Intellectual Property majorly refers to the creativity of the creator of an item or property under consideration. It has varying differences with a physical property in that an intellectual property is a person’s intangible asset, created by them with their knowledge. Therefore, intellectual property rights are exclusively given to the creators of Property to their creations. The most know Intellectual property rights include industrial designs, layout designs, copyrights, geographical indications, trade secrets, and patents. The main aim of intellectual property is to provide particular incentives to the creator, mainly to help them develop their creations and enable them to share it with other people to develop society. There are primary aims of Intellectual Property Rights. These can be said to be, stimulating the growth in the economy, poverty reduction, improving the health state, provision of medicine to the poor, and aims to better education to the society. The emergence of Intellectual Property Rights in the field of invention and Technology has brought about a paradigm shift in terms of competitive rates in the industry even though being said that its primary aim is o help in the provision of the incentives to those who create the properties or rights. Based on this perspective, we can also say that the provision of incentives to the Intellectual Property Rights aims at providing protection and a bit aspect of monopoly, which is state-enforced.
Intellectual Property majorly applies to creators’ intellectual authenticity, which may include; images, designs, names, invention, music, and many ideas related to a person’s intelligence. It is also often referred to as the legal impression, which can be created based on the intelligence of n individual and qualifies to be recognized as one’s exclusive rights. Like any other form of Property, intellectual Property qualifies recognition as an asset; this is so because the owner to which the Property belongs has the authority to prevent any unauthorized sale or use of their property by any other person not allowed to do so. Physical parameters cannot be used in the definition of intellectual property; this is basically because of it being recognized as an intangible asset. This, therefore, makes an intellectual property to suit being expressed in a discernible way, which enables it to be protected from any unauthorized users and sellers. In the Intellectual Property Rights, it is opined that the Intellectual Property Rights are those rights that are exclusively recognized to the creations of an individual’s mind. Under these judicial rights, every other property right is said to qualify being exchanged, licensed, sold, and even bought. The same exclusively apply to the Intellectual Property. These laws’ main aim is to protect the creators of these sensitive creations and protect further their intellectual creativity, which many may not possess and may want to use without their consent.
One can say that people’s urge and trial to define Intellectual Property protection in the 21st century is just the same or is just like trying to cross a quicksand (Dratler, 2020). This is because only as one may think they have covered all the danger areas; they may get themselves in other sinkholes that may drag themselves under what could have been covered. In the traditional areas, at the International level, Intellectual Property has five primary acknowledgment forms: trade secrets, industrial designs, patents, copyrights, and trademarks (Dratler & McJohn 2020). According to Dratler & McJohn (2020), all these have received significant attention from international protection regimes and domestic ones. The forms of Intellectual Property discussed above will also subsume many of the Intellectual Property Protection’s original parts. These will include cultural expression in certain states, potential traditional knowledge, and not leaving out the geographical indications (Dratler, 2020). Having mentioned the significant aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights, a detailed discussion the IP rights therefore suffices
A patent is a right that is exclusively given to a person with the main aim of intervening in a product or a process that is certainly providing original and authentic ways of carrying out something or an activity (Durham, 2018). It can also solve an arising technical problem for an activity. Patent protection, therefore, means that a creation developed by a creator cannot be distributed, sold, commercially made, and even used without the creator’s consent or the consent from the Intellectual Property rights Laws (Durham, 2018). However, the patent creator can offer permission to license the other parties interested in using the Intellectual Property on terms that both parties mutually (Dratler, 2020). The creations owner can also offer to sell the rights of their invention to any interested party who will later become the owner of their product and even the patent. The laws of Intellectual Property opine that the patent is granted for 20 years, that is, from the date of making an application for the patent (Durham, 2018).
