Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Intangible property

Intangible property refers to non-physical assets that hold economic value derivable from contractual or legal rights, lacking inherent physical substance but enforceable through ownership, transfer, and exclusion of others.^[1]^[2] These assets encompass intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, alongside goodwill, brand equity, and certain contractual rights like licenses or non-compete agreements.^[3]^[4] Unlike tangible property, intangibles derive scarcity and exclusivity primarily from statutory or common law mechanisms rather than natural limits, enabling their role in fostering innovation while complicating valuation due to subjective assessments of future economic benefits.^[5]^[6] In contemporary economies, intangible property increasingly dominates balance sheets, often comprising the majority of corporate value in knowledge-driven sectors like technology and pharmaceuticals, where it underpins competitive advantages through barriers to imitation.^[7]^[8] Key characteristics include identifiability—separable from the entity or arising from rights—and potential for indefinite useful life, though many, such as patents, have finite durations tied to legal protections averaging 20 years.^[6]^[9] Legal recognition varies by jurisdiction, with frameworks like the U.S. Internal Revenue Code explicitly defining intangibles to include processes, designs, and literary works for taxation and transfer purposes.^[2] Defining debates center on the application of traditional property paradigms to intangibles, questioning whether state-granted monopolies in intellectual property align with natural rights or stifle broader access, as evidenced in scholarly critiques of overextension in patent and copyright scopes.^[10] Enforcement challenges arise from digital replication ease, prompting ongoing reforms in international treaties and domestic laws to balance incentivization of creation against public domain erosion.^[11] Despite these tensions, intangible property remains foundational to capital markets, with empirical studies showing firms rich in such assets outperforming peers in long-term returns due to sustained innovation rents.^[8]

Definition and Core Concepts

Definition and Distinction from Tangible Property

Intangible property refers to assets lacking physical form but deriving economic value from enforceable legal rights or contractual entitlements, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and goodwill.^[12] These assets encompass exclusionary claims over innovations, expressions, or relational benefits, where ownership is established not through corporeal possession but via statutory or judicial recognition that prohibits unauthorized exploitation.^[13] Under standards like IAS 38, intangible assets are defined as identifiable non-monetary assets without physical substance, separable from the holder or arising from contractual or legal rights, enabling their identification, control, and transfer independent of tangible embodiments.^[5] Tangible property, by contrast, consists of physical objects—such as land, machinery, vehicles, or inventory—that can be directly sensed, possessed, and transferred through material control, with inherent scarcity arising from finite natural resources or production limits.^[14] ^[15] Intangibles differ fundamentally in that their underlying elements, like ideas or processes, possess non-rivalrous qualities, allowing infinite replication without depleting the original absent intervention; legal mechanisms thus impose artificial scarcity to facilitate ownership, akin to how physical barriers secure tangibles but reliant on institutional enforcement rather than self-evident boundaries.^[16] ^[17] This distinction manifests causally in transfer and enforcement: tangible property's value persists through direct handover or destruction of the item, whereas intangibles' worth depends on documented rights and credible deterrence against infringement, as duplication erodes exclusivity without court or administrative remedies.^[18] For example, a patented chemical formula grants monopoly rights over its commercial application, enforceable via litigation, in opposition to a physical reactor embodying the same process, whose control stems from locking access to its steel frame rather than abstract claims.^[12] ^[14] Such reliance on state-backed exclusivity highlights intangibles' emergence from deliberate policy to extend property norms beyond natural homesteadable resources, prioritizing institutional credibility over inherent materiality.^[16]

Philosophical Foundations of Property Rights in Intangibles

John Locke's labor theory of property, articulated in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), posits that individuals acquire rightful ownership over unowned resources by mixing their labor with them, thereby transforming common elements into private property so long as sufficient resources remain for others (the Lockean proviso). This principle has been extended by proponents of intellectual property rights to intangibles, arguing that the mental labor invested in creating ideas, inventions, or expressions generates a similar claim, as the creator "homesteads" abstract resources from the realm of undiscovered or unapplied knowledge.^[19] However, this extension faces critique for conflating tangible scarcity with the non-rivalrous nature of ideas: unlike land or objects, which become depleted or rivalrous through use, ideas can be replicated infinitely without reducing the original creator's access, undermining the scarcity-based justification central to Lockean homesteading.^[20] Locke himself distinguished ideas from material property, viewing the former as potentially exempt from exclusive claims due to their immaterial and shareable essence, which avoids the conflicts inherent in physical enclosure. Lysander Spooner, in The Law of Intellectual Property (1855), advanced a natural rights defense of perpetual ownership in intangibles, contending that authors and inventors hold an inherent, unlimited claim to the fruits of their intellectual labor, akin to bodily property, and that statutory time limits on copyrights or patents impose artificial restrictions violating this natural entitlement.^[21] Spooner rejected utilitarian balancing acts, insisting that the creator's exclusive control over idea dissemination derives from self-ownership extended to mental products, without needing government-granted monopolies but opposed to any imposed decay of rights. In contrast, extensions of self-ownership to intangibles, as explored in libertarian frameworks, portray ideas as extensions of the "body of the mind," warranting protection against unauthorized replication to preserve the creator's agency over their cognitive output.^[22] Yet critics argue this analogy falters because non-rivalrous goods like pure information do not generate the exclusionary conflicts justifying traditional property; one person's use imposes no physical deprivation on another, rendering enforced exclusivity a departure from natural limits rather than their fulfillment.^[23] From a causal realist perspective, property rights in intangibles arise not from presumed scarcity or utilitarian incentives but from verifiable chains of production: the creator's mind and effort causally generate value in information goods, entitling them to exclude free-riders whose uncompensated copying disrupts the causal link between labor input and output reward, potentially leading to underproduction akin to a commons tragedy in incentivized creation.^[24] This grounds rights in the objective reality of who originated the good through identifiable effort, prioritizing prevention of demonstrable harm—such as lost control over derivative uses—over blanket monopolies that may exceed causal contributions. Enforcement must thus align with empirical evidence of infringement's effects, avoiding assumptions of inherent rivalry in ideas and questioning equivalences with tangibles where replication costs approach zero, as digital dissemination reveals no inevitable depletion but potential for widespread access without creator dispossession.^[25] Such reasoning subordinates consequentialist defenses to the primacy of causal origins, ensuring rights derive from production realities rather than policy fiat.^[26]

Types and Classification

Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights constitute a primary category of intangible property, granting creators and owners statutory exclusivity over innovations, expressions, and identifiers to prevent unauthorized exploitation. These rights derive from legislative enactments rather than natural attributes of the assets, requiring registration or documentation in most jurisdictions for enforceability, with remedies typically pursued through civil courts for infringement damages or injunctions. Patents confer limited-term monopoly rights for novel, inventive, and industrially applicable inventions, excluding mere discoveries or abstract ideas. Under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization, member states must provide a minimum patent term of 20 years from the filing date, calculated from the application submission to compensate for examination delays and public disclosure requirements.^[27] This exclusivity enables patentees to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention, fostering innovation through temporary market control while eventually enriching the public domain via mandatory technical specifications in patent applications.^[28] Copyright safeguards original works of authorship expressed in fixed forms, such as books, musical compositions, software code, or visual arts, protecting the expression rather than underlying ideas or facts. The modern copyright system traces to the Statute of Anne, enacted by the British Parliament on April 10, 1710, which vested authors with exclusive printing rights for an initial 14 years, renewable once if the author lived, marking the shift from perpetual guild monopolies to time-bound creator incentives.^[29] Contemporary durations vary by jurisdiction but often extend to the author's life plus 50 to 70 years, with automatic protection upon fixation in eligible countries under the Berne Convention, enforceable against reproduction, distribution, or derivative uses without permission.^[30] Trademarks secure indefinite protection for distinctive symbols, words, or designs that denote the source of goods or services, preventing consumer confusion. Unlike patents and copyrights, trademark rights persist as long as the mark remains in use and is periodically renewed with proof of commercial activity, such as every 10 years in the United States under the Lanham Act framework. Registration with bodies like the United States Patent and Trademark Office confers nationwide priority and presumptive validity, allowing owners to enjoin infringing uses that dilute brand distinctiveness or mislead markets. Trade secrets protect confidential business information deriving economic value from secrecy, such as formulas, processes, or customer lists, without formal registration but through reasonable efforts to maintain nondisclosure, like nondisclosure agreements or restricted access. These rights endure perpetually while secrecy holds, contrasting with patents' disclosure mandate, as disclosure places the information in the public domain without recourse. The Coca-Cola Company's beverage formula, safeguarded since 1886 through vault storage and limited employee access, exemplifies this mechanism, enabling over 135 years of exclusivity absent reverse engineering or breach.^[31] Enforcement targets misappropriation via theft, breach, or improper means, with remedies including injunctions and damages under statutes like the U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. Overlaps exist among IP subtypes, notably design patents, which shield novel ornamental appearances of articles, intersecting utility patents' functional claims by addressing aesthetic innovations ineligible for pure copyright due to utility. In the U.S., design patents last 15 years from grant, complementing trademarks for product configurations when source-identifying. Such hybrid protections underscore IP's taxonomy as court-enforced privileges, verifiable through grant records and infringement precedents rather than intrinsic asset qualities.^[32]

