Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Autonomous Systems and Tort Law Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Blockchain(s), Smart Contracts and Intellectual Property

verfasst von : Vítor Palmela Fidalgo

Erschienen in: Legal Aspects of Autonomous Systems

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse to what extent the much talked about blockchain and smart contracts technology may contribute to a better Intellectual Property system. It starts with a brief explanation of the relationship between bitcoin, cryptography, blockchain and smart contracts. On this last point, as this is a legal study, special attention will be paid to the terminological problems of the term “smart contracts”. It outlines the potential applications of these technologies in the context of intellectual property rights. This study attempts to convey information on the current practical application in each of the points, considering the state of the art. The work will not be complete without a critical analysis of the real potential of this technology. In this context, we examine the arguments that have been put forward concerning the obstacles to the introduction of this technology within the scope of intellectual property. In particular, apart from the general problems that the introduction of this technology presents, there are some specificities of intellectual property rights that could hinder its exploitation.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Creative Machines—Machine Learning Models, Copyright, and Computational Creativity
Nächstes Kapitel Algorithms, Creditworthiness, and Lending Decisions
Fußnoten
1
See Mischler (2022).
 
2
See e.g. Mignon (2019), pp. 3 et seq. (2019).
 
3
In the scope of this study, the term “intellectual property” (“IP”) will be used as has been the practice in most of the jurisdictions worldwide: The term “intellectual property”, is an umbrella concept that includes both the so-called exclusivity rights that fall on innovations and trademarks, and the copyright, which includes rights over works, computer programs, and related rights.
 
4
See e.g., the study carried out by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office “Intellectual property rights intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union” (2016). Among the main findings of this report is the conclusion that IPR-intensive industries generated more than 42% of the total economic activity (GDP) in the EU and pay significantly higher wages than other industries.
 
6
Carron and Botteron (2019), p. 102.
 
7
Gilcrest and Carvalho (2018), p. 2.
 
8
Nakamoto (2008).
 
9
De Filippi and Wright (2018), p. 18.
 
10
Ibid, p. 19.
 
11
Ibid., p. 20. According to Bacon/Michels/Millard/Singh (2017), p. 5: “In order for cryptocurrency coins to have value, the owner must not be able to spend each coin more than once”.
 
12
De Filippi and Wright (2018), p. 19. As the founder of DigiCash, David Chaum, explained, to prevent double spending, “each note must be checked on-line against a central list when it is spent” (David Chaum (1992)).
 
13
It is for this reason that some studies contend that blockchain technology is not a “huge technological advance” but rather an “incremental improvement” (Wright and De Filippi (2015), p. 5 (footnote 15)). Finck (2019), pp. 8 and 9, conveys the same idea, stating that blockchain (or Distributed Ledger Technology) “is better understood as an inventive combination of existing mechanism”.
 
14
It is important to mention that the term “blockchain” was not used in the Nakamoto White Paper although he frequently uses the term “chain” in association with a series of “blocks”. The term coined later by the literature.
 
15
A hash can be described as a single fingerprint representing information through a set of characters and numbers.
 
17
Since 2009 the number of cryptocurrencies has grown exponentially. At the beginning of 2022, there were over 18,000 cryptocurrencies in existence. The five most valuable are Bitcoin (BTC); Ethereum (ETH); Tether (USDT); USD Coin (USDC); and Binance Coin (BNB). See “https://​coinmarketcap.​com/​” (June, 2022).
 
18
See e.g. Finck (2019), p. 9.
 
19
De Filippi (2019), p. 409 et seq.
 
20
One of the outstanding examples is the internet, which was produced from military research and was intended primarily to link research laboratories.
 
21
De Filippi and Wright (2018), p. 27.
 
22
As Guo (2022), p. 2 explains: “Ethereum enables people to connect through trustless distributed applications on its own blockchain. In other words, while Bitcoin is developed for distributed ledgers, Ethereum is developed for a distributed data storage plus smart contracts, which are small computer programs”.
 
23
Both Bitcoin and Ethereum are public blockchains (also called permissionless blockchains). Any person can participate in their blockchain system.
 
24
Buterin (2014).
 
25
See e.g., Savelyev (2016).
 
26
Digital contracts are not a novel idea. The historical genesis of smart contracts can be traced to the system of electronic data interchange (EDI), invented in 1965 (De Filippi and Wright (2018), p. 73).
 
