Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
logo czasopisma

Artykuły

Nr 5 (2024): Prawo i Więź Nr 5 (52) 2024

Intellectual Property Philosophies and Brand Strategies: Converging Theories and Integrative Approaches

DOI
https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI52.1004
Przesłane
6 sierpnia 2024
Opublikowane
18.12.2024

Abstrakt

This research extends the examination of intellectual property (IP) law by delving into its intricate relationship with branding in the contemporary marketplace. Building on foundational philosophical theories such as John Locke's Labour Theory, Hegelian Personality Theory, and utilitarianism, the study explores how these theories influence both the legal frameworks and strategic dimensions of branding. Branding is positioned as a vital form of intellectual capital that transcends trademarks and logos, embodying corporate identities and fostering emotional connections with consumers. The research investigates the alignment of IP philosophies with branding objectives, highlighting the role of IP law in protecting and promoting brand identities.

Furthermore, the study examines the Economic Theory of IP, emphasizing its impact on innovation and creativity in brand development, alongside the Theory of Social Good, which considers brands’ contributions to societal welfare and cultural richness. The Democratic Theory and Theory of Justice are also explored to understand brand equity and equitable access to cultural symbols.

Through real-world case studies, the research demonstrates the practical linkages of IP philosophies on branding strategies, illustrating the balance between creator rights and the public interest, as well as the ethical considerations in brand protection and development. This exploration reveals the dynamic interplay between legal and philosophical frameworks, offering a nuanced understanding of how IP law and branding collectively shape the global marketplace and cultural landscape.

