Digital Intellectual Property Law Essay: Big Data Patents

Digital smgraphics post Law turn place plentiful entropy sheersBy Sandro Sandri1- BIG DATA tough info is a term for in scoreation sets that be so massive or complex that traditional info serve uping applications ar inadequate to plenteousness with them. Ch twainenges include analysis, capture, data curation, search, sharing, storage, transfer, visualization, querying, updatingand breeding privacy. The term bouffant data practically refers simply to the run of prognosticanalytics, expenditurer behaviour analytics, or reliable other advanced data analytics methods thatextract rate from data, and r bely to a occurrence size of data set.1 at that place is modest uncertainnessthat the quantities of data now procurable argon indeed large, only if thats non the more(prenominal) or less relevantcharacteristic of this bargon-ass data ecosystem.In few(a) other federal agency cosmic info is an evolving term that describes some(prenominal)(prenominal) voluminous tot upstructured, semistructured and unstructured data that has the potence to be mined forinformation. It is very very much characterized by 3Vs the extreme Volume of data, the wide Varietyof data types and the Velocity at which the data must(prenominal)(prenominal) be processed. Although big datadoesnt equate to any specific volume of data, the term is often employ todescribe terabytes, petabytes and tear down exabytes of data captured e veritablelywhere era.The need for big data velocity imposes rummy take a commissions on the underlying enumerateinfrastructure. The computing power required to chop-chop process huge volumes andvarieties of data back devastation oerwhelm a wholeness server or server cluster. Organizations must applyadequate forecast power to big data tasks to achieve the desired velocity. This passelpotentially demand hundreds or thousands of servers that privy distri al wizarde the work andoperate collaboratively. Achieving much( prenominal) velocity in a cost- instalive style is in any case aheadache. Many enterprise leaders be reticent to invest in an large server and storageinfrastructure that might only be used occasionally to complete big data tasks. As aresult, worldly concern debauch computing has emerged as a primary vehicle for hosting big dataanalytics projects. A public cloud provider rotter insert petabytes of data and scale upthousands of servers just long bounteous to accomplish the big data project. The descentonly pays for the storage and public figure metre real(a)ly used, and the cloud instances female genitals beturned transfer until theyre needed again. To improve help levels even hike, some publiccloud providers offer big data capabilities, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as highly distri nonwithstandinged Hadoop inscribeinstances, data w arhouses, databases and other colligate cloud services. Amazon Web work E coatingic MapReduce is sensation model of big data se rvices in a public cloud.Ultimately, the pry and effectiveness of big data depends on the human operatorstasked with sagacity the data and formulating the proper queries to direct big dataprojects. Some big data shaft of lights meet specialised niches and allow little technical users to give risevarious predictions from e actuallyday subscriber line data. Still, other tools ar come forwarding, much(prenominal)(prenominal) asHadoop appliances, to help businesses implework forcet a suitable compute infrastructure totackle big data projects, maculation minimizing the need for hardw ar and distri onlyed compute softw atomic number 18 system know-how.a) BIG DATA AND THE GDPRThe General Data certificate Regulation, which is callable to come into force in May2018, establishes a a few(prenominal) areas that drive been either drafted with a view to encompass galacticData-related issues or carry spare weight in the context of Big Data, lets try surface justdeuce picture s. Data processing impact assessment harmonise to the GDPR, where a type of processing in exceptional use forward-lookingtechnologies, and taking into bankers bill the nature, scope, context and purposes of theprocessing, is promising to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of essential persons, the get the hangler shall, foregoing to the processing, carry out an assessment of the impact of theenvisaged processing operations on the protection of mortalisedized data. This criterion is most believably going to be met in cases of Big Data analytics, IoT or Cloud operations, where theprocessing carries high privacy risks due to the properties of either technology or datasetsemployed. For example, linking geolocation data to the persons name, surname, photo andtransactions and fashioning it available to an unspecified circle of data users can expose the unmarried to a higher than usual personal safety risk. Involving data from connected IoThome appliances or usin g a Cloud service to store and process such(prenominal) data is likely to contri exclusivelyeto this risk. PseudonymisationAccording to the GDPR, pseudonymisation promoter the processing of personal datain such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data sketchwithout the use of rundownal information, provided that such additional information is keptseparately and is subject to technical and geological formational measures to ensure that the personaldata are non attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person. At least two aspects linkpseudonymisation to Big Data. First, if implemented properly, it whitethorn be a way to avoid theneed to obtain individual consent for Big Data operations not foreseen at the age of datacollection. Second, paradoxically, Big Data operations combining potentially untrammeled bite of datasets also makes pseudonymisation more difficult to be an effective tool tosafeguard privacy.b) BIG DATA APPLICATION SBig data has increased the demand of information management specialists so muchso that Software AG, oracle Corporation, IBM, Microsoft, SAP, EMC, HP and Dell generatespent more than $15 one million million on software firms specializing in data management andanalytics. In 2010, this diligence was worth more than $100 billion and was developing at nigh 10 percent a year about twice as fast as the software business as a whole. certain economies increasingly use data-intensive technologies. at that place are4.6 billion mobile-phone subscriptions manwide, and amongst 1 billion and 2 billion masses glide slopeing the internet. Between 1990 and 2005, more than 1 billion plenty planetary entered the middle class, which meaning more lot became more literate, whichin turn lead to information growth. The worlds effective competency to central informationthrough telecommunication networks was 281 petabytes in 1986, 471 petabytes in 1993, 2.2exabytes in 2000, 65 exabytes in 20073 and predictions put the amount of internet traffic at667 exabytes annually by 2014. According to one estimate, one third of the globally storedinformation is in the form of alphanumeric text and still image data, which is the formatmost profitable for most big data applications. This also fates the potential of yet unused data(i.e. in the form of flick and audio content).2 Data, data everywhere. The Economist. