by Emilio BerkenwaldTaylor Swift, Her Masters, and Intellectual Property as a Strategic Asset
Recently, Taylor Swift made global headlines when she announced that, after years of litigation, she had repurchased the rights to the original recordings of her first six albums — known in the music industry as masters. The origins of the conflict date back to 2004, when Swift signed her first record deal with Big Machine Records at the age of 14. As is often the case in early contracts with emerging artists, she gave up ownership of those recordings in exchange for the support she needed to launch her career.
In 2018, when her contract ended, Swift attempted to regain control over those works. But Big Machine Records was acquired by entrepreneur Scooter Braun, who bought the entire catalog — including the masters — without giving Swift the opportunity to be involved in the deal. Then, in 2020, Braun sold the recordings to an investment fund, once again without offering the artist the chance to match the offer.
In response, the singer-songwriter decided to re-record her albums under the label “Taylor’s Version,” thereby weakening the commercial value of the original versions and generating the resources to buy back the rights to her masters. This was possible because her original contract included a clause allowing her to re-record her albums after a certain period following its expiration.
Beyond the media buzz, this case highlights how intellectual property assets — intangible yet strategic — are essential tools for protecting creativity, innovation, and their capitalization potential. Effective management of these assets requires an interdisciplinary approach that integrates technical, legal, commercial, and regulatory aspects. Simply registering an asset is not enough: it is crucial to accompany its life cycle, anticipate technological, regulatory, and business shifts, and design strategies to maximize its long-term value. In this regard, specialized and continuous advice is key for those aiming to transform creativity and innovation into a sustainable business while maintaining control over their future.
In the wake of Taylor Swift’s case, more artists may opt to license their masters rather than sell them outright. For their part, record labels are likely to become more reluctant to allow re-recordings of acquired masters, in order to prevent other artists from replicating the strategy employed by the American singer-songwriter.
Taylor Swift’s story shows that managing intangible assets is not a one-time action, but a long-term strategy. From registering her name as a trademark in 2008 to building a portfolio that includes song titles, iconic phrases, and elements from her narrative universe, she has successfully developed a personal brand with enormous commercial power.
In a context where innovation is accelerating and business models are becoming increasingly complex, intellectual property serves as a framework that structures, protects, and enables development. It is not merely a legal formality — it involves building assets that allow knowledge to be monetized, scaled sustainably, and strategically controlled as the business evolves.
In an increasingly globalized, digital, and dynamic world, holding intellectual property assets opens doors to new business opportunities. Proper management of these assets facilitates the creation of strategic alliances, access to international markets, and negotiation of licenses that boost revenue generation. Thus, IP becomes a competitive tool that can make the difference between the success or stagnation of an innovative project.
Whether we are talking about songs, software, chemical formulas, industrial developments, or trademarks, the message is the same: understanding, planning, and strategically protecting intellectual property assets is a necessary condition for leading the creative and commercial destiny of any project.
by Federico UlledMergers and acquisitions on the rise in Argentina: the importance of protecting innovation
In a challenging regional context, Argentina stands out as an exception: while the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market in Latin America declined in 2024, our country recorded an increase of 27% in the number of operations during the first quarter of the last year, and the mobilized capital more than doubled, reaching USD 1.75 billion. The figures, published in a report by the global firm Aon plc, reflect a dynamic that goes beyond the circumstantial: they point to a change in the market outlook.
The decline in inflation, the improvement of domestic macroeconomic indicators and the fiscal and trade surplus are generating a more favorable environment for private investment, according to a study by Buenos Aires Capital Partners. If we also consider the deregulations promoted by the government and a decrease in U.S. interest rates, 2025 is expected to be an even more active year for Argentina’s corporate transactions market.
The domestic growth of M&A activity can also be interpreted as a sign of confidence in the innovative potential of the country. The fact that local companies – those most familiar with Argentina´s particular context- are leading this type of movements, sends a strong signal to the international investment community. In many cases, the behavior of the local capital works as a barometer for those assessing investment opportunities in Argentina from abroad.
