their own creativity or inventiveness. In addition, more educated individuals could place a higher value on creativity and innovation.

The current state of the law hurts small innovators in at least two ways: first, it impedes their ability to attract capital investment. Venture capitalists and others are more likely to feel comfortable investing in research-intensive startups and small businesses that have patents to secure their rights. If patent protection is unavailable or uncertain in specific areas of technology, it will be harder for those startups and small businesses to receive funding. 11 If those businesses start disappearing from the U.S. or never get started in the first place, or are started in other countries with stronger patent systems, America’s role as a global technology leader will suffer. Second, small innovators who lack access to robust, reliable patent protection will be less able to defend themselves against competitors, especially large, established competitors, who might copy successful products. Also, because the established competitor did not have to incur the research and development costs to create that successful product, it will be easier for them to undercut the smaller innovator on price. Even if the smaller innovator has a patent, if it is in a technological area falling within the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s line of § 101 cases, the established company can bet that it will have at least a reasonable chance of invalidating the patent if it is sued for infringement, possibly quite early in the litigation without that company incurring many litigation expenses. Academic researchers in areas with uncertain or unavailable patent protection also will face similar difficulties if they make discoveries with great potential for becoming consumer products because they will have trouble finding private sector partners and investors. For example, research that could lead to a new diagnostic tool will typically take significant investment beyond the initial laboratory success, including the expenses involved in FDA approval in many cases. Without patent protection to deter would-be copiers, the private sector will take its investment dollars elsewhere and the academic research will remain merely academic.

IP-savvy business leaders believe that, in a world where battles are increasingly being waged not for control of markets or raw materials but for the rights to new ideas and innovations, the management of intellectual property must become a core competence of the successful enterprise. Though still a minority among their peers, they nonetheless lead some of America’s most successful companies, including Microsoft, Lucent, IBM, Dell, Dow Chemical, and Gillette. These leaders all recognize that the knowledge economy has given rise to a new ecology of competition in which intellectual assets rather than physical assets are the principal wellsprings of shareholder wealth and competitive advantage.

Big, established companies typically build on their investment in distribution and brand while innovation often arrives as a result of imitation or acquisition.   Because new product attributes, often protected by IP law, have to be acquired—whether by purchase or imitation (e.g. YouTube, in the case of Google) — these larger corporations prefer that it be cheap.  Imitation and acquisition is cheaper   if there are no effective IP rights to be concerned about.   As a result, larger companies will typically call for reform that pushes too far against effective IP protection.

What is overlooked in the debate is that the policy goal should be economic growth through quality jobs, i.e. employment for the “knowledge worker” and investment in new businesses.  This brings into focus the effect of weakening IP protection on smaller companies.

Intellectual property rights, especially patents, not only safeguard a firm's innovation. They also foster venture capital ("VC") financing. In a 2009 study investigating how patent applications and grants held by new firms impact their ability to attract VC financing, the authors found that investors rely on patents as signals to overcome the tremendous uncertainty involved in assessing the prospects of potential portfolio companies. 50Link to the text of the note The study found that in the presence of patent applications, VC financing occurs earlier. Confirming the findings of earlier work, this study further establishes that for startup firms the patenting process generates valuable quality signals that assist them in obtaining funding. 51Link to the text of the note Patents are believed to reduce information asymmetries between financiers and innovators, thus spurring market entry by startups. 52Link to the text of the note Fundamentally, patents facilitate access to VC financing, market entry, and job creation. Without patents and an effective IP environment, the process stalls, and, in some cases, firms may never emerge. Admittedly it is difficult to find evidence of what might have been. However, there are some striking examples of firms unable to secure a patent that lost their VC funding and disappeared. Case in point: Innate Immune. Stanford immunologist Sam Strober developed a new treatment for Lupus [*877] and founded the startup Innate Immune. 53Link to the text of the note After recruiting Dr. Andrew Pearlman as CEO, the former director of clinical research at Genentech, Innate Immune lined up venture capitalists ready to commit $ 30 million to develop the drug. 54Link to the text of the note Unfortunately, the firm was unable to secure a patent due to the slow pace of approvals at the underfunded and overburdened U.S. Patent Office. 55Link to the text of the note The venture capitalists withdrew their funding, and the firm, the drug, and the jobs never materialized. 56Link to the text of the note The 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey of Entrepreneurs found that 76 percent of venture-backed entrepreneurs and 67 percent of all entrepreneurs believe that patents are absolutely essential to obtaining funding. 57Link to the text of the note