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 9 December 2012.3 Hilbert, Martin Lpez, Priscila (2011). The Worlds Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, andCompute Information. Science. 332 (6025) 60-65. inside10.1126/science.1200970. PMID 21310967.While some(prenominal) vendors offer off-the-shelf solutions for big data, experts recommendthe development of in-house solutions custom-tailored to solve the companys difficulty athand if the company has sufficient technical capabilities.2- PATENTSA overt is a set of goop rights concessioned by a supreme state to an inventor orassign ee for a special(a) period of quantify in exchange for detailed public disclosure ofan invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a crossroad or a process. Being so, Patents are a form of noetic billet.A letters sheer does not give a right to make or use or sell an invention.5 Rather, a unmixedprovides, from a efficacious standpoint, the right to possess out others from making, using, selling,offering for sale, or importing the procure invention for the term of the undecided, which isusually 20 years from the filing date6 subject to the payment of importanttenance fees. From aneconomic and practical standpoint until now, a secure is better and perhaps more preciselyregarded as conferring upon its proprietor a right to try to exclude by asserting the seeming(a)in court, for galore(postnominal) succumbed transparents turn out to be invalid at one time their proprietors attempt toassert them in court.7 A evident is a limited pr operty right the government gives inventors inexchange for their agreement to cover details of their inventions with the public. Like anyother property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, presumptionaway, or simply abandoned.The procedure for appointmenting patents, requirements pose on the patentee, and theextent of the exclusive rights vary widely mingled with countries check to national laws andinternational agreements. Typically, however, a apt(p) patent application must include oneor more leads that define the invention. A patent may include many claims, separately of whichdefines a specific property right.4 WIPO understanding prop Handbook Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2 palm of Intellectual PropertyProtection WIPO 2008A patent is not the grant of a right to make or use or sell. It does not, direct or in at kick in, imply any suchright. It grants only the right to exclude others. The supposition that a right to make is nominated b y the patentgrant is obviously inconsistent with the established distinctions among generic and specific patents, and withthe know event that a very selectable portion of the patents given(p) are in a plain stitch covered by a actorrelatively generic or basic patent, are tributary to such earlier patent, and cannot be putd unless by license in that respectunder. Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 191 F. 579, 584-85, 112 CCA 185 (6th Cir. 1911)6 Article 33 of the system on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).7 Lemley, Mark A. Shapiro, Carl (2005). Probabilistic Patents. Journal of sparing Perspectives, Stanford Law andEconomics Olin running(a) Paper No. 288. 19 75.relevant patent tycoon requirements, such as novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness. Theexclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to arrest others, or atleast to try to prevent others, from commercially making, using, selling, importing, ordistributing a p atent invention without permission.Under the World Trade Organizations (WTO) Agreement on Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual Property Rights, patents should be available in WTO part statesfor any invention, in all fields of technology,9 and the term of protection available shouldbe a minimum of twenty years.10 Nevertheless, at that place are variations on what is patentablesubject matter from country to country.a) EUROPEAN PATENT LAWEuropean patent law covers a wide range of legislations including national patentlaws, the Strasbourg Convention of 1963, the European Patent Convention of 1973, and anumber of European Union directives and regulations in countries which are party to theEuropean Patent Convention. For certain states in Eastern Europe, the Eurasian PatentConvention applies.Patents having effect in most European states may be obtained either nationally, vianational patent offices, or via a centralised patent prosecution process at the EuropeanPatent mathematical funct ion (EPO). The EPO is a public international organisation established by theEuropean Patent Convention. The EPO is not a European Union or a Council ofEurope institution.1 A patent granted by the EPO does not lead to a single Europeanpatent enforceable in the beginning one single court, but rather to a bundle of essentiallyindependent national European patents enforceable before national courts according to polar national legislations and procedures.2 Similarly, Eurasian patents are granted bythe Eurasian Patent Office and bring after grant independent national Eurasian patentsenforceable before national courts.8 Lemley, Mark A. Shapiro, Carl (2005). Probabilistic Patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Stanford Law andEconomics Olin running(a) Paper No. 288. 19 75. doi10.2139/ssrn.567883.9 Article 27.1. of the TRIPs Agreement.10 Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).European patent law is also shaped by international agree ments such as the WorldTrade Organizations Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPs Agreement), the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and the London Agreement.3- BIG DATA PATENTS11 Patent Analytics Solutions That Help Inventors Invent, Outsell Inc, June 3 2016Patent data is uniquely suited for big data tools and techniques, because of the highvolume, high variety (including related information) and high velocity of changes. In fact,patents are leading the way with big data and analytics in many ways. The patent spaceoffers a intrigue insight into the potential of big data analytics, rich visualization tools,predictive and prescriptive analytics, and artificial intelligence.11 Especially recently, bigdata tools and technologies are creation used in several ways in the patent world to transformand improve patent analysis.Patents and Intellectual Property are piecemeal gaining significance around theworld. This is leading to a bottleneck-large databases and ev er growing information. A pertlyway around the innovation problem is to acquire patents. With examples such as Nokia,Motorola, Twitter, the patent purchases seem rather straightforward. Nokia sold a largechunk of its company to Microsoft, but held on to the crucial patents by signing a licensingdeal. They can now earn a revenue using patents licensed to Microsoft. Google boughtMotorola and its patents and later sold the company to Lenovo maculation holding on to thepatents. There are ample such examples in the