On the other hand, copyright can be described as the rights offered to the Intellectual Property owners to protect their artistic and literary works. This type of Intellectual Property may apply to a broader range of cultural forms or creative intellectual or even works that are intellectually recognized as those of the creators (Dratler & McJohn, 2020). Works that copyright cover includes but are not limited to reference works, musical compositions, sculptures and photographs, technical drawings, maps, and even paintings. However, copyrights are limited in that they do not cover information and ideas themselves. This can be said to be the best right in comparison in that it provides economic freedom to the creator, which is an economic privilege that lasts for fifty years after the death of the creator of the intellectual Property (Dratler & McJohn, 2020).
Industrial design is majorly based on creation, which includes the composition of pattern or the pattern’s configuration, a combination of patterns that contains an aesthetical value (Dratler & McJohn, 2020). The industrial design also protects the traditional craft items, such as the hand-woven articles, including the bed covers and the carpets. A trademark is a design, sign, and expression which provides a distinction between a product or service of a specific creator from those of other creators in the industry (Oke, 2018). The trademark can also be patented like industrial designs and inventions. A trademark can combine numbers, words, symbols, sounds, and even letters. Trademark registration is generally seven years which, however, can be renewed by applying again indefinitely (Olaisen &Revang, 2017). Trademark protects by ensuring there is an exclusive right to use it to identify goods or services or provide authorization of one to use it with an agreement of making a payment in later dates (Dratler, 2020).
A trade secret incorporates process, design instrument, and formula. It may also contain information compiled, which may not be reasonably ascertainable in a way that may do business to solicit an economic advantage over the customers or the competitors (Dratler & McJohn 2020). Also, a trademark can also be said to be a secret business message which provides a competitive edge for an enterprise. Items contained in the trade secrets are consumer profiles, advertising strategies, suppliers’ lists, the process of manufacturing, and the clients of an enterprise (Olaisen &Revang, 2017). Trade secrets are protected for a reasonably unlimited period; however, a substantial aspect of confidentiality must exist, which will make it challenging to acquire the information except by the use of illegal means (Dratler & McJohn, 2020). Therefore, this paper is tailored to provide an in-depth understanding of the Security impact of intellectual Property within an organization by evaluating some recent works of those who have conducted studies in this particular area and providing a recommendation for the general research done.
2.0 Problem Statement
There has been vast and massive literature on the security impact of the Intellectual Property within an organization. Roles of the Intellectual Property have also been covered by various scholars in the field of academia. These have been done on academic legal scholarships, case studies, and even on multiple treaties by the international nongovernmental organizations. Maskus (2019) looked into the Intellectual Property Rights, Policy Space and Development, where he found out that there is flexibility in the laws of nearly all developed economies. While positing his discussion on the policy space, he went further to opine that flexibility is mostly couched in terms of developing countries’ approaches. It was found out that these policies majorly apply in equal measure to those countries which are created, and they are often used (Maskus, 2019). He went further by posting a question on how these policies should be applied; how well can these policies fit in the developing country’s resources and strategies?
A study recently done by Alnafrah & Maximova (2019) confirmed that the current global Intellectual Property Rights system had one main aim of formation. That is to exclusively help clarify the investors’ rights having the objective of selling their goods in the investment markets and international trade (Yu, 2018). It was also to assist in defining the rights of the creators of a property which subject to the Intellectual Property Rights (Alnafrah & Maximova 2019). However, more significant controversies have arisen concerning the vital public needs, which include; environmental protection, education, nutrition, and health. However, Rushing (2019) confirms that the Intellectual Property Rights is mandated in the inputs and the technologies involved in addressing these needs and providing a clear guideline in which is directed towards providing control and private ownership (Rushing, 2019).
Due to this background, this study sought to fill this knowledge gap by providing a discussion in understanding the security impact of intellectual Property within an organization. Discussion based on understanding the impact of Intellectual Property within the organization is so limited. Therefore, the issue is not how many Researchers or scholars have made classical studies on providing ways in which the mass can underrate the security impact of Intellectual property, but how will the organization be affected by securing the intellectual property. This, therefore, leaves us to pose one question, does securing the Intellectual Property have an impact within the organization?
The project’s overall objective is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the security impact of Intellectual Property within the organization.
