Intellectual Property Case Study

1. Can you describe the nature and types of intellectual property theft in the military sphere? Provide at least two concrete examples?
Intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, increasingly dominates the exports of advanced economies. However, intellectual property is uniquely vulnerable to appropriation, whether by states, firms, or individuals. Consequently, exporters like the United States have taken increasingly aggresive steps to protect their intellectual property owners and producers. Some of the most significant complaints made by the United States against China have involved poor enforcement of intellectual property law.
The economic relevance of intellectual property extends into the military sphere.
Patents and trade secrets constituted an important proportion of the value of particular weapon systems. On the patent side, states have generally been reluctant to directly copy the weapons of their allies without permission; even China and the Soviet Union (states not otherwise known to respect intellectual property norms) concluded licensing agreements with one another in the 1950s. Trade secrets, on the other hand, constiture the difference between Russian made engines and Chinese made engines.
Industrial espionage is, by definition, a violation of most existing schemes of intellectual property law.
In 19th and 20th centuries, the nature the governments actively practices industrial espionage, dispatching agents to foreign countries in order to steal secrets and bring them back to domestic producers. Despite the potential for glamour and drama, the fruits of industrial espionage, especially in the defense sector, are generally thought to have been limited.
An increasing proportion of the value of military equipment, as with many modern products, lies in its intellectual property. High technology components, often produced by a variety of subcontractors, can define the capabilities of a system. Similarly, software code (potentially accessible through cyber-espionage) is necessary for most complex systems to function properly.
Intellectual proerty law has grown considerably more sophisticated over the past decades, in both its domestic and international components. The expansion of public private collaboration in defense, as well as the emergence of new contributors to defense technology, has incread the complexity of the intellectual properly calculations facing businesses, government and the law firms that mediate between
them.
Examples:
(a) Canada’s Sharpest International Affairs Commentary
Together, these trends have combined to make the intellectual property components of military technology more valuable and more accessible to potential thieves. And there is little question that thieves are taking advantage. The United States has identified Russian and especially Chinese hackers targeting American and European intellectual property, in both the military and civilian spheres.
Historically, China has maintained a casual attitude towards the intellectual property of foreign countries, especially in the military sphere. China copied, produced, and then exported the MiG-21 fighter, selling it in direct competition with Soviet models. More recently, China brazenly violated a series of licensing agreements with Russia in order to produce the J-11 and J-15, modified versions of the Su-27 ‘Flanker’ family of fighters. China now expects to export the J-11 in direct competition with Russian-built Flankers.
(b) Chinese cyber-spies accused of stealing IP on US fighter jet
More recently, evidence from the Snowden revelations suggests that China may have appropriated technology associated with the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Many believe that Shenyang, a major Chinese military aircraft producer, has incorporated this stolen technology into the J-31, a prototype stealth fighter. China is now expected to export the J-31 in direct competition with the F-35.
The nature of intellectual property theft in the military sphere will change. Rather than purchasing (or otherwise appropriating) entire systems and then reserve engineering, future theft will likely involve cyber-attacks on states, companies, and even the law firms that protect patents. While states such as India, China, and Russia have had strong incentives to defect from intellectual property compliance in the past, their status as producers and exporters will increasingly make them IP defenders, in general, In specific instances, hoowever, they will continue to pursue the appropriation of critical foreign technologies, often through illicit means.
There is potential for cooperation between the major arms producers on an international IP compliance regime, which would set guidelines or “rules of the road” for export. However, continuing political and strategic disagreement between these producers will limit the overall impact of such a regime. Instead, intellectual property law will increasingly structure how military technology diffuses across the system, affecting behavior even when its tenets are honored in the breach.
2. Elaborate in the potential and opportunities for cooperation between major arms producers and the international IP Compliance regime including for the establishment of rules of guidelines for arms exports, import and collaboration opportunities such as licensing, etc. What are the drivers and obstacles?
Many companies specifically european companies are changing their approach to intellectual property (IP) management. Protection of the company’s, its patented or copyrighted assets, remains paramount, as infringement threats from the developing world multiply and litigation increases at home.