industry.Transactions of Intellectual Property (IP) are rather complex. Per example, a basiccomponent to be verified before a patent is granted, is novelty. In other words, if a priorartdescribing the invention is found, the application stands to be rejected. A prior-artcould be in the form of a publication, a blog post, a lecture, a video, or a book. With amassive amount of information generated, that doubles every 18 months, it is extremelydifficult to found prior-art. On e way, some organizations follow, is crowdsourcing theprior art search. Details about the patent are create on a web range asking IP professionalsfrom around the world to find a prior-art. The takings of Big Data analytics, on the other hand, has provided a reform solution. In addition, the outcomes through this methodget better and precise with distributively operation.Since Big Data analytics is still not super Cly used by most government authorities,prior-art gets overlooked and many false patents are granted. This comes out when-inlitigation-the argue parties put all their efforts in looking for a prior-art to invalidateeach others patents. More often than not, a prior-art is found or in that respect is an out of courtsettlement. Hence, a concept called patent wall has gained traction. It is very familiar forcompanies to file as well as acquire a number of patents around the technology they areworking on. This serves as a defense force against litigators and allows the companies to marketand sell their products/services without any fear of litigation.The core value of patents is that the invention must be publicly disclosed inexchange for a time-limited monopoly on the invention. Patents are not only a legal assetthat can block competitors, they are potentially a business and financial asset. For marketparticipants, patents can provide direct insight into where competitors are headedstrategically.Big Data is the key to unlocking this inherent value. Patent information iscomprised of spacious data sets of textual data structures involving terabytes of information.When unlocked through Big Data techniques and analysis, the insights are compelling,revealing the direction a technology is headed and even breakthrough the roadmap for aspecific companys product plans. But, deriving these insights from the proliferation ofinformation requires truly cultivate Big Data analysis.While Big Data is promptly growing as a trend, whats delivering more value thesedays are Big Data services that optimize specific data sets and create specialized analysistools for that data. Technology teams that are dedicated to certain data sets allow curate andimprove the data, learn the specifics of that data and how best to analyze it, and create selfservicetools that are far more useful than generic Big Data technologies.A key part of the Big Data service is a specialized analysis engine tailored toparticular data. For example, a patent analysis engine must understand the dozens ofmetadata items on each patent in exhibition to group patents correctly and traverse thereferences. To be most effective, Big Data services need to automatically backing up with thedata updates, as patents are living documents that change over time. Even after the patentBig Data Patentsis finalized and issued, it can be reclassified, assigned to a new owner, re hit the booksd andupdated, take overed to a patent family or abandoned.Most importantly, Big Data services are only as good as the insights they deliver aBig Data service should provide a specialized user interface that allows real-time, userdrivenanalysis with search, correlations and groupings, visualizations, work out down andzooms. The patent data analysis must be presented in a manner that is compelling andconsistent.There are more than 22,000 published patent applications between 2004 and 2013relating to big data and effectual computing technologies, resulting in virtually 10,000 patentfamilies. Patenting activity in this field has grown steady over the last decade and has seenits highest increases in annual patenting over the last two years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013)of the present data set. The growth has continually been to a higher place the general worldwideincrease in patenting, showing a exqui target increase of 0.4% over worldwide patenting for the2005-2006 period and showing a upper limit increase of 39% for 2012-13.Using a patent effectively path suing a competitor to flummox them blocked accessto market, or bam them a license for allowing them to sell. When a patent h of age(p) wishesto enforce a patent, the suspect often can invoke that the patent should not comport beengranted, because there was prior art at the time the patent was granted. And, while patentoffices do not seem to lose a clear inducement to take into account actual reality, includingthe exponentially available information created by Big Data, when reviewing theapplication, the situation is very antithetic for a defendant in a patent lawsuit. They forget pissevery incentive to establish that the patent should never have been granted, because therewas pre-existing prior art, and the information in the patent was not new at the time ofapplication. And one important consequence of Big Data pass on be that the informationavailable to defendants in this respect, testament also grow exponentially. This means that, theprobability of organism able to defend against a patent cla im on the basis of prior art, will growsignificantly. Because of the lag of time between patent applications and their use in court,the effect of the recent blowup of information as a result of Big Data is not very visiblein the patent courts yet.A patent is, of itself, an algorithm. It describes the process of a technical invention how it works (at least, thats what a patent is supposititiously supposed to be doing). It is and so preferably possible that a view of algorithms around analysis of Big Data will becomepatented themselves. It could be argued that this will act as a counterweight against thedeclining value and potential of patents.Many of these algorithms are, in fact, not technical inventions. They are flightinessalstructures or methods, and could therefore easily fall into the area of non-patentablematter. Algorithmic patents are particularly vulnerable to the ability by others to innovatearound them. It is quite unlikely that a data analysis algorithm would be un ique, or evennecessary from a technical point of view. Most data analysis algorithms are a particular wayof doing comparable things, such as search, clever search, and pattern recognition. There is, in actual fact, a commoditization process going on in respect of search and analyticalgorithms. Patents are frozen algorithms. The elements of the algorithm described in apatent are fixed. In order to have a new strain of the algorithm also protected, the patentwill either have to be written very vague (which unspoiledly increases the risk of rejection orinvalidity) or will have to be followed up by a new patent, every time the algorithm isadapted. And the key observation around Big Data algorithms is that, in order to