The study seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the following specifically;
Protecting your organization’s Intellectual Property rights will mean a lot to your company. Protecting unique products and services that your business own as a its own competitor may in some period use your success which they may use to take up market share. As a result, this will lead to a loss of revenue and slow growth of your business. A loss of market share will greatly lead to a devastation of your business in that you will not be able to sell as you were selling before and you may also lose the customer touch. Once your business loses customer touch there will be a taint in the name of the entire business which may make you go bankrupt. If you are in a position of registering for an Intellectual Property Right and you register for it, you will see it as an easy task. It will protect more than your ideas of business because there will also be a protection of your logos, corporate identities, this will be through the products and even the service and the processes of the business.
A business name refers to that name which one uses to identify their work, brand and even a performance which is valuable to the business. In those situations when your artwork’s performance becomes more successful, the name will become more important for your operations. The name will be a big asset which is so recognizable. This is said so because it is the name which you will use for exhibition purposes, performances and even when selling tickets for shows. The Copyright does not protect a business or the trading names and slogans because all these are not considered to be substantial enough to be considered as an original work. In some instances, however, a business logo with the design elements or names protection maybe protected under the artistic work.
Often at times it is always assumed that any property which is a creation of an employee or an independent contractor is an asset of the employer. In some major cases this is said to be true. There are some trademark law provisions which were amended and says that copyright can be excluded by a contrary provision of the clause. On some aspects it is important to protect the employees Intellectual Property in order to guarantee the employees the ownership of any intellectual property that the employees may have created.
This section gives a record of what has been distributed on the theme to certify researchers. A literature review exists to pass on what learning and thoughts have been set up on the articles. Additionally, and what their qualities and shortcomings are.
Also known as the practical theory and applied to protect useful works that have a value that lies in satisfying desires more effectively. It is, therefore, logical that society would strive for such appointments within a utilitarian government regime. The United States constitution expressly conditions the grant of power to congress to create patent and copyright laws upon a utilitarian foundation. The economic theory, which is a particular instantiation of utilitarianism, has provided a principal framework for analyzing the intellectual property. The utilitarian approach uses economic measures to suggest how intellectual property would create the most significant advantage for the more significant number (Drahos, 2016).
Lockean labor holds that intellectual property at first comes about by using power of labor upon natural resources. Locke felt that the benefits of a person’s work are one’s own because they worked for it. The theory seeks to apply the seminal rationale of John Locke regarding property rights (Dratler & Mc John, 2020). Locke believed that a person enjoys natural freedom in the fruits of his labor in transforming raw materials, which are the ideas and concepts held in common with a finished product’s value. The theory offered entitlements, which can be categorized into three; the intellectual property owner has the right to use the property without causing any harm. Secondly, the owner has a right to transfer the property and, finally, exclude anyone from its usage (Dratler & Mc John, 2020).
The Personality Theory by Fisher- Fisher developed four specific needs appropriate for intellectual property: privacy, individual self-realization, identity, and benevolence. Jefferson’s social planning theory to the present disagrees with the utilitarian theory due to its focus on a broader society serviced by intellectual property than the utilitarian focus. Neil Netanel gave a view of copyright as intending as motivated towards serving an enormous, involving, and integrated civil society where social and political movements abound (Toma et al., 2018).
Incentive Theory– William Nordhaus confirmed that every increase induration or patent strengths stimulates a similar inventive activity movement. In the end, gains are realized on social welfare, including consumer surplus and producer surplus associated with the intellectual property distribution. When costs like administrative costs or deadweight losses experienced that hail from an increase in the intellectual properties’ prices, welfare reduces because of lack of an enhanced incentive. Harold Demsetz argued that the patents and copyrights systems play an essential role in giving room for potential producers of the various forms of intellectual property to know what customers want.
The methodology adopted discusses the methods applied in the gathering and analysis of the data. It also involves reporting of the analyzed data (Mohajan, 2018). The methodology incorporates types of data sources, the population used, and techniques the researcher adopted to select sample size. Besides, it states the data collection process and the analysis of the data (Mohajan, 2018).