Contractual and Relational Intangibles

Contractual intangibles refer to property rights derived from enforceable agreements, where value originates from the legal obligation of one party to perform for another, rather than from independent creation or inherent scarcity. These rights, often termed choses in action, represent abstract claims enforceable only through judicial process, such as the creditor's entitlement to repayment under a debt instrument or the holder's option to purchase at a predetermined price.^[33]^[34] Unlike tangible assets, they lack physical form and possession, existing solely as personal rights backed by the counterparty's duty, which courts recognize as assignable property subject to legal remedies like specific performance or damages upon breach.^[35] Examples include contractual licenses permitting specified uses of assets and leases of non-physical resources, such as rights to broadcast frequencies or access databases, where the lessee holds an intangible interest contingent on the lessor's continued compliance. These differ from intellectual property by their secondary, derivative nature—stemming from bargained-for promises rather than statutory exclusivity—and are vulnerable to termination clauses or mutual rescission, underscoring their reliance on relational enforcement rather than absolute ownership. In common law jurisdictions, such rights evolved as incorporeal property, transferable via assignment but requiring notice to the obligor to bind successors.^[36] Relational intangibles arise from ongoing business associations, formalized through covenants that safeguard expected benefits from counterparties, such as non-compete clauses restricting former employees or partners from soliciting established clients. Customer lists, when protected by contractual confidentiality provisions, exemplify these assets, deriving worth from the anticipated continuity of commercial ties rather than list compilation alone, though courts scrutinize enforceability based on legitimate interests like preventing unfair diversion of goodwill.^[37]^[38] Breach of these covenants disrupts the causal link to future performance, as seen in cases where non-compliance erodes relational value through lost patronage, enforceable via injunctions tied to the original agreement's terms.^[39] The enforceability of these intangibles hinges on principles of contract law, where implied rights—such as covenants of good faith—bolster explicit terms, ensuring the obligor's performance aligns with the parties' intent without extending to non-parties. This framework, rooted in precedents affirming choses as suable interests, highlights their fragility: value evaporates if the counterparty defaults or disputes validity, necessitating robust drafting to mitigate risks like ambiguity in relational scopes.^[40]^[41]

Business and Financial Intangibles

Business and financial intangibles encompass enterprise-specific assets that contribute to a firm's ongoing operational value, such as goodwill and assembled workforce, which arise from synergies and relational factors rather than discrete legal entitlements like patents. These assets enhance the going-concern value by facilitating continued operations and competitive advantages derived from market-observed behaviors, including acquisition premiums paid for established customer bases or trained personnel, contrasting with intellectual property's reliance on statutory grants.^[42]^[43] Goodwill represents the residual excess of purchase consideration over the fair value of identifiable net assets acquired in a business combination, capturing unidentifiable elements like brand loyalty, customer retention synergies, and post-merger operational efficiencies. Under IFRS 3, goodwill is recognized as an asset embodying future economic benefits from assets not individually identifiable, such as the premium paid in acquisitions where buyers value entrenched market positions—evidenced by empirical data from firm exits showing capitalized intangibles tied to observable transaction prices from 1978 to 2017.^[44]^[45] This valuation stems from market behaviors, like bidding premiums reflecting proven revenue streams, rather than speculative potentials.^[46] Assembled workforce, as a human capital intangible, denotes the cohesive collection of skilled employees enabling seamless business continuity post-acquisition, often subsumed within goodwill rather than recognized separately due to its non-separable nature under standards like ASC 805. It includes value from proprietary training and institutional knowledge, empirically inferred from reduced turnover costs and sustained productivity in acquired entities, but lacks standalone identifiability as it cannot be sold without disrupting operations.^[9]^[47] Identifiable financial intangibles, such as franchise agreements or favorable contract-based rights, are recognized under IAS 38 when they meet criteria of controllability and separability, exemplified by licensing deals granting exclusive operational rights that generate verifiable cash flows. These differ from broader financial instruments like derivatives, which fall under IFRS 9 as monetary assets, by deriving value from contractual terms observable in market transactions, such as franchise fees reflecting branded network synergies.^[9] Valuation relies on empirical inputs like discounted cash flows from historical agreement performance, ensuring grounding in realized market data over abstract projections.^[48]

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Origins and Early Legal Recognition

In medieval Europe, craft guilds provided the primary mechanism for protecting intangible knowledge such as proprietary techniques and recipes, enforcing secrecy through internal rules, oaths, and penalties like fines or expulsion for unauthorized disclosure. These guilds treated technical know-how as tied to the apprenticeship system, where masters invested labor in training, deriving exclusive use from verifiable efforts rather than abstract rights; breaches were addressed via customary tribunals rather than state courts, reflecting a practical recognition that uncontrolled diffusion undermined the economic value created by such labor.^[49]^[50] The advent of the movable-type printing press, developed by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440, intensified concerns over unauthorized replication by enabling mass production of texts, leading rulers to issue ad hoc privileges granting printers temporary monopolies on specific works to recoup investments and curb piracy. In Venice, such privileges evolved into formalized protections; by 1469, the state awarded exclusive printing rights, culminating in the Senate's decree of March 19, 1474, which established Europe's first statutory patent system, awarding inventors a 10-year exclusive right to "any new and ingenious device" not previously made in the dominion, provided they disclosed the method and refrained from exporting key artisans. This measure balanced incentives for disclosure against secrecy, fostering innovation in glassmaking and machinery while limiting scope to utility and novelty verifiable by officials.^[51]^[52] English common law, influenced by Venetian practices, saw early royal letters patent granting inventors limited monopolies from the late 15th century, often for imported techniques, but these were prone to abuse as favors rather than merit-based rewards. Courts of equity, prior to statutory codification, intervened in cases of misappropriated confidences obtained through trust or employment, issuing injunctions against disclosure based on the equitable principle that one acquiring secrets under obligation of fidelity could not exploit them unjustly, as seen in precedents enforcing apprentices' non-disclosure covenants. Such protections remained narrow, secondary to tangible assets like land, and contingent on demonstrated harm from breach, without presuming inherent property in ideas apart from their embodiment or contractual bounds.^[53]^[52]

19th-20th Century Codification and Expansion

The U.S. Constitution of 1787 granted Congress explicit authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 to secure exclusive rights for authors and inventors to promote science and useful arts, laying early groundwork for federal codification of patents and copyrights amid growing industrialization.^[54] In the United Kingdom, the Copyright Act of 1842 consolidated prior statutes, extending protection to authors' lifetimes plus seven years or 42 years from publication, whichever was longer, thereby standardizing literary copyrights in response to expanded printing technologies and book trade demands.^[55] International harmonization accelerated with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed on March 20, 1883, which established reciprocal national treatment for patents, trademarks, and industrial designs among member states, addressing cross-border exploitation driven by 19th-century trade growth.^[56] Similarly, the Berne Convention of September 9, 1886, introduced automatic protection without formalities for literary and artistic works, with revisions such as the 1908 Berlin update extending coverage to emerging formats like cinematography.^[57] These treaties marked a shift from purely national regimes to institutionalized frameworks, spurred by causal pressures from technological proliferation, including Thomas Edison's 1877 phonograph invention, which necessitated extensions for mechanical reproductions as evidenced by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1909 granting composers rights over sound recordings.^[58] Twentieth-century expansions reflected surging innovation, with U.S. patent grants rising from 24,598 in 1900 to 175,923 utility patents in 2000, correlating with industrialization and post-war economic booms that amplified intangible asset filings.^[59] Berne and Paris conventions underwent multiple revisions, enhancing enforcement and scope, while the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), evolving from 1947, increasingly linked IP to trade disciplines, culminating in the Uruguay Round's 1986–1994 negotiations that produced the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), mandating minimum standards enforceable via WTO mechanisms.^[60] This progression formalized intangible property as a cornerstone of global commerce, driven by verifiable surges in applications amid mechanical and electrical advancements rather than mere policy advocacy.^[59]