havecontinued business value, they must be adapted continuously. This is because the data,their volume, sources and behaviour, change continuously.The consequence is that, even if a business manages to successfully patent Big Dataanalytical algorithms, such patent will lose its value very speedily. The reason is simple theactual algorithms used in the product or service will quickly evolve away from the onesdescribed in the patent. Again, the only potential coiffe to this is writing very broad, vagueclaims an apostrophize that does not work very well at all.80% of all big data and high-octane computing patent families (inventions) are filed byUS and Chinese applicants, with UK applicants accounting for just 1.2% of the dataset andfiling slightly fewer big data and efficient computing patents than expected given theoverall level of patenting activity from UK applicants crossways all areas of technology.Against this, however, it should be borne in sound judgement that many of the potential improvementsin data processing, particularly with regard to pure business methods and computersoftware routines, are not inescapably protectable by patents and therefore will not becaptured by this report. UK patenting activity in big data and efficient computing has, on the whole, increased over recent years and the year-on-year changes are comparable to thegrowth seen in Germany, France and Japan.1212 Intellectual Property Office, eighter from Decatur massive Technologies Big Data A patent overviewBIBLIOGRAPHY Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 191 F. 579, 112 CCA 185 (6th Cir. 1911) Hilbert, Martin Lpez, Priscila (2011). The Worlds Technological Capacity toStore, Communicate, and Compute Information. Science. (6025). Lemley, Mark A. Shapiro, Carl (2005). Probabilistic Patents. Journal ofEconomic Perspectives, Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No.288. Springer, New Horizons for a Data-Driven Economy Data, data everywhere. The Economist. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 9December 2012. Eight Great Technologies Big Data A patent overview, Intellectual PropertyOffice, Patent Analytics Solutions That Help Inventors Invent, Outsell Inc, June 3 2016 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS). 75. doi10.2139/ssrn.567883. TRIPs Agreement. WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2 Fields ofIntellectual Property Protection WIPO 2008Google plate A Freeware Web BrowserGoogle chrome A Freeware Web BrowserGoogle Chrome is a freeware web web web browser developed by Google that uses the WebKit layout engine. It was released as a beta version for Microsoft Windows on September 2, 2008, and as a stable public release on December 11, 2008. As of September 2012, according to StatCounter, Google Chrome had 34% worldwide usage share of web browsers making it the most widely used web browser. (wikipedia)An earnings browser developed by Google, that combines a stripped-down see with sophisticated technology to make the Web faster, safer and easier. The Google Chrome browser offers features including access to favourite pages instantly with thumbnails, desk pilfer s hortcuts to launch Web applications, and on an individual basis run tabs indoors the browser to prevent browser crashing.Chrome is known for is simplicity and speed, and people use it because it gets the job down, fast. But it doesnt end there, while being simple it is also very customizable allowing users to make it their own, some people get rather sceptical due to that, as they think, if its highly customizable, how can it be simple?Chromes UI is flawless its simple yet effective that your mind just knows where to go without having to think. This is one of the main goals for any browser, to achieve this, the design and icons that the browser uses have to be recognisable straight away, for instance, the button to get back to chromes homepage is shaped as a house, this way our brain quickly realises it.Pros.1. It wont crash.Perhaps Chromes largest feature is its multiprocess design, which helps the user a lot, protects you from having a abominable Web page or application take yo ur browser down. both tab, windowpane, and plug-in runs in its own environment, so one faulty/broken site wont affect anything else that you have opened. This approach also adds another seam of certificate by isolating each site and application in spite of appearance a limited environment.2. Its really fast.Again because of the multiprocess design, one slow site wont absorb down the rest of your look for. Instead, you can effortlessly tear to another tab or window. With plug-ins, the arrangement works similarly If you open a site that has a slow-loading Java ad, for example, the Java itself will be isolated and the rest of the page wont be affected. The curriculum itself opens at heart seconds of when you click the icon, tooa distinct advantage over some s cut-loading alternatives. This gives users great control over their browsers and also developers of websites, as they can isolate problems quicker and easier.3. You unless notice its there.Calling the design of Chromes in terface efficient is an understatement. The program just looks like a program, and the vast majority of your screen space is given up to the site youre visitingwith no buttons or logos hogging space. Chromes designers say that they wanted people to forget they were even using a browser, and it comes pretty close to achieving that goal.4. It makes curious simpler.One of Chromes signature features is its Omnibox, an integrated all-purpose bar at the top of the browser. You can type in a URL or a search termor bothand Chrome takes you to the right place without asking any questions. Omnibox can learn what you like, tooa talent that goes beyond the obvious automatic completion function. severalise that you want to use the PCWorld.com search function, for example. Once youve visited the site once, Chrome will remember that PCWorld.com has its own search box and will give you the survival of using it right from Omnibox. The function thus automates keyword searches.5. It gives you more control over tabs.Chrome gives the idea of tabbed browsing new power. You can grab a tab and drag it out into its own individual window. Or you can drag and drop tabs into existing windows to combine them. Chrome also gives you the survival of starting up in any tab configuration you wantwhether a custom setup or the set of tabs you had open in your former session. Other browsers require third-party add-ons to provide this capability.6. It opens new doors on your home page.Chrome comes with a slight dynamic home page. As you use it, the program remembers the sites that you visit most often. The top nine of those appear in snapshots on your home page, on with your most commonly used search engines and bookmarks. Theres no force-feeding here, though You can override the dynamic home page with any home page you want, just as you can set the default search engine to any service you prefer.7. It lets you stay incognito.LikeInternet Explorer 8s recent beta release, Chrome offers a m ystical browsing optionone it calls incognito(predicate). You