Search the archive.

A deed describing a line as running within four rods of a brook excludes the stread, and means from the side of the stream, and not from the center of it. The word “of”, as well as the word “from”, is used as a term of exclusion. Haight v. Hamor, 22 A. 369, 372, 83 Me. 453.

Appellate defense counsel argued orally that many facts indicated the United States was not at war, for example: there has been no declaration of war; the Coast Guard is still under the supervision of the Treasury Department instead of the Navy Department as it usually is during war; here in the United States, Armed Forces personnel are allowed to wear civilian clothes during off-duty hours; it is not the policy to try Department of the Army civilians serving with the Army in the field in the United States by courts-martial; the various Army posts throughout the United States are still open to public visitation; many reservists and National Guard units are not on active service; and the Table of Maximum Punishments had not been suspended for offenses committed in the United States. He contended that the ratio of the cases cited in support of the war status of the United States was limited to the locale of the hostilities, Korea and its adjacent [**6]  waters, and was inoperative on offenses committed in the United States. Finally, he anchored his argument on the interpretation to be given the language in Article 43f(1) (post) of the Code. He conceded arguendo that the offense at bar fell within the purview of this language, being a fraud against a United States agency, the Army, but reasoned that the subject language contemplated and embraced only "hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a Joint Resolution of Congress." With this interpretation the board of review cannot agree. The preposition "of" before the word "hostilities" shows plainly that the phrase "of hostilities" is adjectival, qualifying and limiting the word "termination". The phrase "termination of hostilities" is in turn modified by the participial phrase "as proclaimed." In our interpretation it is the "termination of hostilities" that must be proclaimed, and such proclamation provides the initial date of a three-year period in which the suspension of the statute of limitations continues to operate rather than determines the date of the beginning of the original suspension (emphasis supplied).

Before proceeding to analyse the ‘object and purpose’ of the TRIPS Agreement in the next Part of this Chapter, there are some important points to be made in relation to TRIPS’s own National Treatment (NT) and Most-Favoured Nation Treatment (MFN) obligations in order to understand why the common thread that is apparent in the interpretation and application of the NT/MFN obligations under the other covered agreements has not manifested in TRIPS. TRIPS Article 3 that specifies its NT obligation requires Members to accord ‘treatment no less favourable’ to ‘nationals of other Members’ than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the ‘protection of intellectual property’. TRIPS Article 4 that contains its MFN obligation states that ‘any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity’ given by a Member to the national of any other country with regard to the ‘protection of intellectual property’ shall be accorded ‘immediately and unconditionally’ to the nationals of other WTO Members.93 The concept of ‘protection of intellectual property’ is defined very broadly in the footnotes to include matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, enforcement and use of intellectual property rights that have been specifically addressed in the Agreement.

(Collins Dictionary, “protection”, , accessed 7/1/24, WCJK)

To give or be protection against something unpleasant means to prevent people or things from being harmed or damaged by it.

1a. The action of protecting someone or something; the fact or condition of being protected; shelter, defence, or preservation from harm, danger, damage, etc.; guardianship, care; patronage.

Main Entry: its Pronunciation: \ˈits, əts\ Function: adjective Date: circa 1507 : of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

Pronunciation:/ɪts/ possessive determiner belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified:turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere

Its. The possessive case of the neuter pronoun “it.” Also, as an adjective, meaning of or belonging to it. Sometimes referred to as the possessive word, but it does not necessarily imply ownership in fee, but may indicate merely a right to use.

of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action

a. of, belonging to, or associated in some way with it its left rear wheel

b. (as pronoun) each town claims its is the best

Its (pronoun). The possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective: The book has lost its jacket. I’m sorry about its being so late.)

Its. The possessive case of the neuter pronoun “it.” Also, as an adjective, meaning of or belonging to it. Sometimes referred to as the possessive word, but it does not necessarily imply ownership in fee, but may indicate merely a right to use.

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post office, one will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State. The first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins: "A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]. Note the singular possessive pronoun "its", not "their", therefore carrying the implication that it relates to the "United States" as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the singular sense), not in the sense of being the 50 States of the Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.

Considering these vastly different perspectives, it is difficult to define patent quality solely in terms of legal validity. Van Overwalle and Schovsbo note that a report requested by the Scientific Technology Options Assessment of the European Parliament asserts that the definition should cover both the quality of individual patents and the quality of the ‘‘patent system as such,’’ as an institution designed for encouraging innovation.88 Kica indicates that high quality patents should ‘‘meet patentability requirements, contribute to the state of the art, offer scientific/social benefit, and stand up to the most rigorous challenges in court.’’89 Chien contends that two concepts underpin patent quality. The first is issuing patents that are strictly in conformity with legal criteria, and the second is to warrant that the granted patents are beneficial to the whole society.90 The former notion stresses that patent quality refers to legal validity, referring to how well a patent meets the standards of patentability; more specifically, ‘‘novel, nonobvious, and clearly and sufficiently described.’’91 The latter uses various indicators to evaluate different factors of patent quality, including patents’ technological, economic, social, or private value.92 Legal validity is the indispensable core of this discourse, but a wide range of considerations must also be considered. Moreover, Kica and Chien’s argument suggests that patent quality has a normative power that prioritizes certain values and obligates specific behaviors.