27
Szabo (1996).
 
28
Raskin (2017), p. 309.
 
29
Ibid.
 
30
Hobbes’ basic idea, which is commonly mentioned, is the necessity of a system where the State serves as the intermediary in order to ensure trust between the parties.
 
31
Finck (2019), p. 24.
 
32
Ibid (2019), p. 25.
 
33
Ibid.
 
34
Jiménez (2018), p. 89; Finck (2019), p. 25.
 
35
Jacard (2017), p. 4.
 
36
Finck (2019), p. 25.
 
38
Sillaber and Waltl (2017), p. 497.
 
39
Jacard (2017), p. 4.
 
40
AZ Rev Stat § 44–7061 E(2) (2017).
 
41
Article 8 (2), Decreto-Legge 14 dicembre 2018, n. 135. The original reads as follows: “Si definisce «smart contract» un programma per elaboratore che opera su tecnologie basate su registri distribuiti e la cui esecuzione vincola automaticamente due o più parti sulla base di effetti predefiniti dalle stesse. Gli smart contract soddisfano il requisito della forma scritta previa identificazione informatica delle parti interessate, attraverso un processo avente i requisiti fissati dall’Agenzia per l'Italia digitale con linee guida da adottare entro novanta giorni dalla data di entrata in vigore della legge di conversione del presente decreto”.
 
42
Guo and Yu (2022), p. 5.
 
43
Although it does not ignore the existence of trademarks acquired through use (and public recognition), such as the marchio di fatto in Italy, the Benutzungsmarke in Germany or the trademarks rights under Common Law in the US.
 
44
See article 5(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: “The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality”.
 
45
Ginsburg (2018), p. 494.
 
46
See article 27(1), of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark): “Legal acts referred to in Articles 20, 22 and 25 concerning an EU trade mark shall have effects vis-à-vis third parties in all the Member States only after entry in the Register. Nevertheless, such an act, before it is so entered, shall have effect vis-à-vis third parties who have acquired rights in the trade mark after the date of that act but who knew of the act at the date on which the rights were acquired.” According to paragraph 2, this rule shall not apply “in the case of a person who acquires the EU trade mark or a right concerning the EU trade mark by way of transfer of the whole of the undertaking or by any other universal succession”.
 
47
See Judgment of 4 February 2016, Hassan, C-163/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:71, paragraph 25. In the literature, see, e.g., von Bomhard, in: Annette Kur and Martin Senftleben (2018), p. 238.
 
48
See e.g. GC Judgment of 9 September 2011, David Chalk, T-83/09, ECLI:EU:T:2011:450, paragraph 36.
 
49
Clark (2018); Guadamuz (2020), p. 253.
 
50
As Hohn-Hein and Barth (2021), p. 1092 explain, the objective is to create a “tamper-proof electronic IP register” (“fälschungssicheren elektronischen, IP-Registers”).
 
51
European Union Intellectual Property Office.
 
52
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
 
53
See “https://​euipo.​europa.​eu/​ohimportal/​en/​news/​-/​action/​view/​8662923”. The first block of the blockchain was created at 08.10 CET on 17 April 2021.
 
58
Goldenfein and Hunter (2017), p. 1; De Filippi, et al. (2016), p. 8.
 
59
See Recital 3 Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works (Directive Orphan Works): “Creating a legal framework to facilitate the digitisation and dissemination of works and other subject-matter which are protected by copyright or related rights and for which no rightholder is identified or for which the rightholder, even if identified, is not located—so-called orphan works—is a key action of the Digital Agenda for Europe”.
 
60
See Article 3(1), Directive Orphan Works.
 
61
Bodó, Gervais and Quintais (2018), p. 327.
 
62
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. See also article 39(2) of Trips Agreement.
 
63
Before the European harmonisation, this subjective element was the only element required for the protection of information by trade secret. See, e.g., Reinfeld (2019), Rn. 150.
 
64
Snyder and Almeling (2012), pp. 33 et seq.
 
65
O’Dair et al. (2016), p. 9.
 
66
Bodó, Gervais and Quintais (2018), p. 333. Also: Kraus and Boulay (2019), p. 263; Guadamuz, (2020), pp. 254–255.
 
67
Hilty and Nérisson (2013), pp. 222–223.
 
68
Ibid, p. 224.
 
69
As Guadamuz explains (2020), p. 255: “The current management of intellectual property is complicated, with competing rights management agencies around the world and an international system that is not unified, and often requires arrangements between collecting agencies across borders”.
 