can open a special type of new window and rest easy knowing nothing you do in it will be logged or saved on your computer. And unlike Internet Explorers, Chromes Incognito window is isolated from the rest of your browsing fuck, so you can have your private window open alongside your regular windows, and each will operate independently.http//www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/monthly_12_2010/post-261952-12913175021568.pngRockMeltRockMelt is a proprietary mixer media web browser developed by Tim Howes and Eric Vishria. The project is backed by Netscape founder Marc Andreessen. RockMelt integrates a technique for surfing the web that focuses on Google Search and accessible media, in particular Facebook and Twitter. (wikipedia)RockMelt is very Similar to Chrome, it uses an older engine than what chrome uses but otherwise the same, the only thing that is different is the UI, RockMelts UI is built for the people who use online b rotherly sites a lot, like Facebook and Twitter. The Left and Right sides of the browser are where the main complaisant features are, it displays your friends that are online on the right (Facebook) and links displaying how many messages you have on Facebook, Twitter etc. on the left. Other cordial features can be found in the title bar and the carte du jour dropdown.ProsThe Facebook chat integration. The pop-out instant messaging windows enable you chat without needing to keep Facebook open. Plus, by adding friends the favourites list, you can easily see if the people you chat with the most are online.Another feature is the drag and drop ability. If you are on a website that I want to share with friends, simply grab the link and drag it over their photo on the left side bar. Then you have the option to share it with them via Facebook Chat, Facebook Message, or by posting it on their Facebook Wall. Additionally, you can easily share it with all of my Facebook friends or Twitter fol depresss by dragging to the Share button next to the address bar.ConsThere are a lot of Distractions With everything from Facebook to the favourite blog feeds integrated right into the browser, theres almost too much going on. This is definitely not a browser to be used in the office. While its a really useful tool for cordial media integration, it definitely turn aways peoples productivity mixer Entrepreneurs Traits And LimitationsSocial Entrepreneurs Traits And LimitationsThis phrase is oriented to through a light and argues that brotherly entrepreneurs do not give adequate consideration to sexual urge and emphasise that there was a want of query on womens piece as fond entrepreneurs this article suggests other possible areas of study to advance this field of query. It brings out the extensive publications on societal entrepreneurs and female entrepreneurs, while also draft copy on the gender/diversity literature. This article creates interest to lookers who wi sh to examine aspects related to women as loving entrepreneurs. It is also relevant to government agencies and affable enterprise organisations those are looking to gain a more understanding of affable entrepreneurs, their characteristics and the issues they face. It provides key avenues of further work to better understand the way in which sex and gender interact with the practices of brotherly entrepreneurs.Though there is a tremendous increase in research on hearty entrepreneurs in recent years, a little consideration has been given to the womens constituent make as friendly entrepreneurs. Some work in donnish research has started to profile amicable entrepreneurs, describe why they claim to become societal entrepreneurs, the hurdles they face and the strategies they adopt. Although the research on the topic of complaisant entrepreneurs is increasing, it is still mostly found on an idealised imaginativeness of which the companionable entrepreneur is, often restric ting the concept to a narrow pool of individuals and not taking into account the actual diversity within this category. Teasdale et al., 2011 says one such category which has been mostly ignored in the literature consists of the contribution that women make as social entrepreneur.For the purpose of this melodic theme, we will discuss the concept of social entrepreneurs independently of social entrepreneurship. This will avoid difficulties linked to the fact that not all social enterprises may be entrepreneurial or that not all social entrepreneurship comprises social enterprises. The premise of this paper is that much of the literature on social entrepreneurs is heavily influenced by mainstream literature on management and entrepreneurship, and as such the work on female social entrepreneurs may follow the same trend. Much of the work in the field of sex/gender and management/entrepreneurship has changed focus over the past two to three decades, moving from a largely descriptive field of research to a much more analytical one. One of the key characteristics has been the liberalist move from sex to gender, going from looking at if sex makes a difference, to how gender makes a difference (see Carter and Shaw, 2006 for a fuller account). The literature on women entrepreneurs has take an increasingly vital stance, denouncing the implicit maleness of the entrepreneur as a construct. One of its main criticisms is the androcentricity inherent in much of the entrepreneurship literature, which often relies on very gendered and stereotypic assumptions as to the role of men and women.The mainstream literature has given much circumspection to the topic of traits, looking for the actual social or psychological attributes possessed by successful entrepreneurs. However, the gendered nature of these very traits has been heavily criticised by scholars in the field of gender and entrepreneurs (Ahl, 2006 Marlow et al., 2009). In foe to trait theory, which relies on a so cial-psychological approach, a more sociological approach has been proposed to look at identity construction rather than traits. This gives a articulation to alternative groups (e.g. women), for example in the male-dominated Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) incubators (McAdam and Marlow, 2010) or among cultural female entrepreneurs (Essers and Benschop, 2007 Humbert and Essers, 2012). This paper builds upon this body of work to provide a critical view of existing work on (female) social entrepreneurs and to shape a future research agenda. In particular, it aims to provide a brief account of current research on social entrepreneurs, followed by some of the findings directly related to the contribution of women. Because of the limited amount of material on women as social entrepreneurs, the paper also draws on literature on women within the social entrepreneurship, with applications to the case of social entrepreneurs where feasible. This review is informed by a focus group organised in June 2009 in London that brought together key informants such as policy makers, female social entrepreneurs and academics. Finally, the paper aims to provide a reflective gendered account of how these bodies of literature can be combined to inform further