Post-2000 Globalization and Digital Era Shifts

The post-2000 era saw intensified global enforcement of intangible property rights under the WTO's TRIPS Agreement, with developed nations pushing bilateral and plurilateral initiatives to address non-compliance in emerging markets and counterfeiting surges. Efforts included free trade agreements incorporating TRIPS-plus standards, such as enhanced border measures and criminal penalties for IP violations, reflecting a causal link between weak enforcement and economic losses estimated at hundreds of billions annually in trade in counterfeit goods.^[61]^[62] Digital technologies amplified challenges to traditional intangible protections, prompting responses like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiated in 2011 among parties including the US, EU, Japan, and others to standardize enforcement against online piracy and counterfeits, including provisions for digital rights management and intermediary liability. Though signed by several nations, ACTA faced widespread protests over perceived overreach on civil liberties and failed ratification in the EU Parliament in 2012, highlighting tensions between global harmonization and domestic sovereignty.^[63] In parallel, the EU's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019/790), adopted April 17, 2019, modernized rules for online content sharing, mandating platforms to filter uploads for infringing material and negotiate licenses with rightholders, aiming to balance creator remuneration with digital access amid streaming's dominance.^[64] Emerging technologies like AI and blockchain tested intangible property boundaries, with the US Copyright Office's 2023-2025 initiatives analyzing generative AI training on copyrighted works as potentially qualifying as fair use on a case-by-case basis, depending on transformative purpose, market harm, and input scale, without a blanket exemption.^[65] Software patents, post the US Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) decision narrowing abstract idea eligibility, nonetheless proliferated in areas like AI algorithms and cloud computing, underpinning innovation in tech sectors. Blockchain-based non-fungible tokens (NFTs) peaked in 2021 with global sales volumes exceeding $17 billion, experimenting with tokenized ownership of digital intangibles like art and collectibles, though subsequent market corrections exposed volatility and unresolved legal status under traditional IP regimes.^[66] Empirically, these shifts correlated with intangibles comprising 90% of S&P 500 market value by 2020, up from 17% in 1975, driven by software, data, and brands in knowledge economies, as firms leveraged patents and copyrights to capture digital value amid globalization's supply chain integrations.^[67] This trend underscored causal realism in policy: stronger intangible protections incentivized R&D investment, with studies linking IP-intensive industries to higher productivity growth, though enforcement gaps in digital domains persisted.^[68]

Legal Frameworks and Protection

National and International Regimes

In the United States, intangible property rights are protected through a federal statutory framework rooted in common law traditions, where the Lanham Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.) governs trademarks by establishing a national registration system and remedies against infringing uses.^[69] Patents are regulated under Title 35 of the U.S. Code (35 U.S.C.), which outlines patentability criteria, examination procedures, and a term of 20 years from filing for utility patents, administered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.^[70] Common law approaches in such systems integrate judicial precedents to interpret statutes, allowing flexibility in addressing novel disputes like trademark dilution or patent obviousness. The European Union contrasts with a civil law-oriented unitary regime, exemplified by the European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) system, which grants a single right effective across all 27 member states upon registration with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, covering absolute and relative grounds for refusal without requiring use for initial validity.^[71] Civil law jurisdictions emphasize comprehensive statutory codes over expansive case law, leading to harmonized protections like the EU's 10-year renewable trademark term, though national courts apply interpretations aligned with EU directives. This unitary model reduces fragmentation compared to decentralized common law filings but mandates uniform enforcement standards. Internationally, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administers foundational treaties, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), which establishes priority rights for patents and trademarks across member states, and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), providing automatic copyright protection without formalities for life plus 50 years minimum.^[72] The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) sets binding minimum standards for WTO members, mandating patent availability for inventions in all technology fields with a non-extendable term of 20 years from filing, alongside national treatment and most-favored-nation principles.^[60] Variations persist in implementation, as in China, where state-driven intellectual property regimes have incorporated reforms via the 2020 U.S.-China Phase One Economic and Trade Agreement, which committed to strengthened patent linkages with regulatory approvals, criminal penalties for trade secret theft, and improved administrative enforcement.^[73] WIPO statistics reflect these dynamics, with global patent filings reaching 3.5 million in 2023—a 1.7% increase—led by China accounting for 49% of applications, indicating rising activity amid ongoing regime adaptations.^[74]

Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedies

Enforcement of intangible property rights, particularly intellectual property, primarily occurs through civil litigation, where courts issue injunctions to halt infringing activities and award damages to compensate owners. In the United States, under the Copyright Act of 1976, owners may elect statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per infringed work, escalating to $150,000 for willful infringement, as an alternative to proving actual damages such as lost profits or licensing fees.^[75]^[76] Actual damages require evidence of direct financial harm, while statutory damages simplify recovery when quantification is challenging.^[77] For patents and trademarks, injunctions remain a core remedy, though post-2006 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange standards require courts to assess irreparable harm, balance equities, and consider public interest before granting permanent injunctions, reducing automatic relief.^[78] Criminal penalties target willful and large-scale infringement to deter severe violations. The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997 amended U.S. copyright law to impose felony charges for reproducing or distributing copyrighted works exceeding $1,000 in value over 180 days, even without commercial advantage or private financial gain, with penalties up to five years imprisonment for first offenses and fines.^[79]^[80] This shifted focus from profit-driven piracy to non-commercial willful acts, enhancing deterrence through imprisonment and asset forfeiture.^[81] Technological measures bolster enforcement by preventing unauthorized access and use. Digital rights management (DRM) systems encrypt content, restrict copying, and track usage via licenses, effectively controlling distribution of software, media, and digital assets as a proactive complement to legal remedies.^[82] These tools enforce rights causally by rendering infringement technically infeasible, though circumvention itself may violate laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.^[83] International cooperation addresses cross-border infringement through organizations like Interpol, which supports IP crime investigations via training programs such as the International IP Crime Investigators College (IIPCIC), offering courses to over 600 agencies in 150 countries on detecting counterfeit goods and digital piracy.^[84] Operations target illicit markets, including pharmaceuticals, with units focused on IP crime and public health risks.^[85] High-profile cases illustrate enforcement outcomes. In Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that Google's replication of 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for Android constituted fair use, denying Oracle infringement remedies despite initial jury findings of copying, as the use was transformative and did not harm the market for Java.^[86] This decision limited copyright enforcement scope for functional software elements, emphasizing innovation over strict property exclusion. Empirical data highlights enforcement challenges, particularly for small holders. Patent litigation costs average $2.3 million to $4 million per case, spanning one to three years, creating barriers that deter individual inventors from pursuing claims against larger infringers.^[87] Successful patent plaintiffs obtain injunctions in about 75% of cases post-eBay, but overall litigation success rates for rights holders remain low due to settlement pressures and proof burdens, with inter partes review (IPR) challenges succeeding against patents 70% of the time in 2023.^[88]^[89] These costs and variable outcomes underscore that while mechanisms exist, practical deterrence favors well-resourced owners.^[90]