Bibliografia

  1. Acs Zoltan J., Mark Sanders, „Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship” Small business economics, 39 (2012): 801-817.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  2. Ahmad Salma, Azmi Khan, „Tesla: Disruptor or Sustaining Innovator” Journal of Case Research, 1 (2019).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  3. Ahuja Vandana, „Louis Vuitton: Using digital presence for brand repositioning and CRM”, [in:] Handbook of research on effective marketing in contemporary globalism. 315-324. Pensylvania: IGI Global, 2014.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  4. Aljafari Abdulla, „Apple Inc. industry analysis business policy and strategy” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3 (2016): 406-441.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  5. Amit Raphael, Christoph Zott, „Creating value through business model innovation” MIT Sloan management Review (2012).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  6. Anderson Jamie, Robin Wood, „Seven management lessons from Microsoft” Business Strategy Review, 3 (2002): 28-33.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  7. Baker Sunny, „What every business should learn from Microsoft” Journal of Business Strategy, 5 (1998): 36-42.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  8. Balkin Jack M., „Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information socjety” New York University Law Review, 1 (2017): 325-382.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  9. Bansal Jitendra, Krishna Chandra Balodi, Rajesh Jain, Sagnika Datta, „Strategy and business model evolution at Adobe: Competing in digital media software industry” Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 2 (2023): 136-144.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  10. Banutu-Gomez Michael Ba, „Coca-Cola: International business strategy for globalization” The Business & Management Review, 1 (2012): 155.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  11. Barros Inês Peso de Oliveira, Ben & Jerry’s: Case Study on Children’s Social Awareness and its Impact on Corporate Strategy. Master's thesis, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 2011.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  12. Bastos Wilson, Sidney J. Levy, „A history of the concept of branding: practice and theory” Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 3 (2012): 347-368.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  13. Baxter Stacey M., Jasmina Ilicic, Alicia Kulczynski, „Roses are red, violets are blue, sophisticated brands have a Tiffany Hue: The effect of iconic brand color priming on brand personality judgments” Journal of Brand Management, 25 (2018): 384-394.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  14. Baye Michael, Managerial economics and business strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  15. Bentham Jeremy, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism and other essays. London: Penguin, 2004.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  16. Bettig Ronald V., Copyrighting culture: The political economy of intellectual property. London: Routledge, 2018.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  17. Bilbeisi Khamis M., Moulare Kesse, „Tesla: A successful entrepreneurship strategy” Morrow, GA: Clayton State University, 1 (2017): 1-18,
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  18. Boldrin Michele, David Levine, „The Case Against Intellectual Property” American Economic Review, No. 2 (2002): 209-212.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  19. Boylan Michael, „Utilitarianism” Teaching Ethics with Three Philosophical Novels (2017): 45-62.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  20. Boyte Alina Ng, „The Social Value of Intellectual Property” IP Theory, 12.3 (2023): 1-28.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  21. Bracha Oren, Talha Syed, „Beyond efficiency: Consequence-sensitive theories of copyright” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 29 (2014): 229-316.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  22. Brown Gerald, Joseph Keegan, Brian Vigus, Kevin Wood, „The Kellogg company optimizes production, inventory, and distribution” Interfaces, 6 (201): 1-15.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  23. Burnick Sarah, „The importance of the design patent to modern day technology: The Supreme Court’s decision to narrow the damages clause in Samsung v. Apple” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 5 (2017): 283.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  24. Champaneri Apeksha, Jain Prachi, „A content marketing as the leading technique in digital marketing: A case of Nike” International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 4 (2021).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  25. Cheng-chi Chang, „The Clash of Theories: Semiotic Democracy and Personality Theory in Intellectual Property Law” Law & World, 26 (2023): 14-22.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  26. Chronopoulos Apostolos, Spyros M. Maniatis, „Property Rights in Brand Image: The Contribution of the EUIPO Boards of Appeal to the Free-Riding Theory of Trade Mark Protection” EUIPO, 20 (2017): 147-162.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  27. Chu Bodi, „Analysis on the success of Coca-Cola marketing strategy”, [in:] 2020 2nd International Conference on Economic Management and Cultural Industry (ICEMCI 2020). 96-100, Atlantis Press, 2020.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  28. Clarke James Alexander, „Fichte and Hegel on recognition” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17.2 (2009): 365-385.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  29. Cohen Julie E., „Creativity and culture in copyright theory” Copyright Law, (2017): 473-527.