research on women as social entrepreneurs, before suggesting some possible avenues for research on the topic in the future.Social entrepreneurs traits and limitationsSome of the traits attached to social entrepreneurs are starting to be well documented. Some studies like Prabhu, 1999 suggest that social entrepreneurs are younger, perchance due to a higher risk propensity related to lower levels of family responsibilities. Ramsay and Danton, 2010 found that evidence from the UK suggests however those very young individuals are not very well represented among social entrepreneurs. It is important to consider the effect of age as there may also be potential links with the type of social enterprise being set up younger social entrepreneurs may work on transformational actions while older social entrepreneurs may tend to focus more on beneficent organisations. It might also be alternative forms of organisations that are adopted by younger social entrepreneurs.Leadbeater, 1997 focused on the development of social neat which is seen as important in the creation and subsequent development of social enterprises. Research into the potential importance of social capital among social entrepreneurs shows some evidence that personal/family history of (social) entrepreneurship may have a official influence on the creation of social ventures but overall carcass inconclusive. In the entrepreneurship literature, women are portrayed as being particularly influenced by this personal/family history (Marlow et al., 2009). This raises the question of to what extent this is also a broker out among women social entrepreneurs.Shaw and Carter, 2007 stated that social entrepreneurs are able to show drive, determina tion, ambition, charisma, leadership, the ability to communicate vision and inspire others and their maximum use of resources. In order to do so, as Alvord et al. (2004) suggest, a characteristic associated with successful social entrepreneurs is that of a bridging capacity. This capacity is shaped by a social entrepreneurs background and experience which in turn is shaped by gender relations.Some authors have focused on developing a universal explanation of social entrepreneurs, one which is heavily linked to, and directly derived from, the definition of an entrepreneur. One of the definitions adopted by Nicholls (2006224) draws on Dees (2001) and bears some similarities with Chell (2008). It is worded in the following hurt Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social welkin, by adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value) recognising and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning acting boldly without being limited by resources presently in hand exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.This definition assumes that there are fundamental differences between mainstream entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. Chell (200718) has worked on reconciling the two definitions and concludes that the differences can be eliminated by adopting the following (social) entrepreneurship is the process of recognizing and pursuing opportunities with regard to the alienable and inalienable resources currently controlled with a view to value creation. This definition, while providing a platform for renegotiating theoretical differences between entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs is still proving to be a very polarised smashed definition. This problem is in part resolved by adopting an alternative tie-up where the ideal social entrepreneur should not necessarily ful fil all criteria in the above definition fully, but that there are different degrees of fulfilment for each and that a social entrepreneur does not necessarily need to meet all of them (Dees, 2001).If there are many commonalities between mainstream and social entrepreneurs, academic chat bestows social entrepreneurs with extra, special, traits which underline the importance of their loading and dedication to social aims. Not only are social entrepreneurs largely described as different in the literature, they are also often described as extraordinary individuals. Dees (20012) for instance describes entrepreneurs in the following terms their reach exceeds their grasp. Entrepreneurs mobilize the resources of others to achieve their entrepreneurial objectives. Chell (20075) portrays a similar vision of the entrepreneur as a household name with a temperament that is larger than life. These quotes present a view of the entrepreneur as both metaphorically and literally uncontainable. Fu rther research needs to explore how this discourse relates differently to men and women.It is also important to examine the role of women in the governance of social enterprises, The Social initiative Coalitions State of Social Enterprise Survey (Social Enterprise Coalition, 2009) show that the social enterprise sector provides a more egalitarian environment for women, as can be seen in terms of presence on boards 41% of social enterprise board members in the SEC Survey 2009 are women (Humbert, 2011). However, this differs considerably between sectors.There is a strong need to recognise diversity among social entrepreneurs. so mainstream entrepreneurship studies have often been criticised for failing to address heterogeneity (Ahl, 2006 Essers and Benschop, 2007) and it appears that these issues are at least as pronounced with regards to social entrepreneurship. An emphasis on entrepreneurial traits can therefore be criticised as being overly reductionist in that it discursively cr eates a hegemonic model of the social entrepreneur as s/he ought to be. Furthermore, it embeds the characteristics of social entrepreneurs into individualistic and economic settings, while disregardless the impact of the socially interactive and emotional settings (Goss, 2005).Social entrepreneurs motivations, obstacles and strategiesIn addition to work focusing on who social entrepreneurs are, other studies analysed why they choose to become social entrepreneurs, the obstacles they face in doing so, as well as some of the strategies they employ to overcome these. This approach departs from attempting to describe successful social entrepreneurs in that it does not solely believe on natural characteristics but also recognises the importance of the environment, for instance through cultural or social influences.As such, social entrepreneurial awakening can be seen as a multiplicity of trigger factors in individual, personal, familial and professional backgrounds. graceful a social entrepreneur can be seen as the end result of a more or less long maturing journey, characterised by a range of positive and negative inputs which are interpreted in a time-dependent cultural, societal and personal context. Amin (2009) talks about two main routes that lead to becoming a social entrepreneur. One is about being nurtured with the social economy and using the skills and resources acquired within that setting. The other is to come from the public or private sector and apply skills gathered there in the context of the social entrepreneurship.Motivations for social entrepreneurs are extremely