70
Sony filed a patent application on March 14, 2017 to store users’ digital rights data on a blockchain (patent no. US 11,258,587 B2). The abstract has the following description: “Generating a rights blockchain storing rights of a user, including: receiving an enrollment request and a public key from the user; verifying that the user has a private key corresponding to the public key; generating a user identifier using the public key; and generating and delivering the rights blockchain having a genesis block including the user identifier to the user”.
 
74
It translates literally as the “right to follow” (the work).
 
75
This right is recognized under international copyright law. See Article 14ter of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. However, the article is not mandatory to the contracting parties.
 
76
Bently et al. (2018), p. 386.
 
77
Kur, Dreier and Luginbuehl (2019), p. 319.
 
78
As there was no consensus on the content and even the existence of this resale right, harmonisation was minimal. See Torremans (2019), pp. 261 and 262.
 
79
Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art. Official Journal L 272, 13/10/2001 P. 0032–0036.
 
80
Article 2(1), Directive 2001/84/EC.
 
81
Turner (2006), p. 347 et seq.
 
82
See, for example, Arts Economics (2016), which states as follows: “There has been much discussion about the effects on the British art market of the ARR levy since its introduction in 2006 and its extension to the work of deceased artists in 2012. The continued fall in both overall value and market share in the two sectors liable to ARR would suggest that the presence of this levy on sales in the UK, but not in competing overseas markets, is contributing to the UK’s decline, particularly as the UK is experiencing better fortune in other areas of the fine art market that are not affected by ARR”.
 
83
Zhao (2021), p. 268.
 
84
See the recent report from OECD and EUIPO that assesses the scope and trends of the trade in counterfeit products that pose health, safety and environmental threats: Illicit Trade. Dangerous Fakes. Trade in Counterfeit Goods that Pose Health, Safety and Environmental Risks (2022).
 
85
EUIPO/European Commission, EU enforcement of intellectual property rights: results at the EU border and in the EU internal market 2020, December 2021.
 
86
Guadamuz (2020), p. 257.
 
87
Burbidge (2017), p. 1262.
 
88
Ibid.
 
89
See articles 12–14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (“Directive on electronic commerce”). In particular, see article 14.
 
90
Ohly (2021), p. 426.
 
92
25 November 2020, COM(2020) 760 final.
 
