I. Problem & Motivation

Reliable protection of intellectual property (IP) by governments and enforceable monetization are vital for a successfully operating innovation promoting system (Pisano, 2006). Challenges to be countered by the legal framework and technologies include the lack of legal harmonization, resulting in the non-existence of one global IP law, the proactivity of technological developments as opposed to the slow reactivity of the legal framework, as well as vast amounts of data combined with easy access and lack of awareness towards digital IP (Dreyfuss et al., 2017; Lucchi, 2006; Shishkina, 2022). The rise of digital evolution enables everyone to be creative and innovative, to become a creator, yet this access to geographically unrestricted vast amounts of data creates not only opportunities but also challenges that have to be faced by government and technology (Ma, 2020). Those who want to succeed in this digital ecosystem must understand the value of their IP and ensure that it is protected (Filitz et al., 2017; Johnson, 2017). This underlines the need for creators to increase their IP expertise, while governments that have not yet been able to meet the challenges of the digital age must take action to protect intellectual assets, the currency of the 21st century (Ricketson, 2020). Because it is the ability to protect them that gives them their value (Dreyfuss et al., 2017).

II. Research Gap & Methodology

There is limited high-quality research on how an individual creator, whose role is of increasing importance due to the rise of the ownership economy (Blake, 2022), can effectively protect works in the digital space. Changes in legal frameworks can be utilized to build a protection framework for digital IP in combination with innovative technologies such as blockchain (Barulli, 2021), artificial intelligence (AI) (Eckermann, 2019; Rosati, 2022) and encryption (Umeh, 2022). Although there is research on the potential uses of these technologies, it is mostly theoretical - yet how they will perform in practice, in court or in the event of infringement, is still unclear.

Therefore, the best way to gain insights into the IP industry is to interview the creators themselves as well as IP professionals - which is why this thesis collected data using qualitative semi-structured interviews combined with desk research to also provide input to the interviewees and guide the interview in the desired direction.

III. Aim & Research Question

Given the above, this thesis aims to provide an insider's perspective on the IP industry, thus contributing to existing research in this field. Considering the challenges that arise at the intersection of technology, innovation, and IP law, the broad research question to be addressed in this project is: What are the economically viable options in the digital age for creators to protect the various types of intellectual property in order to compete in the international market? In addition, the project will contribute to the development of a toolbox with a manual for creators and all those who have contact with the topic of IP by examining how experts from different backgrounds act in practice and how to overcome the challenges of the digitization. Finally, this research project seeks to introduce the research to those who could potentially benefit from it by presenting it not only as a traditional thesis, but also in the format of a notion page, making it more accessible to non-academic readers and practitioners.

IV. Findings & Discussion

Business models and services: The free databases of governmental organizations such as the DPMA, EUIPO, or WIPO are mentioned in both the literature and the interviews as a popular method for creators to research the state of the art. Nevertheless, it is problematic that these organizations do not cover the unregistered IP rights in the free market. This is critical, as an incomplete search can jeopardize the IPR or even be subsequently deemed invalid. Therefore, the use of professional research services in the respective field is recommended, which include the free market as well as novelty damaging services, which publish content on platforms outside the field (interviews).

A necessity is also the proof of being the first. This is considered by the literature as sufficiently solved with the registration of the IP right at the responsible IP offices or in the digital space with the use of blockchain based tools like the WIPO Proof. This is confirmed by the findings of the interviews to a limited extent. The experts criticized the fact that this timestamp can be obtained by anyone without checking whether the IP is also explicitly owned by that person. This can lead to ambiguities in the future, especially when it comes to proving in court whether one was really the first. It is also questionable whether this fact devalues the use of such tools to a point where they no longer offer any added value for proving. This means that creators should use the available tools wisely, as these are still in the development phase and weak points need to be identified and addressed first.

Platforms: While the existence of an IP service platform on demand for everyone is seen as positive in research, it is more conservatively seen by German and US IP practitioners (interviews). From their perspective, this has a lot of potential to help creators with lower budgets or creators who need a quick answer to protect their IP, yet the qualification of the registered experts is questioned. The lack of awareness is also a critical challenge that this thesis aims to solve. This deficiency of foresight regarding new services and platforms is a problem that is rarely presented in the literature in a compact way to provide practitioners direct action tools.

Full IP service provider: Regarding the full IP service provider desk research suggests that the most fundamental difference to patent attorneys is that they disregard the business aspect and only apply for the mere IP right. However, this does not correspond to practice (interviews). Data analysis of the experts' statements showed all of them also act in an advisory capacity when they notice that a creator needs support. It was further criticized that the majority of creators do not pay enough attention to the business aspect as they should. Therefore, it can be concluded that full IP services offer an all-embracing service, but this also comes at a price. It is advisable, especially if creators have a limited budget, to consult an IP attorney and make use professional advice.

Technologies: In terms of AI the most mentioned use case in the literature is AI based translation and pattern recognition. The former is offered for example by WIPO and is presented in theory as a way to replace the expensive human translator for IP rights at low cost. In practice, the prevailing opinion is rather negative. Experts criticized the poor quality of automated translation and emphasized that missing the point can be associated with high costs for the creator itself. These tools are still at the beginning of their practical use, but they are a help especially for the initial stages. However, with the rapid development of the technology, it is to be expected that the AI-based translation tools can be used in the near future exclusively by creators to internationalize their IP and thus save a large cost factor. This also applies across the board to the tools for the recognition of known patterns to combat the misuse of IP.

Blockchain: This is perhaps the most controversial point, as the technology industry is already embracing blockchain technologies, but the IP sector is far from catching up. This is a key point of the findings - if the digitization of IP continues with this speed, neither creators nor IP lawyers nor IP professionals can ignore this technology any longer. Professionals need to address the possibility of incorporating blockchain into the IP protection process and raise awareness of this opportunity among creators. The opportunities offered by blockchain for the secure protection of digital property can be a solution to the challenges posed by digitization. Including software code protection, safekeeping of large amounts of sensitive data, and access control. Nevertheless, especially with respect to technologies, it should be noted that in the event of a dispute in court, all technologies must be explained to the judge. This creates a discrepancy between the rapidly developing technologies and the inertia of the judicial system. Literature supports this point of view as a major hurdle to overcome in the future, as well as identified by the experts in the interviews. The international legal community needs to take action in order not to inhibit the application of innovative technologies and services and to promote their vitality rather than undermine them.

Best practices: Recommendations emerging from literature regarding best practices in the IP protection domain is scarce as most papers refer to larger conventional IP portfolios that are not applicable to digitalized IP. The best practices revealed by the experts advise IP creators not to forget the business aspect, to improve their own knowledge and protection capabilities, to start early familiarizing themselves with the topic of IP protection, and to use the increased speed caused by digitization to their advantage. The former three practices are based on registered IP rights. The latter implies a completely new approach to IP protection. This could be an innovative way to monetize IP in the future in terms of increasing consumption speed, facilitated digital access and technology development, while keeping costs to a minimum, as a large investment in IP rights and protection mechanisms would only be necessary on a small scale.

V . Conclusion

In summary, this research unveiled that IP protection is increasingly prone to the challenges of digitization. Hence, it is not yet able to implement the new business models in practice or to fully implement impactful technologies to compensate for the deficiencies of the backlogged legal framework. Making smart IP decisions in disruptive times is key to a system that fosters innovation, which is what this work aims to contribute to.