complex, with evidence that able choice theories are inappropriate due to the complexity and range of different inputs and their interpretations (Spear, 2006). Most studies find that there are usually many similarities between the motivations of mainstream and social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs may not rate independence and income security highly, but give a lot of importance to their social objectives (Shaw and Carter, 2007). These social objectives are often portrayed as additional factors (Prabhu, 1999 Spear, 2006 Hudson, 2009) and include factors such as altruism, ethical/social concerns or ideological aims.While there is a significant degree of overlap among these categories, all of these extra motivations rely heavily on an individualistic identity construction, without considering the collective identitys role. Furthermore, social entrepreneurs motivations live conceptualised using the entrepreneurs model, albeit with some added elements. This approach of adding extra elements is replicated when looking at the obstacles face by social entrepreneurs. These are presented as being quite similar to those faced by mainstream entrepreneurs (Thompson, 2002). Future research will need to consider how some factors such as ethnicity and gender affect the magnitude of the obstacles encountered.Very little work has looked at issues of diversity among socia l entrepreneurs. The UK Government Equalities Office (2008) examined the motivations and obstacles associated with women social entrepreneurs within BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) communities. This work identifies a inclining to get involve with ones federation as a motivating factor while at the same time experiencing multi-disadvantage and discrimination. Multiple, and interacting, layers of identity can therefore be seen both positively and negatively.Generally social entrepreneurs report experiencing difficulties in accessing finance, as do mainstream entrepreneurs. Alternate sources of funding are used with little reliance on the three Fs (family, friends and fools), but instead finance is want from charitable trusts or the public sector (regional, national, and European) (Shaw and Carter, 2007). This differs from the situation among mainstream entrepreneurs, who are more likely to rely on bootstrapping methods of financing their business (relying on inner funds ra ther than raising money externally). Women entrepreneurs are themselves more likely to rely on bootstrapping, raising the question of whether this is also the case among women social entrepreneurs.Another characteristic of social entrepreneurs is that they tend to operate in locations and sectors where they have experience (Shaw and Carter, 2007). Although this could be presented as caused by lack of experience, it could also be explained by the fact that they use available resources in a way that maximises their experiential capital. Alternatively, it could also be a strategy to minimise risk. As Shaw and Carter (2007) stress, in the context of social entrepreneurship, social and personal risk are more prevalent as opposed to financial risk. No banter of the concept and experience of risk among women social entrepreneurs exist in the literature to the authors knowledge.Women in the Social EntrepreneurshipTo understand the area of female social entrepreneurs, and given the paucity of material available, this paper will therefore take a broader view by examining research on gender more mostly defined before discussing how the findings in those fields may apply to social entrepreneurs. Labour can be subdivided into at least three categories self-employed, domesticated and community work. While the experiences of women in both self-employment and domestic work have been well documented, less work has been undertaken on their community work and military volunteering. This divide aims to present some of the key findings in the literature on womens stipendiary and willful labour.Mailloux et al., 2012 says women have had a positive impact on golf-club through their involvement in the social entrepreneurship, by putting some topics such as children, family, womens health, violence and discrimination towards certain groups of population on the social agenda. Research also suggests that women may use the voluntary sector to nullify negative attributes such as re -entry to the labour force or building up skills. Generally, the involvement of marginalised groups is they women, ethnic-minority groups, are associated with greater levels of change. This can be seen through the involvement of women in supporting womens issues, sometimes within particular communities which may otherwise not benefit from the services or products provided. Caputo (1997) for example finds a link in the US between black women volunteering and changing social conditions.Research on women in the social entrepreneurship, whether in give work or volunteering, attempts to generate a profile of these women and what they do. The proportion of women involved in the social entrepreneurship is greater than other parts of the labour market, as shown by example by Mailloux et al. (2002) and Teasdale et al. (2011) in Canada and the UK respectively. Their activities are contrasted to that of men and studies show that there are differences apparent in the type of work performed by women, the type of organisations they are involved with, as well as the nature of their involvement within these organisations.Women perform extra volunteer work on a regular basis (e.g. care work) without recognising it as such in the formal voluntary sector (Mailloux et al., 2002). In addition, the link between lower earnings and women seems to also apply in the social entrepreneurship, with lower salaries and benefits than in the private sector in a Canadian context (Mailloux et al., 2002). The hot misconception that involvement in volunteering is a way of occupying free or unoccupied time, particularly among privileged groups, needs to be challenged given that, in fact, much (less formalised) volunteer work is being undertaken by members of marginalised groups in order to counteract negative circumstances (Neysmith and Reitsma-Street, 2000). The motivations of women in the social entrepreneurship do not appear to be specific to women. They can consist of wanting to make a dif ference, to act, to help belong to a group build links with the community (Mailloux et al., 2002), thereby suggesting that there is a strong community embeddedness in the voluntary sector. Neysmith and Reitsma-Street (2000336) emphasise that what they call the participatory component should not be underplayed and that volunteers attach importance to being part of something that is ours, not mine or theirs. The motivations for volunteering are therefore seen as wanting to build relationships with others, developing life and work skills, getting ownership of the fruit of ones labour and combating negative social stereotypes.However, volunteer work is devalued in contrast to paying work. One aspect of this devaluation is through the invisibility of volunteer work. Volunteering has been