Reddit Inc. getting its artificial intelligence story right was a big part of a successful listing day on Thursday. Shares gained 48% on the social platform's trading debut from its $34 initial public offering price. Now the communities, forum-based platform has to go out and prove that selling user data to AI companies is a viable business. The basic pitch is that Reddit's going to grow 20% a year, in part by licensing its users’ data to builders of large language models. Those LLMs are the very large neural networks that are trained using massive amounts of text and data, including e-books, news articles and websites like Wikipedia. That plan could work because Reddit has exactly that — lots of text. And investors like the idea of selling that data because it will supplement a longer-standing, but still young advertising business that helped Reddit post $800 million in sales last year, although the company reported a net loss of $91 million. “There's the new emerging market of AI, where large language models need data to train on,” Reddit's Chief Operating Officer Jen Wong told me on Bloomberg Technology. “And when you look at Reddit's corpus, 19 years of human experience organized by topic with moderation and relevance, that's incredibly important to building both the chat capability and the freshness of information.”

Copyrights and trademarks are essential tools for businesses that want to protect their intellectual property and safeguard their brand identity. Here are some of the top benefits of copyright and trademarks:

Legal Protection: Copyrights and trademarks provide legal protection from any unauthorized use of a company’s intellectual property. This protection can prevent competitors from using your company’s branding, logos, or other intellectual property in a way that could cause confusion among customers or dilute your company’s reputation. Brand Recognition: Trademarks help to build brand recognition and brand loyalty among customers. By registering a trademark, businesses are able to distinguish themselves from their competitors and create a unique identity that customers can easily recognize and remember.

Government can also play an important role in creating more favourable market conditions for the ASP services. Several areas are important, such as further development of ICT Mastructure, liberalisation of telecommunication markets, adoption of consumer protection and environmental product policies. By liberalising the telecommunication markets the government can effectively promote competition and reduce service prices. Governments can assist creating higher consumer and business confidence by a stronger enforcement of privacy rights and copyright protection. Governments can also contribute to the confidence building by showing an example of using application renting (ASP) services for their own activities.

The fashionable view that intellectual property (IP) rights impede economic growth in the U.S. is on its way to becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The negative view of patents, copyrights and other IP is so prevalent that they may in fact come to threaten the creation of new, high quality jobs, if not destroy thousands of existing ones. The question of who benefits from weaker IP rights takes on a new sense of urgency when viewed through the filter of the recession. National unemployment is reported at 10%. Without intellectual property protection, the promise of quality employment in a knowledge-based U.S. economy will be threatened despite promises made by policy makers to promote a knowledge workforce in lieu of erecting barriers to international trade. Weakening of the copyright and patent laws not only runs counter to the interests of the U.S., it is a breach of the social contract made in the past between Congress and the American worker. . Under the rubric of trade globalization the Federal Government acquiesced to the export of manufacturing jobs to places like Mexico and China while promising that these job losses would be offset by the creation of new U.S. jobs and wealth in a knowledge-based economy. The best known example of this policy is the passage of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) in 1995. The U.S. was not alone in this regard. According to an OECD report from 1996, “OECD countries continue to evidence a shift from industrial to post-industrial knowledge-based economies.” (The Knowledge-Based Economy, OECD, Paris, 1996.) But this implicit agreement between the U.S. government and the American worker is under threat of being breached. Viewing IP rights as an impediment to growth threatens to jeopardize this implicit agreement. Google says that “Once a driver of creativity, our patent system now poses a hurdle for innovation.” (Michelle Lee, Head of Patents and Patent Strategy, Google). But it is important not to confuse the notion of product “acquisition” or “imitation” with actual “technological innovation.” Big, established companies typically build on their investment in distribution and brand while innovation often arrives as a result of imitation or acquisition. Because new product attributes, often protected by IP law, have to be acquired—whether by purchase or imitation (e.g. YouTube, in the case of Google) — these larger corporations prefer that it be cheap. Imitation and acquisition is cheaper if there are no effective IP rights to be concerned about. As a result, larger companies will typically call for reform that pushes too far against effective IP protection. What is overlooked in the debate is that the policy goal should be economic growth through quality jobs, i.e. employment for the “knowledge worker” and investment in new businesses. This brings into focus the effect of weakening IP protection on smaller companies. Small businesses have been proven to be the most innovative. The anecdotal evidence of world-changing technology companies that started in a “garage” is borne out by statistics. The U.S. Small Business Administration, in March, 2009, reported that “[s]mall patenting firms produce 13 times more patents per employee than large firms do, and these patents are twice as likely as those from large firms to be among the one percent most cited [by] others in their patent applications.” The latter statistic means these are quality patents or at the root of a larger technological wave of innovation. Therefore, it is the smaller companies that seek to file and obtain patents that are later judged pioneering. But weakening of IP protection under the rubric of “patent reform” threatens to limit investment in these smaller, innovative companies and their likelihood of success in the face of well-healed competitors who wish to free-ride on their achievements. There are several proposed changes to U.S. patent law that will likely render IP law weak protection for small businesses. These changes include a “race to the patent office” system for priority between competing inventors, increasing fee costs to small companies building an IP portfolio, increasing the existing hurdles to prove infringement while giving imitators several opportunities to force small businesses to prove the validity of their inventions (see Sec. 5 of the Patent Reform Act of 2009). These procedural changes will be readily exploited by imitators of technological innovation because of the sheer cost to defend against them: costs most small businesses are incapable of sustaining. It is dangerous to put smaller, innovative companies in such a precarious position. Smaller firms like those that produce quality patents represent a large fraction of high-tech jobs in the U.S. For example, in the U.S., 32 percent of jobs in computer-related services are in a firm with less than 100 employees. (An International Comparison of Small Business Employment, Schmitt and Lane, Center for Economic Policy Research, August 2009). To weaken IP rights for these smaller companies represents a threat to their existence because larger foreign companies will have more of an opportunity to exploit the inventions of these companies by imitation without payment. This threatens the job growth that these smaller companies provide in this country. And it should not be overlooked that the loss of engineering jobs goes hand in hand with the loss of other service jobs. If an innovative company is lost, not only do the engineering jobs go, but the support jobs as well. Adopting policies that let these high-quality jobs go overseas is a breach of the contract between the Federal Government and the American worker made in the early 1990’s.