93
Finck (2019), p. 31.
 
94
Guadamuz (2020), p. 258.
 
98
The software “MarqVision” or “SnifflesNFT” are examples of this type of technology.
 
99
Raskin (2017), p. 337.
 
100
Finck (2019), p. 187.
 
101
Raskin (2017), p. 337.
 
102
Finck (2019), p. 188.
 
103
Ibid.
 
104
Guadamuz (2020), pp. 260–261.
 
105
Peukert (2011).
 
106
Guadamuz (2020), pp. 261.
 
107
On the problem of factual exclusivity determined by private ordering, see Hilty (2018), pp. 901 et seq.
 
111
On this point, see Vicente (2019), pp. 26 and 27.
 
112
See e.g. Richter and Slowinski (2019), p. 15, giving the example of the data sharing economy.
 
113
Hohn-Hein and Barth (2021), p. 1092.
 
114
In the same vein: Guadamuz (2020), pp. 261.
 
Literatur
Bacon J, Michels JD, Millard C et al (2017) Blockchain demystified. An introduction to blockchain technology and its legal implications. Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 268/2017 Available at https://​qmro.​qmul.​ac.​uk Accessed 1 Nov 2022
Bently L, Sherman B, Gangjee D et al (2018) Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Burbidge R (2017) The blockchain is in fashion. TMR 107:1262–1267
Buterin V (2014) Ethereum: a next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. Available at https://​ethereum.​org Accessed 1 Nov 2022
Carron B, Botteron V (2019) How smart can a contract be? In: Kraus D, Obrist T, Hari O (eds) Blockchains, Smart contracts, decentralised autonomous organisations and the law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 101–143
De Filippi P (2019) 50 Bitcoin. In: Kamp D, Hunter D (eds) A history of intellectual property in 50 objects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 409–415
De Filippi P, Wright A (2018) Blockchain and the law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, The Rule of CodeCrossRef
De Filippi P, McMullen G, McConaghy T et al (2016) How blockchains can support, complement, or supplement intellectual property. Working Draft. Coala. Available at https://​www.​intgovforum.​org Accessed 1 Nov 2022
EUIPO, EPO (2016) Intellectual property rights intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union. Industry-Level Analysis Report. Available at https://​euipo.​europa.​eu Accessed 1 Nov 2022
Fidalgo VP (2018) Breves notas a propósito da tecnologia blockchain e a sua aplicação no âmbito do Direito da Propriedade Intelectual. Propriedades Intelectuais 9(10):20–27
Finck M (2019) Blockchain. Regulation and Governance in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ginsburg JC (2018) Copyright. In: Dreyfuss RC, Pila J (eds) The oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 487–516
Guadamuz A (2020) Smart contracts and intellectual property: challenges and reality. In: Heath C, Sanders AK, Moerland A (eds) Intellectual property and the fourth industrial revolution, Kluwer International Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, 241–263
Hilty RM (2018) Intellectual property and private ordering. In: Dreyfuss RC, Pila J (eds) The oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 898–930
Hilty RM, Nérisson S (2013) Collective copyright management. In: Towse R, Handke C (eds) Handbook on the digital creative economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 222–234
Hohn-Hein N, Barth G (2018) Immaterialgüterrechte in der Welt von blockchain und smart contract. GRUR 120:1089–1096
Jiménez JWI (2018) Derecho de Blockchain y da Tecnología de Registros Distribuidos. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor
Kraus D, Schaub C (2020) Blockchain et Propriété intellectuelle. In: Correa CM, Strowel A, Somaini L et al (eds) Propriété intellectuelle à l’ère du Big Data et de la Blockchain. Schulthess, Genève/Zurich/Bâle, 133–155
Kraus D, Boulay C (2019) Blockchain: aspects of intellectual property law. In: Kraus D, Obrist T, Hari O (eds) Blockchains, smart contracts, decentralised autonomous organisations and the law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 240–271CrossRef
Kur K, Senftleben M, von Bomhard V (2018) European trade mark law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, A Commentary
Kur A, Dreier T, Luginbuehl S (2019) European intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Mignon V (2019) Blockchains—perspectives and challenges. In: Kraus D, Obrist T, Hari O (eds) Blockchains, smart contracts, decentralised autonomous organisations and the law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–17
Mischler JP (2022) Die zweite digitale Revolution: Wie künstliche Intelligenz, Blockchain und Quantencomputer die Welt verändern. Winterwork. Borsdorf
O’Dair M, Zuleika Beaven Z, Neilson D et al (2016) Music on the blockchain. blockchain for creative industries research Cluster Middlesex University, FAC, 1
OECD and EUIPO (2022) Illicit trade. Dangerous fakes. trade in counterfeit goods that pose health, safety and environmental risks. Available at https://​www.​oecd.​org Accessed 1 Nov 2022
Ohly A (2021) The liability of intermediaries. In: Graeme B, Dinwoodie GB, Mark D et al (eds) Research handbook on trademark law reform. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 396–431
Peukert A (2011) Intellectual property as an end in itself? EIPR 33:67–71
Raskin M (2017) The law and legality of smart contracts. Geo l Tech Rev 1:305–341
Reinfeld R (2019) Das neue Gesetz zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen. C.H.Beck, Munich
Richter H, Slowinski PR (2019) The data sharing economy: on the emergence of new intermediaries. IIC, 4–29
Sillaber C, Waltl B (2017) Life cycle of smart contracts in blockchain ecosystems. Datenschutz Und Datensicherheit 41:497–500CrossRef
Snyder DW, Almeling DS (2012) Keeping secrets. A practical introduction to trade secret law and strategy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Torremans P (2019) Holyoak and torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Turner SB (2006) The artist’s resale royalty right: overcoming the information problem UCLA. Entertainment Law Rev 19:329–370
Vicente DM (2019) A tutela internacional da propriedade intelectual. Almedina, Coimbra
Zhao Z (2021) Fulfilling the right to follow: using blockchain to enforce the artist’s resale right. CardozoArts Ent L J 39:239–269
Metadaten
Titel
Blockchain(s), Smart Contracts and Intellectual Property
verfasst von
Vítor Palmela Fidalgo
Copyright-Jahr
2024
Buch
Legal Aspects of Autonomous Systems

Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47945-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-47946-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2024

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47946-5_16