The study used inferential research design, which seeks to establish factors connected with certain happenings, results, conditions, and its primary objective is to explain the current needs of the affairs as they exist. It analyzed understanding the security impact within the organization. It encompasses the research design that considers factors including the sample size and how it affects the targeted population. The particular variables being studied, the approach is taken when conducting the research and various data collection methods (Kumar, 2019). Mohajan (2018) explains that this design’s advantage is that the researcher can use various forms of data and incorporate the human experience.
Population involves every element, individuals, and units that satisfy the selection requirements that need to be researched on and from which the representative sample is taken for a comprehensive examination. This study used the census approach where 35 organizations that have met the threshold of 5 years’ existence was analyzed on the security impact of intellectual facing them. The five years is considered accurate since it has been used in other studies.
The study used secondary data for analyzing the relationship between liquidity management and the financial performance. The study also utilized preliminary data where questionnaires were used to break down the auxiliary information gathered from secondary sources.
Data analysis includes sorting out representing, and clarifying the data; that comprehends the data as far as respondents meaning of the circumstance taking note of examples, subjects, classes, and regularities (Cooper and Schindler 2001). After the data has been broken down, an interrogation was done to guarantee the pattern and examples of the different proportions and models used to empower for a precise and furnished understanding. The data was analyzed using quantitative statistical techniques and non-parametric tests in the computation of correlation, frequencies, percentages, standard deviation, graphs, and charts. The study used multiple regression analysis models to analyze the results of the security impacts of intellectual property o an organization. The study used the analytical model shown below to achieve the objectives of this study.
TNIP- Total intellectual property numbers possessed by the organization.
TP- Total number of patents owned by the firm
TC- All copyrights held by the organization
TD- Total number of trademarks the firm owns
TL- Total licenses held by the firm
The model significance was tested using F-test, z-test, and t-test at a 5% significance level. Pearson’s coefficient justified the extent to which the analytical model describes variances between the independent variables and the dependent variable. If the critical value exceeds the computed statistic, then the coefficient is not significant. Hence, the null hypothesis Ho is accepted; otherwise, Ho is rejected.
This section involves the examination and understandings of study discoveries. This research’s primary goal was to develop a sense of security impact of intellectual property. The section presents the results obtained from the inferential statistics methodologies that include regression analysis, ANOVA, and regression.
The study gives the results of empirical studies of the relationship between the security impact of intellectual property and the various organizations. According to the study, the relationship between the investment in intellectual property and multiple organizations’ growth was significantly positive. The growth measure was based on revenue-growth from data obtained from various firms. Notably, security impact of intellectual property analyzed comprised of patents, copyright, the trademarks, and licenses used for sourcing external technology.
A unit increase in total intellectual property would result in 6 times increase organization growth. Security has a positive coefficient, which indicates a positive relationship between intellectual property and the firm’s development with profitability. The coefficient’s significance at a 5% level with a 2 –tailed test was found to be 0.036. 0.036 is less than 0.05 hence significant. This implies that the security impact of intellectual property within the organization is positive.
The F ratio tests whether the overall regression model is a fit for the data. The table shows that the independent variable predicts the dependent variable F(1,28)= 0.0262, P < 0.05, indicating that the independent variable shows a statistically significant relationship with the dependent variable. The proportion of variance in the organization’s growth can be predicted from the impacts of security, where it indicates a value of 91.8 % can be expected from the variable security. The study results are 87.96% reliable from the adjusted R square.
The coefficient of determination (r square value) is 98.3% this value indicates that 98.3% of the variance in organization growth can be predicted from the variable prevention. From the table also the adjusted r square is –0.001 which measures the reliability of the results. The f ratio was used to justify whether the overall regression model is a fit for the data, independent variable prevention predicts the dependent variable f(1,28)= 0.032,p > 0.05 showing that the independent variable prevention shows a significant relationship with the dependent variable.