Jurisdictional Variations and Conflicts

Significant variations in the treatment of intangible property arise between jurisdictions, particularly in copyright regimes where the United States employs a flexible fair use doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107, allowing courts to weigh factors such as purpose, nature, amount, and market effect of unauthorized uses, in contrast to the European Union's closed list of enumerated exceptions in Directive 2001/29/EC, which lacks equivalent flexibility.^[91] Moral rights in the EU, encompassing attribution and integrity, are inalienable and often perpetual—extending beyond economic rights' lifespan in countries like France—while the U.S. provides no federal moral rights for most works, prioritizing economic transferability under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990's narrow scope.^[92] These divergences create enforcement frictions, as U.S. entities may defend transformative uses domestically but face stricter liability abroad, complicating cross-border licensing and litigation. Developing nations leverage TRIPS Agreement flexibilities for compulsory licensing to address public health needs, permitting governments to authorize generic production without patent holder consent under WTO Article 31 if conditions like national emergencies or inadequate supply are met.^[93] A prominent example occurred in India on March 12, 2012, when the Patent Office granted Natco Pharma a compulsory license for Bayer's sorafenib tosylate (Nexavar), a kidney and liver cancer drug, citing its unaffordable pricing—approximately 280,000 rupees monthly—and failure to meet local working requirements under Section 84 of the Patents Act, reducing costs to 8,800 rupees and enabling broader access despite Bayer's objections.^[94] Such measures, while compliant with TRIPS Doha Declaration safeguards, provoke disputes with originator nations, as they undermine exclusive rights incentivizing innovation, leading to bilateral pressures and WTO challenges. Forum shopping exacerbates jurisdictional conflicts, with rights holders selecting venues perceived as favorable for injunctions or damages, such as U.S. district courts known for patent-friendly outcomes versus fragmented EU national courts.^[95] Extraterritorial assertions amplify tensions, exemplified by the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective May 25, 2018, which imposes compliance on non-EU entities processing personal data of EU residents—treating data as a protectable intangible—through fines up to 4% of global turnover, as seen in enforcement against U.S. tech firms like Meta for transatlantic data transfers.^[96] This has compelled global redesigns of data architectures, raising sovereignty concerns over U.S. objections to EU overreach via mechanisms like the Privacy Shield invalidation in 2020. U.S.-China trade disputes from 2018 to 2020 spotlighted systemic enforcement gaps, with the 2013 IP Commission Report estimating annual U.S. losses from Chinese state-sponsored theft, counterfeiting, and cyber intrusions at $225-600 billion, encompassing trade secrets and proprietary intangibles critical to sectors like semiconductors.^[97]^[98] Phase One of the January 2020 agreement mandated China enhance IP protections and curb forced technology transfers, yet persistent discrepancies—such as divergent standards for trade secret validity and remedies—underscore causal barriers to mutual recognition, perpetuating reliance on tariffs and unilateral sanctions over harmonized regimes.^[99]

Economic Role and Valuation

Contribution to Modern Economies

In advanced economies, intangible property has driven a profound shift toward knowledge-based value creation, with investments in such assets increasingly outpacing those in physical capital. In the United States, spending on intangible assets surpassed tangible investments as a share of GDP in the late 1990s, a trend that has since accelerated, reflecting broader economic reliance on intellectual capital for growth.^[100] By 2017, U.S. intangible investment stood at 1.4 times the level of tangible investment, underscoring the scalability of intangibles, which can be replicated at near-zero marginal cost unlike physical assets.^[101] Globally, intangible investment expanded to 13.6% of GDP by 2024, up from 10% in 1995, growing over four times faster than tangible investment during this period and fueling productivity in sectors dependent on ideas and data.^[102] This macro-level dominance manifests in IP-intensive industries, which leverage patents, copyrights, and trademarks to capture value from innovations. In the U.S., these industries generated $7.8 trillion in value added in 2019, equivalent to about 36% of total GDP, while employing 44% of the workforce at wages 60% above the national average.^[103] Comparable contributions appear in other advanced economies; for instance, in high-income nations like Sweden and the U.S., intangible investment exceeded 16% of GDP in 2023, primarily through software, databases, and R&D that enable efficient idea dissemination and specialization.^[104] Post-1980s developments, including expanded IP frameworks, amplified this by promoting cross-border trade in disembodied knowledge, allowing firms to specialize in high-value abstractions rather than resource-intensive manufacturing.^[105] Intangible property thus underpins modern economic structures by facilitating the transition to service- and tech-dominated output, where assets like algorithms and designs generate outsized returns through network effects and global licensing. In technology firms, for example, robust IP portfolios protect core competencies, contributing to market leadership in an era where physical goods increasingly commoditize. This causal dynamic—rooted in exclusive rights enabling investment recovery via idea trading—has elevated intangibles as the primary engine of wealth in knowledge economies, distinct from traditional capital accumulation.^[106]

Methods of Valuation and Accounting Treatment

The valuation of intangible assets employs three principal approaches as defined in International Valuation Standards (IVS) 210: the income approach, market approach, and cost approach.^[107] The income approach estimates value based on the present value of expected future economic benefits attributable to the asset, such as discounted cash flows (DCF) from royalties or cost savings, requiring projections of revenue streams, discount rates, and growth assumptions specific to the intangible.^[107] The market approach derives value from comparable transactions or sales of similar intangibles, such as patent auctions or licensing deals, adjusted for differences in attributes like technology maturity or market conditions.^[107] The cost approach measures the expense to reproduce or replace the asset's functionality, including development costs minus obsolescence, suitable for assets lacking active markets or reliable income forecasts.^[107] In accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP, finite-lived intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives, while indefinite-lived intangibles, including goodwill, undergo annual impairment testing per FASB ASC 350.^[108] Impairment occurs when an asset's carrying amount exceeds its fair value, determined via the aforementioned valuation approaches, with qualitative assessments optional before quantitative analysis to assess triggering events like adverse market changes.^[108] For business combinations, purchase price allocation identifies and values intangibles separately from goodwill; in Microsoft's October 13, 2023, acquisition of Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, this resulted in $22.0 billion allocated to identifiable intangible assets (e.g., customer relationships and trademarks) and $50.4 billion to goodwill.^[109] Challenges in these methods stem from inherent subjectivity, particularly in DCF projections under the income approach, where assumptions about future cash flows and discount rates can vary widely and lead to overstated values if overly optimistic.^[110] External audits mitigate but do not eliminate this risk, as evidenced in Enron's pre-2001 shift toward intangible-dominated assets, which amplified reporting volatility and facilitated aggressive mark-to-market practices contributing to the firm's $63.4 billion asset collapse in 2001.^[111] Market and cost approaches face limitations from scarce comparables for unique intangibles, underscoring the need for triangulation across methods to enhance reliability.^[112]

Empirical Evidence on Incentives and Growth

Empirical studies on the incentives provided by patents and other intangible property rights reveal a generally positive but context-dependent impact on innovation and productivity growth. A comprehensive survey of over 200 studies by Hall and Helmers (2018) finds that stronger patent protections correlate with increased R&D expenditures and innovation outputs, particularly through ex ante incentives that encourage firms to invest in uncertain projects with high fixed costs.^[113] Cross-country analyses further support this, showing that higher patenting intensity is associated with sectoral productivity gains; for example, a one-standard-deviation increase in log-patenting activity raises output per worker growth by approximately 1.1 percentage points on average across industries.^[114] These findings rebut claims by Boldrin and Levine (2013), who assert no empirical link between patents and productivity based on selective historical data, as broader econometric evidence from panel regressions demonstrates causal spillovers from patent-induced R&D to downstream innovation and growth.^[115] Sectoral variations highlight the role of enforcement and technology characteristics in mediating effects. In pharmaceuticals, where development timelines often exceed 10-15 years and costs reach billions per drug, patent exclusivity demonstrably drives R&D investment; empirical analyses of disease-specific research from 1990-2006 show that extended protections increase funding and output in patented areas, with firms recouping investments only through temporary monopoly pricing.^[113]^[116] Conversely, in software and electronics, where innovation is highly cumulative and low-cost to imitate, studies indicate weaker direct causality from patents to breakthrough inventions, as thickets of overlapping claims can raise transaction costs and deter follow-on work without commensurate incentive gains.^[113] Meta-analyses from organizations like WIPO underscore this context-dependency, with stronger positive effects on innovation observed in high-enforcement jurisdictions that minimize litigation frictions and ensure predictable rights.^[117] For instance, WIPO's examination of global IP trends in the 2020s reveals that robust intangible protections amplify spillovers to economic growth in knowledge-intensive sectors, though diminished returns emerge in low-IP regimes or mature technologies where alternative incentives like first-mover advantages dominate.^[118] Overall, causal evidence from instrumental variable approaches and natural experiments consistently affirms that intangible property incentivizes growth by internalizing knowledge externalities, albeit with diminishing marginal returns as patent stocks accumulate.^[119]