“My business too small, nobody would copy my IP” “IP is for big boys” As a small or medium business owner, you may believe that your intellectual property (IP) isn't worth registering. You might also think that your company is too small to attract infringers, or that registering your IP is only necessary for big corporations with larger budgets. However, this is far from the truth. In fact, Small Medium Enterprises (SME) need IP Registration more than big corporation. They are often more vulnerable to IP infringement than larger companies. Without proper IP protection, your business is at risk of losing valuable assets and revenue. In this article, we'll explore why SMEs should prioritize IP protection and how registering your IP can be a smart investment for your business's future. WHAT IS IP? First, let's define what we mean by "intellectual property." Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, and names used in commerce. IP is an intangible asset that gives exclusive rights to the creator or owner to use their creation for a certain period of time. There are four types of IP that SME owners should be aware of - trademark, patent, copyright, and industrial design. Trademark is a symbol, word, phrase, or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of a product or service from others. Upon registration, the protection is forever, subject to renewal of every 10 years. Patent protects an invention and gives the inventor exclusive rights to make, use, and sell their invention for 20 years. Copyright protects original works of authorship, such as books, music, and artwork. Industrial design protects the visual appearance of a product. Upon grant, it confer protection of 25 years. WHY SMEs NEED IP PROTECTION? 1. Low-Cost Investment That Can Save You Money in the Long Run Registering your IP may seem like an unnecessary expense, but it can actually save you money in the long run. If your IP is infringed upon, the legal fees and damages could be much higher than the cost of registration. By investing a small amount upfront to secure ownership of your IP, you can avoid costly legal battles down the road. 2. Registration of Intellectual Property Establishes Your Ownership and Builds Your Reputation As a small business, you may be just starting to build your brand and reputation. Registering your IP is the only way to prove your ownership. Without registration, your brand and reputation are at risk, and you may lose your brand, customers or market share. On the other hand, it also adds credibility to your business and can help build trust with customers and investors. 3. Your Intellectual Properties Are Valuable, Regardless of Your Company's Size You may believe that your business is too small to attract the attention of infringers. However, this is not always the case. Your IPs are valuable, regardless of your company's size. By registering your IP, you can protect your business from competitors who may try to steal your ideas. On the other hand, how do you know no other people would come out with the same creation as you do? 4. Registered Intellectual Property Can Help You Secure Funding If you're looking to grow your business, securing funding and partnerships is essential. At this point, investors will want to see that you have protected your IP, and their investment is safe. Registered IP is a valuable asset that can increase the value of your business and make it more attractive to investors. It shows that you have taken the necessary steps to protect your assets and intellectual property. 5. Use Intellectual Property As A Leverage To Scale Your Business As a SME owner, you can leverage your registered Intellectual Property to scale up your business by recruiting licensees. You may grant the rights to use your IP to licensees in exchange for a fee or royalty payment. These licensees can help you generate revenue without the need of you investing significant resources into manufacturing and distribution. This can expand your market reach and increase your profitability. To attract potential licensees, you should have a strong IP portfolio that demonstrates the value of your creations, which can make you an attractive partner. Therefore, licensing intellectual property is a valuable strategy for small businesses looking to scale up their business. 6. Prevent Infringement Just because you are a small business, it doesn't mean that others won't copy your ideas or products. In fact, SMEs are often more vulnerable to IP infringement because they have limited resources to fight against it. By registering your IP, you can prevent others from using or copying your ideas or products and protect your business from unfair competition. In summary, SMEs cannot afford to overlook the importance of IP protection. By registering your IP, you can protect your assets, establish your ownership, and build your reputation. It's a low-cost investment that can save you money in the long run and help you secure funding and partnerships. Don't let your company fall victim to IP infringement – prioritize IP protection today.