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  30. Coombe Rosemary J., „Objects of property and subjects of politics: Intellectual property laws and democratic dialogue” Texas Law Review, 69 (1990): 1853-1880.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  31. Cosenz Federico, Vinicius Picanco Rodrigues, Francesco Rosati, „Dynamic business modeling for sustainability: Exploring a system dynamics perspective to develop sustainable business models” Business Strategy and the Environment, 2 (2020): 651-664.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  32. Croskery Patrick, „Institutional Utilitarianism and Intellectual Property” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 69 (1992): 631-657.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  33. Dastaran Sasan, Balancing Profits and Ethics: Gilead's Innovative Strategy in Low-Income Countries, 2022.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  34. Dean Norman L., The Man behind the bottle: the origin and history of the classic contour Coca-Cola bottle as told by the son of its creator. Xlibris Corporation, 2010.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  35. Derclaye Estelle, Tim Taylor, Happy IP: Replacing the Law and Economics Justification for Intellectual Property Rights with a Well-Being Approach, 2015. papers.ssrn.com.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  36. Derek Haacker, Cory Nolan, Venkatachalam Seshan, „Acquiring Gilead Sciences as a Proposed Strategy for Merck & Co. Growth” Emerging Dimensions of Technology Management, (2013): 185-200.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  37. Devlin Alan, Neel Sukhatme, „Self-Realizing Inventions and the Utilitarian Foundation of Patent Law” William & Mary Law Review, 51 (2009): 897.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  38. Dobusch Leonhardt, Jacob Kapeller, „Open strategy between crowd and community: lessons from wikimedia and creative commons”, Academy of Management Proceedings, No. 1 (2013): 561-579.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  39. Dranove David, Sonia Marciano, Kellogg on Strategy: concepts, tools, and frameworks for practitioners. Hoboken: Wiley, 2005.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  40. Ellis Elisabeth, Provisional politics: Kantian arguments in policy context. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2008.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  41. Fisher William W., „Theories of Intellectual Property”, [in:] New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property, ed. Stephen Munzer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37373274/iptheory.pdf?sequence=1.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  42. Flynn Matthew B., Pharmaceutical autonomy and public health in Latin America: State, society and industry in Brazil’s AIDS program. London: Routledge, 2014.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  43. Fox Vanessa, Marketing in the Age of Google, Revised and Updated: Your Online Strategy IS Your Business Strategy. New York: John Wiley & Sons 2012.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  44. Fraser J. A., „A return to basics at Kellogg” MIT Sloan management review, 4 (2004): 27-30.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  45. Frischmann Brett M., Mark A. Lemley, „Spillovers” Columbia Law Review, 107 (2007): 257-301.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  46. Geiger Christophe, „Can IP Rights Be Freely Reformed, Limited or Repealed, or Are There Restrictions Resulting from Constitutional Theory and Fundamental Rights?” Jotwell: Journal of Things We Like (2021): ??
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  47. Gersen John E., C. Scott Hemphill, „The Coca-Cola Bottle: A Fragile Vessel for Building a Brand” NYU Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 23-12 (2022).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  48. Giovanni Battista Ramello, „Access to vs. exclusion from knowledge: Intellectual property, efficiency and social justice”, [in:] Intellectual property and theories of justice, ed. Axel Gosseries, Alain Marciano, Alain Strowel. 73-93. New York: Palgrave, 2008.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  49. Guichardaz Rémy, „4. What would be a fair intellectual property? A dynamic inquiry through the Rawlsian theory of justice” Cahiers d'économie politique, 1 (2022): 91-125.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  50. Hai Solange, Richard L Daft, „When missions collide” Organizational Dynamics, 4 (2016): 283-290.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  51. Heim Irina, „The Protection of IP” Intellectual Property Management: Interdisciplinary Knowledge for Business Decision-Making (2023): 37-52.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  52. Henry Claude, Joseph E. Stiglitz, „Intellectual property, dissemination of innovation and sustainable development” Global Policy 1.3 (2010): 237-251.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  53. Heracleous Loizos, „Quantum strategy at apple inc.” Organizational Dynamics, 2 (2013): 92-99.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  54. Hesse Tom-Michael, Veronika Lerche, Marcus Seiler, Konstantin Knoess, Barbara Paech, „Documented decision-making strategies and decision knowledge in open source projects: An empirical study on Firefox issue reports” Information and Software Technology, 79 (2016): 36-51.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  55. Heyman Steven J., „The Light of Nature: John Locke, Natural Rights, and the Origins of American Religious Liberty” Marquette Law Review, 101 (2017): 705-774.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  56. Hsiao Kuo-Lun, „What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing Apple and non-Apple watches” Library Hi Tech, 1 (2017): 186-206.