The intellectual property, in law, refers to the apparatus of legal principles that aim to protect the fruits of creativity and human ingenuityOn the basis of these principles, the law gives creators and inventors a true monopoly in the exploitation of their creations and inventions and puts in their hands some of the legal tools to protect yourself from any misuse by unauthorized parties. The term 'intellectual property' seems to date back to the Nineteenth century, the Accademia dei Georgofili it was discussed already in.
Traditionally, the term 'intellectual property' means a system of legal protection of intangible assets that have an increasing economic importance: it refers to the fruits of the creative human inventiveness such as, for example, works of art and literature, inventions and industrial models utility, design, trademarks.
Then, the concept of intellectual property is at the head of the three major areas of copyright law, patent law and trademark law. In the legal doctrine most recently, however, there have been advanced some criticism of the term “intellectual property” because it would lead to overlap improperly concepts exquisitely contemporaries (such as intelligence work, invention, trademark, brand, design, competition) with concepts related to the properties in the more classical sense (i.e. Therefore, you tend to speak more appropriately of “industrial property” with regards to the innovation under a technological profile. In Italy the new legislation and governed by the “industrial property Code”, which contains all the rules relating to the field of patents and trademarks. Left out from this work of codification, the law on the copyright, the reference of which it is a law of, with the successive and numerous changes. From the point of view of the case, however, there is an assimilation of data from the establishment of the specialised Sections for industrial and intellectual property. The unification of the case implies a deeper assimilation of the institutions of substantive law. Wanting to then add an additional cue, in case you want to further deepen the debated question, you may note that the distinction between 'industrial property' and 'intellectual property' is much less used abroad than it is in Italy, especially, but not only, in English-speaking countries in which it often tends to also include patents, models, trademarks and other similar rights in the context of 'intellectual property'. Many contemporary authors have undertaken a review of the principles that are the foundation of the intellectual property system, on the wave of technological innovation and digital the last few decades. Until a few years ago, in fact, was not conceivable an intellectual work (e.g. a novel) is disconnected from its physical medium (i.e the paper book) with the advent of digital technology, instead, the work tends to de-materialize and to be totally independent from the physical media. This obviously has struck balances economic and legal, which had stabilized for centuries now. But if the world of legal science (the sociology and philosophy of law), he studied with the great charm of this revolution, the world of law is applied (the laws and contractual practice), has tried in all ways to counter this trend and to re-affirm with firmness in the traditional model, rooted on the inseparability between the work and the support material. However, the observation of the current panorama of communication and circulation of information and creative content, shows the now-unstoppable-ness of the phenomenon. Are 'packages' of rights exclusive related to the various forms of expression of knowledge, ideas and artistic works. The modern intellectual property includes three major areas: The founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, argues that although the term intellectual property is used, it should be altogether rejected, because it systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use has been promoted by companies that, from this confusion, benefit'. He says that the term 'work so all-encompassing for together disparate laws. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different questions of public interest', and that it creates a bias by confusing these monopolies with ownership of physical things are limited, in comparison to the 'property rights'. Stallman warns against the mix together disparate laws, such as those on copyright, trademarks and patents and to summarize them in a collective term ('Treated each of these laws separately, and you will have the opportunity of considering them in the perspective due'). Lawrence Lessig, along with many other activists of the copyleft and free software, has criticized the analogy implied with the physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue that such an analogy does not work because physical property is generally conflictual, while intellectual works are non-conflicting (that is, if you make a copy of a work, the use of the copy does not obstruct the use of the original). Some critics of intellectual property, such as those belonging to the Movement of Free Culture, denouncing the privileges of the monopoly of intellectual property such as damage to health, the impediment of the progress and defence of the interests delineated at the expense of the masses, and argue that the public interest is undermined by the expansion of monopolies in the forms of the extension of copyright, software patents and patents on method of doing business. There are also criticism of the fact that intellectual property rights can inhibit the flow of innovations to poor nations.
The developing countries have benefited from the dissemination of the technologies of the developed countries, such as the internet, mobile phones, vaccines, and crops high-yield.
Many intellectual property rights, such as patent laws, perhaps pushing too far to protect those who produce innovations at the expense of those who use them.
The Index of Commitment to Development (CDI - Commitment to Development Index) is a measure of the government policies of donors and categorizes them on the basis of the 'benevolence' of their intellectual property rights to the developing world. Some of the criticism libertariane of the intellectual property have been demonstrated that allow property rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and interferes with the right to own material goods. Stephan Kinsella uses the following example to demonstrate this idea: The mmaginiamo the age in which men lived in the caves. A type: quick - let's call him Galt-Magnon - decides to build a wooden hut in an empty field, near his crops. This is certainly a good idea, and others notice it Naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start to build their huts. But the first to invent a house, according to the proponents of the PI, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their land, with their wood, or do pay them a commission if they go ahead with the construction of the houses. In these examples it is clear that the innovator becomes a holder part of the tangible property of others (p.
es, land and wood), not for the appropriation and use originating in the property (because it is already owned), but because they came up with an idea.
Clearly, this rule goes against that of the appropriation and of use, the original trampling, arbitrary and unjustified, the norm of appropriation that is at the base of all property rights. Other criticisms relate to the tendency of the protections of the intellectual property to expand, both in time and in space.
The direction is that of the protection of copyright longer and longer (with the fear that one day it may even become eternal).
In addition, the developers and controllers of items of intellectual property have sought to bring more items under the protection. Have been awarded patents for living organisms (in the USA, living organisms have been patentable for over a century) and have been marked with colors. Because they are systems of monopolies awarded by the government, copyrights, patents, and trademarks are called monopoly rights, intellectual, a the topic on which they have written several academics, including Birgitte Andersen and Thomas Alured Faunce. In, the RSA (Royal Society for encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) drafted the Charter for Adelphi with the purpose of creating a declaration of international policy to frame how governments should make a law on intellectual property balanced. Scholars and intellectuals of international fame, you are on the one hand the interpreters and spokesmen of these new instances, cultural and social, from the other side have proposed alternative models, that acted as as a glimmer and innovative paradigm. The most interesting thing in this sense is what is defined in the broad sense of “copyleft”, that is, an alternative model for the management of rights through which the rights holder, through the application of specific licenses, grants a number of freedoms to the users of the work. This alternative model is developed primarily in the field of it (with movements free Software and Open Source), but in recent years it has extended to the whole world of creative works (with the movements of the Creative Commons, OpenAccess, Opencontent, etc.). A specialized organization of the United Nations, the World Organization for Intellectual Property (or WIPO, in English, stands for 'World Intellectual Property Organization') is responsible for the negotiation of new treaties on the subject and is responsible for the international register of patents. The Free Software Foundation Europe, following the Geneva Declaration on the future of the world organization for intellectual property, has proposed that the organization change name to the World Organization for Intellectual Wealth'. On the essential concepts of “intellectual property”, “copyright copyright”, “patent”, see.