Controversies and Critical Perspectives

Debates on Scarcity and Natural Rights

Proponents of intellectual property (IP) from a natural rights perspective argue that such rights extend the foundational principle of property in tangible goods to the intangible products of mental labor, positing that creators hold a moral claim to the fruits of their effort akin to physical ownership. This view, influenced by Lockean labor theory, contends that IP enforces scarcity where natural abundance might otherwise undermine incentives, thereby internalizing the externalities of creation by granting exclusive control over reproduction and use. Ayn Rand articulated this as patents and copyrights being "the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind," emphasizing that without such protections, the mind's output would be expropriated, violating the creator's autonomy.^[120]^[121] Opponents counter that ideas, unlike physical objects, possess no inherent scarcity, rendering IP an artificial imposition that contravenes natural rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-rivalrous goods. Thomas Jefferson, in correspondence dated August 13, 1813, asserted that "inventions cannot, in nature, be a subject of property," as their dissemination imposes no natural rivalry or depletion, and any exclusive rights derive solely from societal policy to spur utility, not pre-existing entitlement.^[122] This ontological distinction highlights that copying an idea leaves the original intact and unimpaired, challenging claims of "theft" as metaphorical rather than literal, with IP thus creating scarcity ex nihilo to favor select creators at the expense of communal access.^[123] Central to these disputes is the requirement for causal evidence of harm from unpropertized ideas, rather than presuming loss from hypothetical underinvestment; first-principles analysis questions whether state intervention legitimately fabricates property where natural conditions preclude rivalry, demanding empirical demonstration that replication directly diminishes the originator's yield absent IP. Critics like Mark Lemley note that while IP simulates scarcity to mimic tangible property's economics, advancing technologies erode even this constructed limit, underscoring the contingency of such rights on verifiable, non-speculative injury rather than abstract moral desert.^[124] Proponents, however, maintain that without enforced exclusivity, the labor invested in ideation yields no reciprocal control, akin to uncompensated seizure, though this hinges on accepting mental products as ontologically equivalent to scarce resources—a premise contested by the infinite replicability of thought itself.^[125]

Economic and Innovation Critiques

Intellectual property regimes incentivize innovation by granting temporary monopolies that enable recoupment of high upfront research and development costs, exemplified by the patent-driven race among firms to develop mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, where protections facilitated rapid commercialization by companies like Moderna and BioNTech following decades of foundational work.^[126] This mechanism has been credited with accelerating breakthroughs in high-risk fields, as exclusive rights allow firms to capture returns sufficient to justify investments otherwise deterred by free-rider problems in knowledge generation.^[127] However, such monopolies impose deadweight losses through elevated prices and restricted dissemination, reducing societal utilization of inventions below socially optimal levels and potentially yielding net welfare reductions if innovation incentives prove overstated relative to access costs.^[128] Critiques emphasize how practices like patent evergreening—minor formulation changes or secondary patents on existing drugs—prolong exclusivity without commensurate innovative gains, deterring Schumpeterian creative destruction by erecting barriers to generic entry and follow-on research in pharmaceuticals.^[129] Empirical analyses indicate these strategies shift dynamic competition toward defensive accumulation rather than novel advancements, with originators and generics alike facing heightened uncertainty and reduced incentives for substantial improvements. In the United States, non-practicing entities (often labeled patent trolls) exacerbate these inefficiencies by acquiring broad or vague patents primarily for litigation, comprising 62% of infringement suits by 2013 and generating annual direct out-of-pocket costs exceeding $29 billion for defendants, predominantly without producing new technologies or advancing the state of the art.^[130]^[131] This surge in defensive patenting and assertion raises transaction costs across industries, diverting resources from productive R&D to legal maneuvers and eroding the system's utilitarian rationale. Developing countries highlight access tradeoffs, where stringent IP enforcement on pharmaceuticals has historically inflated prices for critical treatments; prior to generic entry via compulsory licensing, patented HIV/AIDS antiretrovirals cost thousands annually per patient in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, limiting treatment to millions until price drops of over 90% followed patent circumvention or expiration, as in Brazil's program saving equivalent to treating 100,000 additional patients yearly.^[132]^[133] While patents arguably sustain global R&D funding—correlating with higher unsubsidized drug availability—causal evidence from low-income contexts shows they independently elevate prices, prompting debates on whether alternative mechanisms, like prizes, could better align incentives with broad dissemination without monopoly distortions.^[134]^[135]

Libertarian and Property Rights Objections

Libertarian critics of intellectual property (IP) regimes contend that such laws create state-enforced monopolies that infringe on the property rights of individuals over their tangible resources, rather than extending genuine ownership to abstract ideas or patterns. In his 2001 essay "Against Intellectual Property," published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, patent attorney N. Stephan Kinsella argues that IP rights, including copyrights and patents, do not qualify as true property because ideas are non-scarce and non-rivalrous; enforcing them requires restricting others' use of their own physical property, such as ink, paper, or machinery, to replicate independently conceived similar works.^[136] Kinsella maintains that this violates the libertarian non-aggression principle by privileging intangible claims over concrete ownership, effectively granting creators a perpetual veto over rivals' productive activities without homesteading scarce resources.^[137] Within libertarian thought, significant divisions exist on IP's legitimacy, reflecting tensions between natural rights absolutism and contractual alternatives to state intervention. Pro-IP advocates like Ayn Rand viewed ideas as ownable through voluntary contracts, enforceable in a free market without government patents, while Andrew J. Galambos extended property to primary ideas derivable from one's mind, proposing private enforcement mechanisms over statutory monopolies.^[138] In contrast, Murray Rothbard expressed ambivalence, rejecting patents as unjustified government grants but tentatively accepting limited copyrights achievable through contract rather than legislation.^[139] Nineteenth-century individualist anarchists further highlighted this split: Lysander Spooner defended perpetual copyrights and patents as natural extensions of labor-mixing with ideas, binding even without state backing, whereas Benjamin Tucker denounced them as monopolistic barriers to free exchange and speech, incompatible with anarchism due to their reliance on statutory privileges that limit competition.^[140] Tucker's opposition emphasized that IP laws impose artificial scarcity on non-scarce information, echoing Spooner's own contractual leanings but rejecting any coercive enforcement as a flaw in state-like overreach.^[141] Critics highlight IP's practical overreach, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, which enables notice-and-takedown processes often abused for censoring non-infringing speech, including political criticism and fair use, under threat of intermediary liability.^[142] Kinsella and like-minded libertarians advocate replacing IP with private covenants, such as non-disclosure agreements or trade secrecy enforced via contract in a stateless order, which avoid blanket prohibitions on independent creation and align with homesteading principles for tangible goods.^[143] These views find contemporary resonance in open-source software communities and cryptocurrency projects, where Bitcoin's open protocol—released without IP claims in 2008—embodies an ethos of permissionless innovation, prioritizing decentralized code sharing over proprietary restrictions to foster rapid, voluntary collaboration.^[144]