A  by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) provides useful support for those working to develop and protect valuable IP rights. It reveals that European startups with a stable portfolio of] intellectual property (IP) rights are significantly more likely to secure early-stage venture capital (VC) funding, with the likelihood being over 10 times higher than for those without such rights.

This revelation comes amidst a flourishing European startup ecosystem, which has seen VC deals skyrocket from EUR 9.4 billion in 2013 to an extraordinary EUR 110.8 billion in 2021, thanks in part to a maturing European VC industry and surging global investment interest.

Many entrepreneurs know that patents can be used to increase the value of the company with investors. But many do not realise, that this does not only apply to patents. When raising capital via professional crowdfunding service providers or other investors, entrepreneurs need to understand that investors typically view the protection of intellectual property (IP) as a critical aspect when evaluating potential investment opportunities.  IP holds significant importance from an investor's perspective. Here's a broader look at IP from the investors' viewpoint:

Asset Value and Valuation: Intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights, represents valuable assets for a business. Properly protected IP can significantly enhance the overall value of a company, influencing its valuation during investment rounds.

From January through March, the U.S. economy expanded at just a 1.3% annual rate, the slowest pace in nearly two years, and Kose said the World Bank forecast took the first-quarter slowdown into account. The pullback was due largely to factors that economists view as temporary: A surge in imports and a reduction in business inventories. By contrast, the core components of economic growth — consumer spending and business investment — remained solid in the first three months of the year.

The global and especially the U.S. economies have proved unexpectedly resilient in the face of high interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and other central banks to curb the high inflation that flared up in 2021.

A better-than-expected jobs report on Friday displayed the resilient strength of the U.S. economy, even after years of high interest rates and stubborn inflation.

Employers hired 272,000 workers last month, blowing past economist expectations of 190,000 jobs added, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4%, reaching that level for the first time since January 2022.

A new report out today warns that the economy may be contracting. This morning’s Services PMI report from the Institute for Supply Management was a complete disaster. The U.S. Services PMI came in at 48.8%, down from 53.8% last month and from 53.9% this time last year. That’s a nearly 9.5% drop year over year. What does this mean? It seems that the fastest rate-hiking cycle in history is starting to have an impact… and it’s not good. To explain my argument, we need to dive into the services data and why it matters. What Is the ISM Services PMI? The Institute for Supply Management Services PMI is a monthly, survey-based indicator of activity in the U.S. services sector. The index, which gathers economic information from more than 15 industries, including healthcare, finance, and retail, monitors business conditions by tracking five variables: Business activity. New business. Employment. Inventories. Supplier deliveries. It’s an important read on future economic activity, and ultimately on inflation or disinflation going forward. Generally, a reading above 50 signals growth and below 50 indicates contraction. Historically, this tends to be a leading indicator for both the economy and the stock market. Weakness tends to precede recessions, as it suggests corporate profit growth is likely to underwhelm or turn negative. This also ties back into the movement we’ve seen in Treasury prices and yields this week. Services PMI and Treasurys: A Recession Warning Now, it seems like the spike in yields this week in Treasurys was just a fake-out. The lower services reading spiked odds of a Federal Reserve rate cut. However, it’s important to remember that the Fed’s actions have delayed consequences. Once the central bank cuts rates, it will take several months to feel the effects. It’s also important to note that this is not a guarantee that the Fed will cut rates. In fact, it has good reason to NOT do so, based on credit spreads indicated almost no default risk. But what if credit spreads are currently mispriced relative to the probability of a recession. If this is the case, the Fed has been fooled and a recession is coming. At the very least, investors should buckle up for the next three months. A great deal of volatility is ahead.