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  57. Huang Yong-Chun, Yang Chen, Huang Mu Han, „The Research on the Constituent System of Growth Competence of Independent Intellectual Property Famous Brand-Based on Brand Competitiveness Theory”, [in:] 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science. 1-5. Kunming: IEEE, 2020.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  58. Huang Yong-Chun, Yang Chen, Huang Mu Han, „The Research on the Constituent System of Growth Competence of Independent Intellectual Property Famous Brand-Based on Brand Competitiveness Theory”, [in:] 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science.1-5. Kunming: IEEE, 2020.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  59. Hughes Justin, „The personality interest of artists and inventors in intellectual property” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 16 (1998): 81-181.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  60. Ilie Livia, „Intellectual property rights: an economic approach” Procedia Economics and Finance, 16 (2014): 548-552.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  61. Jankowska Marlena, Mirosław Pawełczyk, „Intellectual Property Law: Philosophical Foundations, Theoretical Frameworks, and Cross-Pollination” Prawo i Więź, No. 4 (2023): 549-587.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  62. Jenkins John J., „Locke and Natural rights” Philosophy 42 (1967): 149-154.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  63. Joong Chang Young, Kim Jaibeom, Joo Jaewoo, „An Exploratory Study on the Evolution of Design Thinking: Comparison of Apple and Samsung” Design Management Journal, 1 (2013): 22-34.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  64. Kahn Barbara E., Brian Wansink, „The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities” Journal of Consumer Research, No. 4 (2004): 519-533.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  65. Kanu Priya, „Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification” National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, 1 (2008): 259-366.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  66. Kapferer Jean-Noël, Vincent Bastien, The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands. London: Kogan Page, 2012.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  67. Kaur Jasleen, „Allure of the Abroad: Tiffany & Co., Its Cultural Influence, and Consumers” M/C Journal, 5 (2016).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  68. Kelly Paul Joseph, Utilitarianism and distributive justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  69. Knowles Dudley, „Hegel on property and personality” The Philosophical Quarterly, 33.130 (1983): 45-62.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  70. Kornyo Emmanuel, „Patent Protection and the Global Access to Essential Pharmaceuticals during Patent Infringements under TRIPS” Voices in Bioethics, (2015).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  71. Kotler Philip, „Thinking about Marketing”, [in:] Kellogg on marketing, ed. Alice M. Tybout, Bobby J. Calder. Hoboken: Wiley, 2010.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  72. Lang John W., Beat Reber, Huda Aldori, „How Tesla created advantages in the ev automotive paradigm, through an integrated business model of value capture and value creation” Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, (2021): 385-404.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  73. Lazonick William, Matt Hopkins, Ken Jacobson, Mustafa Erdem Sakinç, Öner Tulum, „US Pharma's Business Model: Why it is broken, and how it can be fixed”, [in:] The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. 83-100. London: Routledge, 2017.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  74. Lee Peter, Madhavi Sunder, „Design patents: law without design” Stanford Technology Law Review, 17 (2013): 277.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  75. Lemley Mark A., Eugene Volokh, „Freedom of speech and injunctions in intellectual property cases” Duke Law Journal, 48 (1998): 147-242.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  76. Lewin Peter, „Creativity or coercion: Alternative perspectives on rights to intellectual property” Journal of Business Ethics, 71 (2007): 441-455.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  77. Lindgardt Zhenya, Martin Reeves, George Stalk, Jr, Michael Deimler, „Business model innovation: When the game gets tough, change the game”, [in:] Own the future: 50 ways to win from The Boston Consulting Group. 291-298. Hoboken: Wiley, 2012.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  78. Locke John, Locke: Two treatises of government student edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  79. Locke John, The Works of John Locke. Vol. I. London: T. Longman, 1794.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  80. Lockhart Bill, Bill Porter, „The dating game: tracking the Hobble-Skirt Coca-Cola bottle” Bottles and Extras, September-October (2010): 46-61.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  81. Lor Peter Johan, Johannes Jacobus Britz, „Is a knowledge society possible without freedom of access to information?” Journal of information science, 4 (2007): 387-397.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  82. Lozic Josko, „Comparison of business models of the streaming platforms Spotify and Netflix” Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, (2020): 110-119.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  83. Mahdi Hussain Ali, Mohammed Abbas, Taher Ilyas Mazar, Shaju George, „A Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Business Models of Nike, Inc. and Adidas Group with special reference to Competitive Advantage in the context of a Dynamic and Competitive Environment” International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 3 (2015): 167-177.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  84. Mao Yanhui, Yao Lai, Yuwei Luo, Shan Liu, Yixin Du, Jing Zhou, Jianhong Ma, Flavia Bonaiuto, Marino Bonaiuto, „Apple or Huawei: Understanding flow, brand image, brand identity, brand personality and purchase intention of smartphone” Sustainability, 8 (2020): 1-22.