References

[1]
[PDF] Table 1. Intangible Property.
Used chiefly in the laws of taxation, this term means such property as has no intrinsic and marketable value, but is merely the representative or evidence of ...
[2]
intangible property from 26 USC § 936(h)(3)(B) - Law.Cornell.Edu
The term “intangible property” means any— (i)patent, invention, formula, process, design, pattern, or know-how; (ii)copyright, literary, musical, or artistic ...
[3]
Intangible Personal Property: Definition, Types, and Example
Intangible personal property is any type of asset that has value but isn't physical in nature. Examples of intangible personal property are copyrights, patents, ...Intangible Personal Property · Special Considerations · Tangible Personal Property<|separator|>
[4]
Intangible assets | Practical Law - Thomson Reuters
Intangible assets are assets without physical substance, like goodwill and intellectual property, and are identifiable non-monetary assets.
[5]
IAS 38 Intangible Assets - IFRS Foundation
An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance. Such an asset is identifiable when it is separable, or when it arises from ...
[6]
Intangible Assets: Definition, Example & Why It Matters | Numeric
Distinguishing Characteristics: Intangible assets typically share some or all of the following characteristics: They are identifiable. They have a finite ...
[7]
What Is an Intangible Asset? - Investopedia
Aug 6, 2025 · Intangible assets are non-physical but hold significant value for businesses through intellectual property, patents, and goodwill.What Is an Intangible Asset? · Types · Valuation · Comparing Intangible and...
[8]
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-are-intangible-assets-in-economics-and-why-are-they-important
[9]
4.3 Types of identifiable intangible assets - PwC Viewpoint
Use rights, such as drilling, water, air, mineral, timber cutting, and route authorities' rights, are contract-based intangible assets. Use rights are unique in ...<|separator|>
[10]
"What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for ...
One of the major controversies in modern intellectual property law is the extent to which property rights conceptions, developed in connection with land or ...
[11]
Intellectual Property Rights Are Complicated Creatures
Apr 27, 2020 · Often these rights are controversial, even paradoxical. They are territorial, but their subject matters defy borders, and their aim to protect ...
[12]
intangible property | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Intangible property is property without physical existence, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Some may have paper embodiments, but ...
[13]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=26-USC-1746766792-1866294569&term_occur=21&term_src=title:26:subtitle:B:chapter:12:subchapter:A:section:2501
[14]
Tangible vs. Intangible Property
Aug 5, 2024 · “Intangible assets” are items that do not have a physical form. That includes things like patents and copyrights, an interest in a business, non ...
[15]
What are tangible and intangible assets? - BDC
An intangible asset is a non-monetary asset that cannot be seen or touched. Tangible assets are physical assets that can be seen, touched and felt.What are tangible assets? · What is the difference between...
[16]
Scarcity, Property Rights, Irresponsibility - PubMed Central
Jun 25, 2022 · The article addresses the role of scarcity in negotiating the relationship between intellectual property, particularly from a legal-economic perspective, and ...
[17]
Intangible Assets and Intellectual Property - WIPO
Intangible assets lack physical form, deriving value from ideas, knowledge, innovation, and reputation. Examples include IP rights, software, and brands.
[18]
Understanding Tangible and Intangible Property in the Legal World
Oct 15, 2024 · Common examples of intangible property include patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, stocks, bonds, and intellectual property.
[19]
Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification
May 4, 2015 · A moral theory that justifies the right to property according to productive, value-creating labor equally justifies IP rights as property rights.
[20]
[PDF] A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited
If a tangible or intangible work can be used and consumed by many individuals concurrently (nonrivalrous), then access and use should be permitted. P2.Missing: homesteading | Show results with:homesteading
[21]
The Law of Intellectual Property (1855) | Online Library of Liberty
Spooner takes a strong position on the property right of an author to his ideas in perpetuity with no government defined limit.
[22]
Lysander Spooner's Theory of Property | Online Library of Liberty
Jan 29, 2016 · Spooner argues that if we own the products of our labor, that must include the abstract products of our intellectual labor. ... We might take this ...
[23]
[PDF] Intellectual Property and the Myth of Nonrivalry
Apr 10, 2024 · When ideas and information are said to be nonrivalrous, what is meant is that they do not implicate property law's conflict-mediating function ...
[24]
The Causal Theory of Property - by Robert Tracinski
Sep 18, 2020 · The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor. As you cannot ...
[25]
Intellectual Property and the Myth of Nonrivalry
It is commonly asserted, however, that informational goods like inventions and expressive works are nonrivalrous and that intellectual property rights must ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[26]
Menger's Principles of Economics: In Praise of Causal Realism
Menger's causal realism views economics as a system of actions and effects linked by cause-and-effect, requiring discovery of root causes.
[27]
intellectual property (TRIPS) - agreement text - standards - WTO
In Members not requiring registration as a condition for protection, layout-designs shall be protected for a term of no less than 10 years from the date of the ...
[28]
Pharmaceutical patents and the TRIPS Agreement
Term of protection. Under the TRIPS Agreement, the available term of protection must expire no earlier than 20 years from the date of filing the patent ...
[29]
The Statute of Anne; April 10, 1710 - Avalon Project
Provided always, That after the expiration of the said term of fourteen years, the sole right of printing or disposing of copies shall return to the authors ...
[30]
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright
[31]
What Coca-Cola Teaches about Trade Secrets versus Patents in ...
Aug 23, 2025 · By keeping the recipe a trade secret, Coca-Cola has preserved exclusivity for more than 135 years.
[32]
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/patents
[33]
Choses in Action - Assignments - USLegal
A chose in action is essentially the right to sue. It is an intangible personal property right recognized and protected by law.
[34]
Choses in Action & Rights to Sue - Hall Ellis Solicitors
A chose in action is an intangible property right, not in possession, but enforceable by legal process, and a right to sue.
[35]
[PDF] Conversion of Choses in Action
A 'chose in action' is a personal right not reduced to possession, like stocks, debts, and bankbooks, not capable of physical delivery.
[36]
[PDF] ARTICLE THE CRITICAL ROLE OF CHOSES IN ACTION
Jan 30, 2022 · Choses in action are a type of incorporeal property formed through the evolution of the English common law.
[37]
Noncompete Agreements: Protecting Referral Relationships as ...
Jan 31, 2023 · This article surveys the general principles associated with noncompete statutes for those that are unfamiliar, and then analyzes enforcement of ...
[38]
Protect the Intagible Assets of a Closely Held Business with ...
Sep 30, 2024 · An intangible asset is property that has value but cannot be seen or touched. Examples are our customer lists, the goodwill in our relationships ...
[39]
The Role of Non-Compete Agreements in Business Acquisitions
Mar 25, 2025 · These intangible assets are vulnerable if the seller, post-closing, chooses to launch a competing enterprise. A carefully drafted non-compete ...<|separator|>
[40]
Chose in action | Practical Law - Thomson Reuters
The bundle of personal rights over property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession.Missing: intangible | Show results with:intangible
[41]
Without non-competes, how can you protect your intangible assets?
Apr 29, 2024 · Even if the client lists are company property, the company doesn't own the relationships. Relationships are an intangible asset, and they ...Missing: relational | Show results with:relational
[42]
Understanding Goodwill in Accounting: Definition, Calculation, and ...
Goodwill is an intangible asset recorded when a company is acquired for more than the fair value of its net assets. Goodwill reflects premium aspects of a ...
[43]
1.2 Definition of a business - PwC Viewpoint
If it is determined that the transaction is an asset acquisition, the assembled workforce would be recognized as a discrete intangible asset on the balance ...
[44]
IFRS 3 — Business Combinations - IAS Plus
Goodwill and bargain purchases, If the consideration transferred exceeds the net of the assets, liabilities and NCI, that excess is recognised as goodwill. If ...
[45]
Measuring Intangible Capital with Market Prices - PubsOnLine
Apr 5, 2024 · We estimate these parameters using market prices from firm exits and use them to capitalize intangibles for a comprehensive panel of firms from 1978 to 2017.
[46]
Market Valuation of Intangible Assets - ScienceDirect.com
This study provides empirical evidence on the relationship between the reported value of intangible assets, the associated amortization expense, and firms' ...
[47]
4.10 Intangible Assets | DART – Deloitte Accounting Research Tool
An assembled workforce is an example of an intangible asset that is not identifiable and therefore not separately recognizable in a business combination. In ...
[48]
Measuring the value of intangibles - ScienceDirect.com
We propose a new earnings-based measure for the value of intangibles. Our measure is based on publicly observable data. It gauges the productivity of already ...Introduction · Determinants Of M&a... · Acknowledgments<|control11|><|separator|>
[49]
WIPO Guide to Trade Secrets and Innovation - Foreword
Evidence of trade secret practices can be found in Hammurabi's Code of Laws, throughout the Roman Empire and among medieval guilds.Missing: Europe | Show results with:Europe
