The most painful thing about writing a paper on the direction of intellectual property is telling the truth about the relationship between protection and innovation. The subject looks simple, and in fact there are many levels — how much protection is appropriate? Where is the boundary painting? Are there any differences in the effect of different types of innovation? If you really think about it, the paper won't stop on the "important, important." i've taken several students in this direction, and i've found that all who can write is the ones who chew through the concrete cases。
Intellectual property protectionDoes innovation work
There is no standard answer to this question, but writing papers cannot be done with a "useful" word, but with a logical chain. Following the modification of the patents act, 2019, the period of protection of the skin design was extended from 10 to 15 years, and the research and development input of the manufacturing sector on the mould, packaging and interface was directly drawn up. I was talked about the first two years of the extended protection period, and they almost doubled the number of patent applications in the design department for the very simple reason that "the energy invested can be locked in to do it deep."。
But the other side has to write, or the paper will be thin. With the high threshold, small enterprises are being blocked out, large enterprises continue to squeeze competitive space through patent pools and innovation resources are increasingly concentrated in their heads. A good paper should put out both sides of it, and then judge it differently by industry and sizeThere's an academic discussionLook at this. It's not "enhanced protection."。
What happens when innovation doesn't have intellectual property rights
It's a good angle, but it's easy to write "no one can innovate without protection," and it's tired of reading two pages. In fact, there are many kinds of innovations, such as basic science, open-source software and folk crafts, which rely on intellectual property rights to a very different degree. It would be far better to pick one or two specific areas to drill deep than to spread two sentences in each of the 10 areas. For example, in the handicrafts industry, many of the techniques are unenclosed by patents and are protected by brand premiums and geographical indications。
I prefer to recommend open-source communities as core cases. The gpl agreement is essentially "unprotective" for "coherent innovation," an example of how you can write papers and show readers that you have a dialectic perspective. It contrasts the linux kernel with android's business model, with an apple closed to the ecology for a reverse lookInnovative ecological diversityThat's the point. The coach knows you've been thinking。
The conclusion is that protection is not an end in itself, and innovation is the real measure of efficiency. The tone of the whole article is stabilized by placing this sentence in the summary and by inserting it again in the conclusion. The greatest fear of writing the paper is not that it is not new, but that it is going around the same plane from beginning to end, without going deep。