What’s interesting is not just the scale of the phenomenon, but its composition. Of the 95 transactions recorded nationwide in 2024, many were concentrated in knowledge- and innovation-intensive sectors, such as technology. It’s not simply a matter of buying and selling companies—strategic intangible assets play a critical role, including patents, trademarks, software, technical know-how, or technology developments protected by trade secrets. M&A transactions involve complex challenges related to intellectual property: the due diligence of intangible assets, proper ownership of rights, the assessment of litigation risks, and the valuation of patents and trademarks are all factors that can decisively affect the value of a transaction.
Technological disruption will continue to be one of the main drivers of the global market, as highlighted in Bain & Company’s report “M&A 2025.” Generative artificial intelligence, automation, quantum computing, and renewable energies are pushing many companies to pursue transformation through acquisitions. In this context, protecting innovation is neither a luxury nor a formality: it is a competitive advantage.
Argentina has talent, technology, and a renewed market dynamism. For this wave of transactions to be sustainable over time and contribute to the country’s economic development, one condition is essential: protecting innovation and investing in the growth of our innovative capacity.
by Emilio BerkenwaldElon Musk, Vaccines, and Coffee Capsules: Why Startups Must Protect Innovation?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a global debate emerged about the need to waive vaccine patents. Some argued that, without intellectual property rights, it would have been easier to manufacture and distribute vaccines around the world. But the reality is more complex: without intellectual property protection, the innovations that made those vaccines possible likely wouldn’t have existed in the first place.
Although the COVID vaccines were commercialized by pharmaceutical companies, the mRNA technology on which they were based was developed at a U.S. university and protected through patents. That protection enabled the negotiation of licenses and attracted the investment needed to scale the technology in record time. Intellectual property was not an obstacle but an enabler of exploitation—it made the business viable and allowed the innovation to reach the market.
For startups, the lesson is clear: protecting technology through patents is neither excessive nor bureaucratic but an essential condition for attracting investors and capitalizing on a business. Patents give startups something they would not otherwise have: the exclusive right to exploit an innovation for a specific time and in a specific territory, which is crucial when resources are limited and competition can come from anywhere in the world. When obtaining a patent is not possible, there are other mechanisms of protection, such as designs, trademarks, and even copyright.
The exclusivity granted by intellectual property rights gives economic value to innovation in the eyes of investors who are looking for projects that cannot be easily copied or replicated.
The Coffee Capsule Case: Finding Where the Real Value Lies
A particularly illustrative example is that of a well-known coffee capsule brand. Instead of protecting only the coffee machine—a product relatively easy to copy—the company also protected the capsule’s design, its materials, and its piercing mechanism, which were the true heart of the business. While the machines could become a commodity, the capsules required specific licenses to be manufactured and sold. That smart intellectual property strategy allowed the company to control the consumer ecosystem and build a multi-million-dollar business.
The lesson for startups is that the greatest value often lies not in protecting everything, but in identifying the critical component that makes the difference—and then building the entry barrier for competitors from there.
The False Sense of Security Around Patentability
A very common misconception among entrepreneurs is failing to distinguish between patentability and freedom to operate. Having a patent means that an innovation meets the requirements to be patented, but it does not guarantee that it can be freely commercialized. There may be third-party patents in force that restrict or block the possibility of using the innovation. This issue was also particularly evident in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines: although the base technology was owned by a university, the pharmaceutical companies had to ensure they were not infringing on third-party rights in order to bring their products to market.
Many startups are unaware of this critical difference. Conducting a freedom-to-operate analysis—to verify that a technology does not infringe the rights of others—is a far more complex and sensitive process than evaluating patentability. That’s why it’s not always accessible in early stages, but it must become a priority when the product or service is ready to be launched on the market.
The Key Role of Investors and Incubators
Investors know this. They don’t just invest in ideas—they invest in intellectual property assets. It is increasingly common for incubators and accelerators not only to encourage the development of IP strategies, but even to finance them. In many cases, they directly require the existence of patent applications as a condition.