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  85. May Christopher, The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures. London: Routledge, 2015.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  86. May Christopher, The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures. London: Routledge, 2000.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  87. McKay Spencer, Democratic theory and the commons: conceptualizing the relationship between deliberation, publics, and the internet. Diss. University of British Columbia, 2013.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  88. Merges Robert P., Philosophical foundations of IP law: the law and economics paradigm, 2016; Ioannis Lianos, A Regulatory Theory of IP. Implications for Competition Law, 2008.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  89. Mirvis Philip H., „Environmentalism in progressive businesses” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4 (1994): 82-100.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  90. Moore Adam D., „A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited” San Diego Law Review, 49 (2012):1069-1104.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  91. Moore Adam D., „Personality-Based, Rule-Utilitarian, and Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property”, [in:] The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, ed. Kenneth Einar Himma, Herman T. Tavani. 105-128. John Wiley& Sons: Hoboken, 2008.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  92. Mossoff Adam, „Saving Locke from Marx: The Labor Theory of Value in Intellectual Property Theory” Social Philosophy and Policy, 2 (2012): 283-317.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  93. Mtima Lateef, „IP Social Justice Theory: Access, Inclusion, and Empowerment” Gonzaga Law Review, 55 (2019): 401-420.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  94. Murphy Darryl J., „Are intellectual property rights compatible with Rawlsian principles of justice?” Ethics and information technology, 14.2 (2012): 109-121.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  95. Nagasawa Shin’ya, Marketing Principles of Louis Vuitton-The Strongest Brand Strategy. Doctoral dissertation, Waseda University, 2009.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  96. Nagel Thomas, „Rawls on justice” The Philosophical Review (1973): 220-234.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  97. Nelson Dustin S., „Justice in Intellectual Property” Ethics, Politics & Society 3 (2020): 49-72.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  98. O’Regan Karla M., „Downloading personhood: A Hegelian theory of copyright law” Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 2 (2010):1-40.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  99. Oh H., „LearnersWriting Performance, Revision Behavior, Writing Strategy, and Perception in Wiki-mediated Collaborative Writing” Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 17 (2014): 176-199.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  100. Oh Soyoung, Jongeun Kim, „Analysis of the Marketing Strategy of a Luxury Brand and its Success in Selected Asian Countries” International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1 (2011): 239-257.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  101. Page Antony, Robert A Katz, „Freezing out Ben & Jerry: Corporate law and the sale of a social enterprise icon” Vermont Law Review, 35 (2010): 211-249.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  102. Palfrey John, Intellectual property strategy. Boston: MIT Press, 2011.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  103. Peck Janice, „The secret of her success: Oprah Winfrey and the seductions of self-transformation, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 1 (2010): 7-14.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  104. Pringle-Pattison Andrew Seth, Hegelianism and personality. Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1887.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  105. Proskine Emily Anne, „Google's technicolor dreamcoat: A copyright analysis of the Google Book Search library project” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1 (2006): 213-239.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  106. Pum-Mo Ryu, Myung-Gil Jang, Hyun-Ki Kim, „Open domain question answering using Wikipedia-based knowledge model” Information Processing & Management, 5 (2014): 683-692.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  107. Radu Uszkai, „Intellectual Property has no Personality” Annals of the University of Bucharest. Philosophy Series, 2 (2017): 181-205.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  108. Ramaswamy Vivek, „Co‐creating value through customers' experiences: the Nike case” Strategy & leadership, 5 (2008): 9-14.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  109. Rattalino Francesco, „Circular advantage anyone? Sustainability‐driven innovation and circularity at Patagonia” Thunderbird International Business Review, 5 (2018): 747-755.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  110. Reichman Jerome H., Jonathan A. Franklin, „Privately legislated intellectual property rights: Reconciling freedom of contract with public good uses of information” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147 (1998): 875-970.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  111. Robson Karen, Jeremy de Beer, Ian Paul McCarthy, „Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual property” Business Horizons, 6 (2020): 773-785.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  112. Rooksby Jacob H., The branding of the American mind: How universities capture, manage, and monetize intellectual property and why it matters. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2016.