Unauthorized access and utilization of any innovation, idea or creation is referred to as intellectual property theft. It is an age-long practice that has negatively affected the right to control personal or corporate inventions and innovations. State and federal laws have been put in place to safeguard against intellectual property theft (Apigian, 2012).
Better still, there are different types of expressions that may be used to protect against this type of theft. For instance, copyrights can be labeled on the intellectual property goods such as music and videos. Devices can be branded using trademarks. In addition, patents on inventions are often used to protect intellectual property. Intellectual property theft has been aggravated by the existence of cyberspace. Criminals have flooded the cyberspace and therefore accelerating the rate at which intellectual property theft takes place.
In order to report intellectual property theft, it is advisable to begin by carrying out internal investigations in order to establish the available facts and reduce unnecessary costs that may be incurred. After the process of internal investigations has established tangible facts and evidence of copyright infringement, the case can then be referred to law enforcement agencies (Reporting Intellectual Property Crime, 2013). However, during the initial examination stage, witnesses can be interviewed so as to obtain their side of the story.
Interviews can be conducted either face to face or through phone calls and emails. However, the privacy of interviewees should be safeguarded as much as possible. Besides, it may be crucial to secure samples of stolen goods so that they can be used as evidence in the next stage of investigation. Surveillance of suspects should also be carried out (Eastton & Taylor, 2011). In case the alleged intellectual property crime was conducted using devices like computers and Smartphone, they should be examined as part of evidence.
Second, all the investigative steps should be documented. The law enforcement agencies should not duplicate the investigation process (Andrijcic & Horowitz, 2006). In order to avoid this, every piece of evidence or crucial information acquired should be put down for reference purpose. Every bit of evidence should be recorded so that the law enforcement teams can have an easy time moving ahead with the investigation process.
Moreover, any evidence obtained from the initial phase of investigation ought to be fully preserved for future use. For example, forensic analysis should be carried out on any seized gadget and the relevant data preserved. After internal investigations are over, the law enforcement agencies should be contacted immediately without much delay (Lalović, Reardon, Vida, & Reardon, 2012). Prompt referral ensures proper utilization of the available evidence. Civil proceedings can also be coordinated by the victims after reporting the violation to the concerned authorities.
Protection against intellectual property crimes is vital. To begin with, trade secret protection and intellectual property should be made priorities in an organization or place of work. In other words, data protection programs ought to be implemented at workplace. Second, valuable data assets should be identified. Such assets can only be accessed by well known verified individuals and not any other employee in an organization (Whitman & Mattord, 2011). The identified assets should thereafter be offered optimum protection. Proper security protocols are necessary in this case.
Improving employee awareness is also another security measure that can be taken to reduce intellectual property theft. Data defense tends to be weakest on the side of workers. As such, all internal documents should be protected. Besides, employees should be made aware how to exercise the confidential policy of a firm. Security awareness training for employees is also a pragmatic measure that can reduce threats emanating from intellectual property thefts.
References
Andrijcic, E. & Horowitz, B. (2006). A Macro-Economic Framework for Evaluation of Cyber Security Risks Related to Protection of Intellectual Property. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 26(4), 907-923.
Apigian, C. H. (2012). An Analysis of the Factors that Contribute to Intellectual Property Theft. Franklin Business & Law Journal,2012(2), 21-44.
Eastton, C., & Taylor, J. (2011). Computer Crime, Investigation, and the Law. Boston, MA: Course Technology, Cengage Learning.
Lalović, G., Reardon, S. A., Vida, I., & Reardon, J. (2012). Consumer Decision Model of Intellectual Property Theft in Emerging Markets. Organizations & Markets in Emerging Economies, 3(1), 58-74.
Reporting Intellectual Property Crime. (2013)
Whitman, M. E., & Mattord, H. (2011). Reading & Cases in Information Security: Law & Ethics. Boston, MA: Course Technology, Cengage Learning.