Public Governance and Intellectual Property Management in Research Funding Agencies

International Journal for Innovation Education and Research

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Public Governance and Intellectual Property Management in Research Funding Agencies
 
Creator Santos, Josenito Oliveira
Santana, José Ricardo de
Cruz, Cleide Mara Barbosa da
Silva, Anderson Rosa da
 
Subject Public Governance
Regional Innovation System
Research Support Foundations
 
Description This article aims to analyze the position of the Research Support Foundations (FAPs) regarding the obligation of co-ownership in patent deposits, arising from financial support promoted by them. To this end, a search was proposed in the database of the National Institute of Industrial Property – INPI for FAPs and federal development agencies. For the search of international development agencies, the Orbit Intelligence database was used. The results of this study show that the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) remains the holder with 522 deposits, followed by the Foundation for Research Support of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP) with 275 deposits and the other FAPs with rare cases. Although the three federal agencies do not require joint ownership, 522 deposits with joint ownership by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and 27 deposits with joint ownership by the Financier of Studies and Projects (FINEP) were found, however, no deposit was found on behalf of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES). And among the 4 main countries analyzed, France is the only one in which there is a concentration of ownership in a central development agency, this can be explained by the fact that France's Intellectual Property Policy makes this type of requirement. In the other countries surveyed, there is no such requirement for participation in co-ownership of patent deposits. In interviews with managers of the FAPs, it was evident that a percentage of them claim that the arguments for participation or not show advantages, and from the point of view of those who do not defend participation, pointing out disadvantages.
 
Publisher International Educative Research Foundation Publisher (IERFP)
 
Date 2021-08-01
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article
 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier https://ijier.net/index.php/ijier/article/view/3283
10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss8.3283
 
Source International Journal for Innovation Education and Research; Vol. 9 No. 8 (2021): International Journal for Innovation Education and Research; 233-245
2411-2933
2411-3123
 
Language eng
 
Relation https://ijier.net/index.php/ijier/article/view/3283/2246
 
Rights Copyright (c) 2021 Josenito Oliveira Santos, José Ricardo de Santana, Cleide Mara Barbosa da Cruz, Anderson Rosa da Silva
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library