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  113. Rosenblatt Elizabeth L., „Intellectual Property’s Negative Space: Beyond the Utilitarian” Florida State University Law Review, 40 (2012): 441-486.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  114. Samuelson Pamela, „Copyright and freedom of expression in historical perspective” Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 10 (2002): 319-344.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  115. Samuelson Pamela, „The Google book settlement as copyright reform” William & Mary Law Review, (2011): 479-562.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  116. Sang Yoonmo, „Revisiting Copyright Theories: Democratic Culture and the Resale of Digital Goods” Communication Theory, 3 (2019): 277-296.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  117. Scafidi Susan, „Intellectual property and cultural products” Boton University Law Review, 81 (2001): 793-842.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  118. Schroeder Jeanne L., „Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property” University of Miami Law Review, 60 (2005): 454-504.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  119. Schroeder Jeanne L., „Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property” University of Miami Law Review, 60 (2005): 453-504.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  120. Schuhmacher Alexander, Oliver Gassmann, Nigel McCracken, Markus Hinder, „Open innovation: A paradigm shift in pharma R&D?” Drug Discovery Today, 9 (2022): 2395-2405.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  121. Shao Ken, „From Lockean Theory to Intellectual Property: Marriage by Mistake and its Incompatibility with Knowledge, Creativity and Dissemination” Hong Kong Law Journal, 39 (2009): 401-420.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  122. Shelley Cameron, „The nature of simplicity in Apple design” The Design Journal, 3 (2015): 439-456.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  123. Smith, Alan D., „Corporate social responsibility practices in the pharmaceutical industry” Business Strategy Series, 6 (2008): 306-315.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  124. Snyder David A., „Two Problems with the Value of Participation in Democratic Theory and Copyright” Texas Law Review, 89 (2010): 1019.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  125. Stappmanns Fiona, „Sustainable Business Model Innovation: The Cases of Patagonia Inc. and Bureo Skateboards” Impact: The Journal of Innovation Impact,2 (2020).
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  126. Stiglitz Joseph E., „Economic foundations of intellectual property rights” Duke Law Journal, 57 (2007): 1693-1724.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  127. Sunder Madhavi, „Review of ‘Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice’” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3.1 (2010): 114–118.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  128. Sunder Madhavi, From goods to a good life: Intellectual property and global justice. New Haeven: Yale University Press, 2012.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  129. Tamburrini Giovanni, Sergey Butakov, „The Philosophy Behind Fair Use: Another Step Towards Utilitarianism” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, No. 3 (2014): 190-202.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  130. Teece David J., „Business models, business strategy and innovation” Long range planning, 2-3 (2010): 172-194.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  131. Thomke Stefan, Barbara Feinberg, „Design thinking and innovation at apple” Harvard Business School Case, (2009): 609-066.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  132. Utama Andrew S., Ade P. Susanty, „Legal Strategy for Intellectual Property Protection in the Era of Open-source and Creative Commons in Indonesia” The Easta Journal Law and Human Rights, 1 (2023): 17-24.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  133. Vaver David, „Does intellectual property have personality?” Rights of Personality in Scots law: A Comparative Perspective, 2009.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  134. Verspagen Bart, „Intellectual property rights in the world economy”, [in:] Economics, law and intellectual property: seeking strategies for research and teaching in a developing field. 489-518. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2003.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  135. Viner Jacob, „Bentham and JS Mill: The utilitarian background” The American Economic Review, 2 (1949): 360-382.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  136. Walton Nigel, „‘Four-Closure’: How Amazon, Apple, Facebook & Google are driving business model innovation”, [in:] 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science. 97-101. Kunming: IEEE, 2020.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  137. Wansink Brian, Helping consumers eat less. Food Technology, May, 2007.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  138. Weber Rolf H., Ulrike I. Heinrich, „IP address allocation through the lenses of public goods and scarce resources theories” SCRIPTed, 8 (2011): 69-92.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  139. Wilf Eitan, Eva Illouz, „’Dynamic branding’: The case of Oprah Winfrey” Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory, 1 (2010): 71-84.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  140. Williams Evan G., „Rule Utilitarianism and Rational Acceptance” The Journal of Ethics (2023): 1-24.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>
  141. Yüksekbilgili Zeki, „The use of guerilla marketing in SMEs” International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Review (IJAMRR), 2 (2014): 2-7.
    Obejrzyj w Google Scholar -->>

Pobrania

Brak dostępnych danych do wyświetlenia.