[50]
[PDF] PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS UNDER COMMON LAW AND ...
Jan 28, 2024 · Mediaeval guilds fulfilled a crucial function in safeguarding trade secrets via the dissemination of information among its membership, while ...<|separator|>
[51]
The Information Age and the Printing Press - RAND
Preserving intellectual property rights—through both 'privileges' and patents—was a notion that grew out of the one-to-many power of the printing press. ...
[52]
[PDF] Evidence from Renaissance Venice's Patent System
In 1474 the Venetian Senate passed a patent act that regulated the granting of patents for novelty, ingenuity, and utility.
[53]
[PDF] Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality
Thus, English common law developed a law of confidence which differs significantly from the American privacy torts. This section traces how and why. English ...
[54]
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 | Constitution Annotated
Clause 8 Intellectual Property · To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right ...
[55]
The Copyright Act 1842 (Appendix III) - Literary Copyright Reform in ...
Jul 18, 2009 · An Act to amend the Law of Copyright. [1st July 1842]. Whereas is it expedient to amend the law relating to copyright, and to afford greater ...
[56]
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property - WIPO
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. of March 20, 1883, as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911,
[57]
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886, completed at PARIS on May 4, 1896, revised at BERLIN on November 13, ...
[58]
Copyright Law and New Technologies: A Long and Complex ...
May 22, 2017 · Technology's advance long has pushed copyright's growth. The first federal copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790, protected only ...
[59]
U.S. Patent Activity Calendar Years 1790 to the Present - USPTO
Table of Annual U.S. Patent Activity Since 1790. The following table displays annual, U.S. patent application and grant activity from 1790 to the present.
[60]
intellectual property - overview of TRIPS Agreement - WTO
The duration of protection available shall amount to at least 10 years (Article 26.3). The wording “amount to” allows the term to be divided into, for example, ...
[61]
Enforcement of intellectual property rights - World Trade Organization
The TRIPS Agreement is the only international agreement that includes a comprehensive section regarding the enforcement of IP rights.
[62]
The Way Forward for Intellectual Property Internationally | ITIF
Apr 25, 2019 · Countries with robust IP rights and protections must recognize that new energy, new tactics, and a new strategy are needed to encourage other nations to ...
[63]
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a groundbreaking initiative by key trading partners to strengthen the international legal framework.
[64]
Directive - 2019/790 - EN - dsm - EUR-Lex - European Union
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market.Missing: reforms | Show results with:reforms
[65]
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence analyzes copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence.Spring 2023 AI Listening · Studies · Registration Guidance for...
[66]
Artificial Intelligence Study | U.S. Copyright Office
The US Copyright Office is conducting a study regarding the copyright issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI).
[67]
Intangible Asset Market Value Study - Ocean Tomo
We find that COVID-19 has accelerated the trend of increasing IAMV share, with intangible assets now commanding 90% of the S&P500 market value.
[68]
Intellectual property, digital trade and knowledge flows
This portal provides material aimed at helping policymakers and others keep abreast of current developments in trade in knowledge.
[69]
Trademark Act of 1946, United States of America, WIPO Lex
Trademark Act of 1946, United States of America. (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141n, amended up to Public Law No. 116-260). Back. info Latest Version in WIPO ...
[70]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35
[71]
Trade marks - EUIPO - European Union
Your trade mark is the way your customers identify you. It differentiates your products or services from other brands and encapsulates your values.Apply now for an EUTMAvailabilityWhere to registerApply nowarrow_forwardRegistration
[72]
WIPO — A Brief History
1883 – Paris Convention. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is born. This international agreement is the first major step taken ...
[73]
Phase One | United States Trade Representative
The Phase One economic and trade agreement includes a chapter on intellectual property (IP) that strengthens protection and enforcement of IP in China. The ...Economic and Trade Agreement · What They Are Saying · Fact Sheets
[74]
World Intellectual Property Indicators Report: Global Patent Filings ...
Nov 7, 2024 · An estimated 11.63 million trademark applications covering 15.23 million classes were filed worldwide in 2023. The number of classes specified ...
[75]
17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are ...
[76]
What Are Statutory Damages - Copyright Alliance
Statutory damages are usually between $750 and $30,000 per work, as determined by the court. However, the damage amount can be increased up to $150,000 per work ...
[77]
Chapter 5: Copyright Infringement and Remedies
(b) Actual Damages and Profits.—The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and ...
[78]
The Deterioration of Appropriate Remedies in Patent Disputes
Aug 11, 2020 · Injunctions are almost certainly the most powerful means of enforcing property rights and remedying breaches. Nonetheless, courts may sometimes ...
[79]
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997 (HR 2265) - Copyright
Sep 11, 1997 · Under the revisions, the criminal infringement would be a felony if the offense involves the copying or distribution, in any 180-day period, of ...
[80]
No Electronic Theft Act Lawyers - LegalMatch
Jul 29, 2022 · How Will I Be Penalized for Violating the NET Act? · Serve a maximum penalty of five years in prison, or ten years if the offense is your second; ...
[81]
Copyright Piracy, and H.R. 2265, the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act
The NET Act of 1997 makes it a felony to willfully infringe a copyright by reproducing or distributing ten or more copyrighted works, with a value of at least ...
[82]
What Is DRM? Digital Rights Management Explained - Fortinet
Digital rights management (DRM) is the use of technology to control and manage access to copyrighted material. DRM aims to protect the rights of copyright ...Missing: intangible | Show results with:intangible
[83]
Digital Rights Management (DRM) | What It Is, How It Works & Why It ...
Oct 17, 2025 · Digital rights management (DRM) offers the structure and technology to secure your intellectual property, maintain compliance, and preserve ...Missing: intangible | Show results with:intangible
[84]
IIPCIC | International IP Crime Investigators College
Learn about FREE IIPCIC training for police officers, customs officers, prosecutors and regulatory body representatives dealing with Intellectual Property (IP) ...IP Crime Conference · About IP Crime · IP Crime Resources · IP Crime Case Studies
[85]
Pharmaceutical crime operations - Interpol
This programme is part of INTERPOL's Illicit Markets Sub-directorate and is formed of two units: IP Crime and Digital Piracy, and Public Health and ...
[86]
[PDF] GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. - Supreme Court
Apr 5, 2021 · The case involves Google copying Java API code for Android. The Supreme Court ruled Google's copying was a fair use, as it was transformative.
[87]
[PDF] Patent Litigation Statistics - Feuds about Intellectual Property
May 20, 2023 · The average cost for patent litigation processes is between $2.3 million and $4 million. Patent litigation cases take one to three years to get ...Missing: empirical barriers holders
[88]
[PDF] The Efficiency of Patent Litigation
Apr 22, 2024 · 10 The rate at which successful plaintiffs obtained injunctions declined from 95% before eBay to 75% after eBay (Seaman, 2015). Anticipating the ...
[89]
Patent Litigation Statistics: An Overview of Recent Trends - PatentPC
Sep 25, 2025 · The success rate for petitioners in IPR proceedings was 70% in 2023. This high success rate suggests that IPR is an effective tool for ...
[90]
[PDF] PATENT SMALL CLAIMS
Mar 31, 2023 · Unfortunately, the high costs and long duration of litigation prevent many people from protecting their patents from infringement by competitors ...
[91]
Snapshot: the scope of copyright in European Union - Lexology
May 27, 2021 · There is no 'fair use' doctrine in EU copyright law comparable to that of the United States. Instead, EU law provides an explicit list of ...
[92]
10 Ways EU Copyright is Different from the US - Plagiarism Today
Aug 4, 2020 · 10 Ways EU Copyright is Different from the US · 1: Fair Use (and Related Exemptions) · 2: Moral Rights · 3: Works Made for Hire · 4: Copyright Term.
[93]
intellectual property (TRIPS) - TRIPS and public health - WTO
WTO members have the right under the TRIPS Agreement to grant compulsory licences under their domestic laws, entitling third parties to use IP rights without ...
[94]
Background Information on India's First Compulsory Licence
Apr 10, 2012 · The compulsory licence was granted under Section 90 of the Indian Patents Act, on 12th March 2012 by India's Controller of Patents.
[95]
[PDF] Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Lessons for the Unified Patent Court
The current European system and the U.S. system have seen a rise in forum shopping over the past couple decades, leading to increased appeals, raised litigation.
[96]
The Extra-Territorial Reach of EU Data Protection Law | Insights
One of the innovations introduced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is that it includes new rules on the territorial scope of EU data ...
[97]
[PDF] ip commission report - National Bureau of Asian Research
Feb 10, 2017 · We estimate that the annual cost to the U.S. economy continues to exceed $225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade ...
[98]
Counterfeiters, hackers cost US up to $600 billion a year | AP News