This divergence in definitions is well recognized by patent offices. A 2012 EPO workshop concludes that ‘‘there is no definitive definition of patent quality,’’ and such a concept should be distinguished from ‘‘two related concepts: the quality of the patent system and the value of a patent.’’93 A 2017 WIPO report reveals more perspectives from national patent offices (NPOs) worldwide.94 The major under- standing focuses on ‘‘the quality of a patent itself’’ and the ‘‘quality of a patent granting process within that office.’’95 However, several other factors are mentioned, such as the administrative and legal procedures to challenge patents, ‘‘the extent of technological innovation,’’ ‘‘the drafting of patent documents,’’ ‘‘the utilisation of patents,’’ the balance between patentees’ rights and the public domain, economic benefits, and even national development policy.96 This diversity supports the observation that ‘‘different groups approach the issue of patent quality very differently, and with different goals in mind.’’97 Drahos further asserts that companies and industries leverage NPOs to push self-serving agendas in the patent quality debates.98

Similarly, counting patents or patent citations provides a poor measure of a nation’s innovation, in part because that ignores the quality of the patents granted—as well as the fact that significant amounts of innovation occur outside of the patent system. The surge in patents since the 1970s should suggest substantial increases in innovation and productivity, but, in fact, this era of increased patenting coincides with what economist Tyler Cowen calls the “great stagnation,” a time of low growth in productivity. Research by Jeffrey Funk raises similar concerns: “US productivity growth has not increased along with patent applications and awards, suggesting that patents are not a good measure of innovation.”

Improving patent quality starts with ensuring the USPTO provides examiners the time and resources to review patent applications properly. It also requires efficient procedures for weeding out invalid patents that have made their way into the system. Congress created that mechanism when it created the inter partes review (IPR) process in the America Invents Act. Unfortunately, since its passage there have been efforts to limit its use and the previous director of the USPTO implemented several administrative changes that limited the scope and access to IPR proceedings.

A reliable and robust intellectual property (IP) system is a pillar of the nation’s innovation system. In an era when economic growth, global competitiveness, and national security are all predicated on relative strengths of national innovation systems, the United States needs to take deliberate steps to clarify and strengthen its IP framework.

Indeed, while patents have become more and more difficult to obtain, maintain, and enforce in the United States, China and Europe have moved to make their patent systems more competitive. Notably, China has taken deliberate actions to speed up the adjudication of certain IP cases. It is grooming judges who are technically trained professionals, clarifying rules on patent eligibility, and lowering court costs. There are, of course, lots of problems still with the Chinese patent system, but China is affirmatively working to improve it to its national benefit. The United States needs to do the same. A strong innovation economy cannot exist without a strong IP system.

The five case countries discussed above are sufficient only to establish that countries, given an incentive, can work to improve governance/reduce corruption which in turn strengthens patent rights and economic growth. There are alternative approaches to the same end, namely joining international IP agreements and strengthening the patent office.151 Both approaches increase the patent score. It is then an empirical question which is the more effective approach to increasing national incomes or growth. Of course by answering that question we are effectively also determining whether stronger IP rights lead to - cause - economic growth, or if economic growth also raises IP rights, or reverse causality. Of the two approaches identified, the one involving joining international conventions and/or strengthening the patent office is clearly the direct one focused specifically on patent rights. If countries which use that approach are more economically successful then it can reasonable be concluded enhanced IP leads to higher incomes and growth. That is, there is no strong argument that growth per se leads countries to invest in their patent offices so when countries do, and grow, it can reasonably be concluded that the improvement caused the economic growth. Conversely, if enhanced governance/reduced corruption leads to the growth, that is an indirect way to enhance patent rights through improved enforcement while simultaneously strengthening other government sectors. Thus, growth led by enhancing the governance process is the causal factor, and strengthened patent systems is one indirect factor in that growth; governance leads to growth and to an improved patent system. Enhanced governance is both the more complex and encompassing reform so it can be expected that countries which implement that approach are more successful, rapidly growing/ higher income ones.

Conversely, there are but six countries for which the Cortez Index value far exceeds their PPP/capita rank, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, and Nicaragua.126 This group requires further evaluation.127 Re-computing the correlations with the fifteen natural resource-dependent countries excluded does little to change the figures. The correlation between the Cortez Index128 and PPP/capita is then r = 0.88 while between PPP/capita and CPI129 r = 0.90, and r = 0.95 between the Index and CPI. Exploring further, the correlation between the CPI and the WEF measure of judicial independence130 is r = 0.76. It is of no great surprise that removing fifteen countries from a list of 148 does not change the underlying relationships. But these correlations do emphasize the apparent existence of fundamental determinant relationships among this data.131 As was discussed above,132 countries have available three distinct approaches to strengthening patent systems: enhancing enforcement by reducing corruption, joining/complying with international conventions, and, finally, enhancing patent office operations. Due to the particularly strong correlations existing between several measures of corruption and the available patent indexes, as a working hypothesis corruption/enforceability of IP rights is identified as the fundamental causal factor among the several indexes. That is, the level of corruption/governing efficiency is hypothesized to be the principal determinant of countries stronger patent index scores, and subsequently moving to higher income levels. Alternative explanations are explored further below,133 but as will be seen, the mechanism chosen by countries to enhance patent rights is central here to identifying the direction of causality. First though, we examine in more depth the effects of corruption on patent systems and enforcement.

The three factors can, alternatively, be viewed as differing approaches to strengthening patent systems. Countries may (1) join/implement international agreements (TRIPS, UPOV), (2) enhance the operation of their patent offices, or (3) improve enforcement by reducing corruption.74 The strongest rights of course are achievable only by being well established in all three dimensions. But not all countries presently have strong systems and hence have alternative paths available for strengthening them. For example, they may in a matter of degrees focus first directly on patent systems by say fully implementing TRIPS, or they may first tackle enforcement/corruption and then shift attention to the patent system in particular. Which approaches are pursued and the consequences are explored further in Section III.75