Pressure from shareholders is also building, however, to make use of swollen IP portfolios to improve top-line results. Now that the long-awaited European Community Patent looks likely to become law, Europe’s policymakers must turn their attention to harmonising local IP standards, practices and rules in order to lower the cost of innovation for local companies. The European Commission and EU member governments can also help by lobbying and working with authorities in emerging markets to improve their enforcement capacity.
These include the reluctance of customers to license the technology until it is generating value in applications and the experimentation needed to identify appropriate applications and markets, especially for generic technologies. Complementary assets must be fostered to transfer the technology across the value chain.
Arm licenses its enabling technology or architecture to partners who use it to design and then manufacture the final chip. The term ‘architecture’ is used within the field of electronic engineering to refer to high-level microchip design. In essence, an architecture identifies the design logic behind a chip, and defines how a processor must operate. An architecture may include the programmers model, the instruction set, system configuration, exception handling, and the memory model.
Intellectual Properties Licensing can promotes the technologies, leading edge patents, and would-renowned brands can be one of the best and fastest ways to accelerate your success.
Whether you are looking to shortcut Research and Development challenges, leap-frocompetition, or command premium pricing through brand affiliation, Intellectual Property regimes can colaborate more with corporations escepacially from arm producers. The approach licensing is in a clear way, straight-forward way with a focus on achieving mutual success. The colaboration of the two parties between intellectual property rights with arm producers corporations is also in the form of techonology licensing with expertise across a wide variety of vital military
industries.
The stable and good relations from corporations and arm producers offer a vast set of portable technologies and can enable the companies to compete more effectively and grow market share. The license provides specialized know-how, patented technologies and valuable business support to maximize your success in achieving business goals.
Benefits can be obtained from the technology licensing itself, which are; shorten product development time, it could gain entry into otherwise protected industries, enhance quality of products and processes, build competitive advantage, increase sales revenue, expand existing military business capabilities. The strong brands of arm producers, our cooperative go-to-market initiatives, and our established position in a variety of key industries can help pave the way to higher profitability.
All areas of intellectual property affecting the development, use, and life cycle maintenance of all Navy ships, aircraft, satellites, and other weapons systems being used or supported by the Department of The Navy Legal Community (DoN) or its foreign strategic partners, and the transfer of federally owned technology. As a result, in addition to its traditional role of acquiring patents on important DoN inventions.
The DoN’s Intellectual Property attorneys will address other areas, such as, acquiring sufficient trade secret and copyright licenses from contractors to allow the DoN to support its weapons systems, resolving claims of DoN infringement of patents, assisting the Department of Justice in cases involving intellectual property, and drafting custom patent, copyright, and trademark licenses. In addition, the DoN Intellectual Property attorneys are involved in international intellectual property protection regimes and such emerging areas as domain name disputes, e-commerce, and newer forms of intellectual property protection. In short, the DoN Intellectual Property legal community provides timely and informed counsel on both traditional and cutting edge intellectual property issues affecting the DoN in the world today.
The responsibilities of a DoN Intellectual Property attorney depend upon whether that attorney works at a Systems Command, Research Command, or Warfare Center that conducts research. Since the purpose of a Systems Command is to purchase and maintain weapon systems for use within the DoN, the work of the Intellectual Property attorney is largely focused on the transactional side of the practice. As a result, the DoN Intellectual Property attorney will largely concentrate on aiding the Systems Command in developing a strategy for a particular weapons system, drafting licenses based upon this strategy, and enforcing those licenses to protect the strategy. In addition, as a user of cutting edge technology, the DoN OGC Intellectual Property attorney is reviewing, evaluating, and settling claims alleging infringement of third-party owned intellectual property.
If DoN infringement is alleged, the Intellectual Property attorney will assist the Department of Justice in defending the lawsuit. Additionally, the Intellectual Property attorney updates the Systems Command on the latest changes in the law that affect its operations and develops solutions to the challenges posed by those changes. The Intellectual Property attorney will also prosecute and prepare patent and trademark applications and generally obtain intellectual property as needed by the Systems Command.