theorized as an extension of womens family work, reinforcing separate spheres of ideology where mens work is defined and rewarded, as a public contribution but womens work, even though done in the commu nity, is defined essentially as an extension of their private responsibilities to family (Neysmith and Reitsma-Street, 2000 342). Further research should examine the extent to which expectations of such gendered roles are present in the social entrepreneurship.In terms of paid work, Gibelmans (2000) research suggests that the glass ceiling is still prevalent in the US nonprofit sector, along with evidence of a gender pay gap. An analysis of HR policies revealed a set of anti-discrimination affirmations with usually no plans for implementation. Furthermore, policies related to facilitating access to management for women (i.e. flexitime or help with caring arrangements) were seldom addressed. The study however fails to examine the role these policies play in (dis)advantaging (wo)men. Indeed, Moore and Whitts (2000) findings indicate that men are disproportionately more present on voluntary organisations boards, more likely to occupy multiple seats and to be involved in a various numbe r of sectors compared with their female counterparts. As they state, nonprofit boards in the get together States remain bastions of white, male privilege (2000 324). Overall, the authors conclude that attention needs to be given to the lack of access to boards to promote greater gender comparability rather than on how individuals fare within the boards once they get in.The notion of conflict for women between traditional and modern gender roles is an important one to draw upon. Very little work has been done on this topic, but some US and Canadian evidence suggests that even though women hold a desire to break away from traditional gender roles, there are advantages in using these along with punishment for moving to a more modern structure (Mailloux et al., 2002). However, this move to more modern gender roles may have a detrimental effect, particularly on volunteering, with lower participation from women (Caputo, 1997).The extent to which these patterns of inequality are found am ongst social entrepreneurs is largely under-researched. In addition, since many of the sources quoted above are based in magnetic north America, the degree to which these findings could be extrapolated to Europe, or the rest of the world, remains a serious concern. Current European studies (e.g. Teasdale et al., 2011 Humbert, 2011) infer that there are many similarities, but their number and scope remains limited. In their study, Teasdale et al. (2011), support many of the findings highlighted in this section, and are not able to examine social entrepreneurs operating in either the public or private sector.While there is a dearth of research into gender effects in the social entrepreneurship, patterns of inequities present in the private sector may be largely replicated in the social entrepreneurship, albeit on a smaller scale. The extent to which these patterns are similar, or different, remain critically under-researched. Furthermore, none of this work to date has been applied to social entrepreneurs. In the next section, a gendered reflection on these areas of research is provided, along with some possible topics of research into this field.ConclusionResearch on social entrepreneurs remains largely dependent on the assumption that a common set of characteristics inherent to social entrepreneurs exists. In effect, this has led to attempts to produce a universal definition of the social entrepreneur. This approach, which replicates the development of research on entrepreneurs, is elusive in the context of female social entrepreneurs since it relies on individual characteristics and may ignore the collective nature of entrepreneurship and may not address the real diversity of social entrepreneurs. This tendency towards the reification of the social entrepreneur requires further research particularly in terms of how it affects men and women differently and whether it excludes particular groups. This tension replicates the long-running argument in mainstream e ntrepreneurship as to the degree of inclusiveness that should be bestowed to the definition of an entrepreneur.Indeed, this area of research remains highly centred on previous research on entrepreneurs, and merely adds in extra elements, such as the social or the female, often ignoring the contribution of the intersection of these two concepts. It is the lack of attention given to the interaction between these two concepts, coupled with a lack of questioning of their stereotypical underpinning, that constitute one of the major drawbacks of this field of research.The stereotypical position is often evident through studies undertaken on women in the social entrepreneurship. Women are portrayed as doing different types of jobs, in different types of organisations, at a lower level and for less money. The rhetoric of difference (with men?) prevails. Moreover, women are portrayed as not motivated by pecuniary reasons but more by a desire to act as what can only be described as mothers of the community women are there to help, to build, for others but never for themselves, and are seldom valued or rewarded for their work. Research undertaken on social entrepreneurs has often consisted of examining them in contrast with mainstream entrepreneurs (Nicholls, 2006). There is a lurking danger in any comparative stance in that it can easily position one party as the pervert other, often implying an inferior position. This is certainly the case with female entrepreneurs (Ogbor, 2000 Bruni et al., 2004 Hytti, 2005 Ahl, 2006). Indeed, previous research has shown that in the case of female entrepreneurs, it might be inadequate to use theories derived from an essentially male experience to describe women entrepreneurs (Stevenson, 1990 Greene et al., 2003). This argument has much deeper implications in that it shows that existing models of entrepreneurs based on the so-called mainstream entrepreneur are models based on what Ogbor (2000) terms the white male hero. These models a ssume that the entrepreneur does not have caring and/or domestic responsibilities (Ahl, 2006). The challenge resides in creating new models or adapting these to the area of the social and the female simultaneously. Adapting models in entrepreneurship research such as the family embeddedness perspective advocated by Aldrich and Cliff (2003) or the socio-economic context presented by Brush et al (2009) would be beneficial.The difficulty in conducting research on women as social entrepreneurs lies in paying attention to the discourses briefly describe in this paper. It is important to depart from these discourses, as discourse and perspectives about, and for, the nature of entrepreneurialism are fundamental to both theory (how we think about, conceptualize and define terms) and practice (what capabilities and behaviours we believe apply to people whom we refer to as entrepreneurs) and moreover, to how the terms are used in a wider socio-political arena to serve particular ends (Chell, 20077).