Controversies of the intellectual property concession process and the social function of property: a systematic analysis of studies on the topic
International Journal of Development Research
Controversies of the intellectual property concession process and the social function of property: a systematic analysis of studies on the topic
Received 22nd July, 2018; Received in revised form 20th August, 2018; Accepted 03rd September, 2018; Published online 29th October, 2018
Copyright © 2018, Dr. Dhanalakshmi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The objective of this article is to identify and analyze the studies about the controversies existing in the process of granting Intellectual Property considering the social function of the property. The procedure used was to survey the quantitative publications in five study platforms: Academic Google, Science Direct, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), J-STAGE and Oxford Scholarship, using as keywords “função social propriedade intelectual” (in portuguese) and “social function intellectual property”. The period considered for the information gathering was from 1996 to 2018. The search strategy for the identification of the articles was based on criteria established by the Guide Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA). At the stage of the identification of studies, 24 (twenty-four) studies were carried out on the proposed theme. Of the selected studies, most are from national publications and periodicals and presented an exposition of national legislation. From the total of selected articles, they presented as thematic the difficulty of access to medicines by the population and exposed an evaluation on the break of patents. One of the articles, of Japanese origin, presented a proposal of method of analysis of patents considering its social interest. Thus, it was possible to perceive that the publications present, in their majority, a critique of the regulation that gives exclusivity to the creation of innovations of public interest and present as a predominant follow up the difficulty of access to medicines.