Feb 26, 2017 · In a report out Monday, the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property says the annual losses range from about $225 billion to ...Missing: 225-600 | Show results with:225-600
[99]
[PDF] IP Commission Report - National Bureau of Asian Research
Simply put, the conditions that encourage foreign companies to steal American intellectual property must be changed in large part by making theft unprofitable.Missing: 225-600 | Show results with:225-600
[100]
Intangibles: does it change things? - Counterfire
Aug 19, 2025 · In the US, spending on intangible assets surpassed tangible investments as a share of GDP in the late 1990s and the gap has widened ever since.
[101]
[PDF] One Job - Morgan Stanley
Sep 15, 2020 · By 2017, the last measure we have, intangible investment was 1.4 times that of tangible investment. The mix of investment has seen a huge change ...<|separator|>
[102]
Investment in intangible assets grows four times faster than tangible ...
Jul 10, 2025 · This trend has increased the share of intangibles in global GDP, which rose from 10% in 1995 to 13.6% in 2024, far surpassing the share of ...
[103]
USPTO Report Says IP-Intensive Industries Account for 44% of All ...
Mar 17, 2022 · In 2019, the 127 IP-intensive industries covered by the report accounted for $7.8 trillion of the United States' total 21.43 trillion GDP.
[104]
World Intangible Investment Highlights - Better Data for Better Policy
Jun 25, 2024 · In 2023, intangible investment accounted for over 16 percent of GDP in highly intangible-intensive economies like Sweden, the United States of ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[105]
Trade, investment and intangibles - OECD
In this paper, we study how the distinct nature of intangibles require countries to develop novel policy prescriptions to attract intangible-intensive ...
[106]
Intangible Capital and Modern Economies
We present estimates of productivity in the US and European economies in recent decades including intangibles and discuss why, despite relatively rapid growth ...
[107]
[PDF] IVS 210: INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Apr 7, 2016 · Under the income approach, the value of an intangible asset is determined by reference to the present value of income, cash flows or cost ...
[108]
8.3 Impairment of indefinite-lived intangible assets - PwC Viewpoint
An indefinite-lived intangible asset is considered impaired when the asset's carrying amount is greater than its fair value.
[109]
[PDF] Form 10-K for Microsoft Corp filed 07/27/2023
Jul 27, 2023 · Following are the details of the purchase price allocated to the intangible assets acquired: (In millions, except average life). Amount.
[110]
How to Value Intangible Assets Using DCF Valuation - LinkedIn
Mar 10, 2023 · The challenges include that it requires a lot of data and estimation, that it is sensitive to changes in the assumptions and inputs, and that it ...
[111]
[PDF] ENRON AND ARTHUR ANDERSEN: THE CASE OF THE ...
Enron's movement away from the dominance of fixed assets to the dominance of intangible assets was likely to increase volatility, and this prospect was ...Missing: inflation | Show results with:inflation
[112]
Challenges in Valuing Intangible Assets in Your Mid-Sized Business
Mar 11, 2025 · Key Challenges in Valuing Intangible Assets · 1 | Lack of Market Comparables · 2 | Subjectivity in Valuation Methods · 3 | Regulatory and ...
[113]
[PDF] A survey of empirical evidence on patents and innovation
Dec 19, 2018 · There is less empirical work on the impact of patent disclosure on in- novation than on the impact of patents on innovation incentives, and ...
[114]
[PDF] Global Innovation Spillovers and Productivity: Evidence from 100 ...
May 3, 2022 · On average, an increase of one standard deviation in log-patenting activity increases sectoral output per worker growth by 1.1 percentage points ...
[115]
The Case against Patents - American Economic Association
May 6, 2013 · The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity.Missing: rebuttals cross- country regressions
[116]
[PDF] Patent protection as a key driver for pharmaceutical innovation | IFPMA
For pharmaceuticals, however, there is strong empirical evidence that patents have led to the socially desired result of higher R&D spending on developing new.<|separator|>
[117]
[PDF] World Intellectual Property Report 2022
Dec 4, 2021 · The report focuses on the direction of innovation, which has grown substantially, and the complex decision-making environment behind it.
[118]
World Intellectual Property Indicators 2020
This report analyzes global IP activity using 2019 data, covering patents, trademarks, and more, and also includes publishing industry data.
[119]
[PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PATENT LAWS AND INNOVATION
Empirical analyses of historical data have emphasized the role of patent laws in creating incentives to invent, promoting innovation, and encouraging economic ...
[120]
Patents and Copyrights - Ayn Rand Lexicon
Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind.
[121]
The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property: A Natural ...
Mar 22, 2016 · The state does not create intellectual property rights to dole out to inventors and authors in the modern systems of patents and copyrights.
[122]
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 August 1813
It has been pretended by some (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions; & not merely for their own ...
[123]
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to ...
[124]
IP in a World Without Scarcity - NYU Law Review
A series of technological changes is underway that promises to end scarcity as we know it for a wide variety of goods. The Internet is the most obvious example.
[125]
Against intellectual property - Brian Martin
Intellectual property is an attempt to create an artificial scarcity in order to give rewards to a few at the expense of the many. Intellectual property ...
[126]
The COVID-19 vaccine patent race | Nature Biotechnology
Jul 13, 2022 · Here, we discuss the development of mRNA vaccine technology, the race to the vaccine and the issues surrounding securing patent rights.
[127]
6 Intellectual Property Incentives: Economics and Policy Implications
These lost transactions—usually denoted “deadweight loss”—mean that consumers use patented knowledge less than they would like to, with the result that society ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[128]
[PDF] Intellectual Property versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate
Sep 5, 2014 · The Traditional Critique of Intellectual Property: Deadweight Loss. 1. The inevitability of deadweight loss in an intellectual property system.
[129]
Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies - NIH
19 Patents provide a 20-year monopoly right, during which a pharmaceutical company enjoys market exclusivity and can charge a monopoly price for its products.
[130]
[PDF] PATENT ASSERTION AND U.S. INNOVATION - Obama White House
❖ Suits brought by PAEs have tripled in just the last two years, rising from 29 percent of all infringement suits to 62 percent of all infringement suits.
[131]
It's Time for the U.S. to Tackle Patent Trolls - Harvard Business Review
Sep 16, 2022 · According to one study, each year, patent trolls create $29 billion in direct, out-of-pocket costs from the companies they go after. Another ...
[132]
Effect of drug patents in developing countries - PMC - NIH
A study by Médecins Sans Frontières found that the introduction of generic AIDS drugs in Brazil means that it now costs the same to treat 1000 patients there as ...
[133]
The impact of patents on access to medicines - MSF Access Campaign
Feb 5, 2017 · The drugs to treat HIV/AIDS provide a perfect illustration of how patents allow manufacturers to keep the price of medicines high, and how ...
[134]
Pricing and patents of HIV/AIDS drugs in developing countries
Oct 30, 2009 · The main findings are that patents do shift drug prices up, drug prices are correlated to per capita income levels and drug firms follow a ...
[135]
Subsidies versus intellectual property rights when innovators ... - NIH
Apr 24, 2023 · While subsidies or rewards are often superior to intellectual property rights in the literature, these are always subsidies or rewards in the ...
[136]
Against Intellectual Property - Stephan Kinsella
Jul 13, 2009 · Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to “Against Intellectual Property,” first published in the Journal ...
[137]
[PDF] AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Mises Institute
PROPERTY RIGHTS: TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE. All libertarians favor property rights, and agree that property rights include rights in tangible resources.Missing: divisions | Show results with:divisions
[138]
Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property: Rothbard, Tucker ...
May 28, 2014 · Spooner takes on perhaps the most common objection to intellectual property rights among libertarians today, that private property in ...
[139]
Intellectual Property: A Libertarian Critique — 2nd Edition (2009, 2023)
Feb 13, 2024 · Intellectual property is a contentious issue among libertarians. Among the individualist anarchists alone, Lysander Spooner took an absolutist ...<|separator|>
[140]
“Intellectual Property” | The Anarchist Library
If Rothbard rejected patents in principle, he considered copyright to be perfectly tenable and legitimate, on the assumption that it could be achieved through ...Missing: divisions | Show results with:divisions
[141]
Benjamin Tucker and the Great Nineteenth Century IP Debates in ...
Jul 11, 2022 · Benjamin Tucker flatly rejected the idea that legal copyright was compatible with anarchism. The strength of Tucker's opposition to patents may ...
[142]
Censorship: A Libertarianism.org Guide
Aug 15, 2008 · Censorship is the coercive silencing of dissenting views by political authorities generally in order to protect an official orthodoxy.
[143]
I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics ...
Jan 22, 2013 · I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarchist libertarian writer who thinks patent and copyright should be abolished. AMA
[144]
The Ideological Origins of Bitcoin - FEE.org
Jun 26, 2019 · Bitcoin exists because of libertarian ideals and maintains its supremacy because of its adherence to Austrian economic principles.Missing: anti- | Show results with:anti-