Prevention has a negative coefficient which indicate a negative relationship to performance. From the model, it is also clear that a unit increase in debt would result to 9 times increase in performance. The significance of the coefficient with a 2-tailed test was found to significant as indicated by the p value of debt (0.045) which is less than 0.05. This implies that we fail to accept the null hypothesis. The proportion of variance in growth can be predicted from domain indicating a value of 86.8% which shows that 86.8% of variance can be predicted from the variable domain name.
The study results are 77.6% reliable from the adjusted r square. It is clear that a unit increase in domain name would result to 6 times increase i performance. Domain has a positive coefficient which indicates a positive relationship with the growth of the organization. The significance of the coefficient at 5% level with a 2 –tailed test was found to be 0.046 which is less than 0.05 hence significant. From the model, the variable influence is negatively related to performance because the coefficient is negative. The model also shows that holding the predicted variables constant at 0 the growth would be 74 times further, the result show that influence has a positive relationship with performance where a unit decrease in influence would result into 0 times decrease in performance .the significance of the coefficient at 5% level with a 2-tailed test was found to be insignificant at 3.4% which is greater than 0.05. This implies that we fail to reject the null hypothesis that influence did not have a significant effect on security of intellectual property.
The study’s findings show that the relationship is significant enough to explain the relationship between the variables. The coefficient of determination of this study was 98.3 % for prevention, 86.8% for the domain, and 92% for influence, meaning that, giving an example with the prevention, the model explained 98.3% on the organization’s growth. The F-test also showed that the calculated value of trademarks was less than the study’s F critical value. The alpha value of 0.05 was also less than the p-value of all the variables. This, therefore, led the researcher to fail to accept the null hypothesis and consequently concluded that understanding of security impact within the organization is positive. This outcome is consistent with Wayne (2013) outcome who demonstrates that effective protection of intellectual property within institutions is imperative.
The study recommends that the organization’s management should clearly spell out a clear mission and vision for the unit responsible for the intellectual property and further convey the mission and vision internally and externally. The task should hold the foundations of the organization to the uttermost.
Larger organizations should consider having a committee that advises on investments and upholding the organization’s intellectual property boundaries. The committee should have regular meetings to deliberate on licensing practices consistent with the goals of the organization. Other factors to consider would be driving the intellectual property towards more comprehensive benefits and seizing new market opportunities. As disputes may arise, outside neutral personnel in the committee would be relevant (Zhang et al., 2018).
More research units on the security impacts on intellectual property would be suitable as theories have proven research useful. This should involve training and alerting the management of fundamental issues in intellectual property and have it braced for challenges that pop in society. Broader issues in financing are vital to be considered by organizations on intellectual property to enhance accountability (Zhang et al., 2018).
Smaller institutions should consider greater outreach and pursue entrepreneurial development in the security of the intellectual property (Zhang et al., 2018). Collaborating with larger and more efficiently managed organizations would be wise. Outsourcing some functions to provide entities on intellectual property focused on particular fields may be appropriate to enhance security.
There is an increasing demand for having a comprehensive understanding by organizations on the security impact of intellectual property. The statistical relationship between organization growth and the security on intellectual property is significantly positive. This study’s main objective was to develop a comprehensive understanding of the security impact of intellectual property within the organization. The specific objectives included; examine the impact of preventing the organization intellectual property rights from infringement, establishing the impact of protecting the organization name and domain name, and finally determining the influence of protecting the property rights on the organization’s employees and contractors. The study’s findings show that the relationship is significant enough to explain the relationship between the variables. The coefficient of determination of this study was 98.3 % for prevention, 86.8% for the domain, and 92% for influence, meaning that, giving an example with the prevention, the model explained 98.3% on the organization’s growth. Using the Pearson Coefficient, the coefficient’s significance at a 5% level with a 2 –tailed test was found to be 0.036, which is less than 0.05 hence significant. This concludes that the security impact of intellectual property within the organization is positive.