The message from investors to startups is clear: without intellectual property assets, there are no entry barriers; without entry barriers, there is no business.
That’s why protecting innovation is not optional: it is about building the asset on which all of a company’s value will be based.
There are well-known figures, like Elon Musk, who have recently made statements downplaying the importance of intellectual property. Musk has even said that “patents are for the weak.” But context matters: Elon Musk operates on a different scale—a global one—with a vast patent portfolio and a powerful brand reputation.
In conclusion, intellectual property does not hinder innovation—it drives it. It is what enables a startup to go from having a great idea to having a viable business that is attractive to investors and ready to grow.
by BERKEN IPThe Riyadh Treaty on Design Law: a step towards international simplification and harmonization
On November 22, 2024, in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), member states of The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) approved the Riyadh Treaty on Design Law. This new international instrument marks a major advancement in the field of intellectual property, as it establishes common rules that simplify design protection in countries that adopt the treaty, through procedures that are simpler, more dynamic and more accessible.
Unlike the Hague Agreement, the Riyadh Treaty does not establish an international registration system but instead harmonizes substantive and procedural rules that countries adopting the treaty must implement in their domestic legislation.
Although this treaty has not yet entered into force, since it requires at least 15 ratifications or adhesions, several countries have already signed it, including Uruguay and Paraguay, reflecting initial regional interest in the harmonization of this type of protection.
It is worth noting that the purpose of an industrial design is to protect the aesthetic or ornamental features of an industrial or handcrafted product. At an international level, the term industrial design encompasses two-dimensional creations as well as three-dimensional creations, while in Argentina a distinction is made between industrial designs (two-dimensional) and industrial models (three-dimensional). Accordingly, it must be understood that the Riyadh Treaty refers to both types of creations.
The main objective of the treaty is to make design protection more accessible, especially for entrepreneurs, independent designers, and small and medium-sized enterprises. To that end, it seeks to reduce bureaucratic barriers and harmonize the essential requirements that an application must meet in the different countries adopting the treaty.
Amongst the most relevant aspects of the Riyadh Treaty there is the definition of a maximum and standardized list of elements that must be filed with the application, with the aim of avoiding additional requirements that could complicate the procedure for applicants. Furthermore, the treaty accepts various forms of representation of the design, such as photographs, drawings, or any other visual representation accepted by the competent registration authority.
The treaty also allows the inclusion of multiple industrial designs within a single application, provided that certain conditions are met. This represents an advantage over systems that require individual applications for each design, and it also helps to reduce filing costs. Regarding the filing date—an essential element for assessing novelty and establishing a priority date—the requirements are simplified to an express or implicit indication that the document constitutes an application; sufficient information to identify the applicant; a clear representation of the industrial design or model; and the contact details of the applicant or their representative. Under certain conditions, countries may require additional elements listed in the treaty, such as a claim or a brief description.
In addition, the treaty establishes a harmonized and mandatory 12-month grace period from the date of the first public disclosure of the design, during which such disclosure does not affect its novelty. This would require some countries to amend their domestic legislation if they adopt the treaty – for example, Argentina, whose current law provides only a 6-month grace period. The treaty also allows applicants to request deferred publication of the design for at least six months after filing, granting greater control over the timing of official disclosure.
To provide greater legal certainty, the treaty introduces mechanisms that allow for the correction of errors or delays without automatically resulting in the loss of rights.
Finally, the treaty encourages the implementation of electronic systems for the filing of applications and the digital exchange of priority documents, modernizing and accelerating procedures.
In conclusion, the Riyadh Treaty constitutes a concrete instrument for facilitating the international protection of industrial designs and models. Although it has not yet entered into force, its adoption marks a trend toward regulatory harmonization and procedural simplification, benefiting creators and designers in an increasingly globalized market. For Argentine designers—especially those seeking to protect their creations abroad— this treaty could, in the future, offer easier access to a more unified and efficient system for safeguarding their creative work at the international level.
Author: Federico Maddonni Brito.