1.Ever since the birth of the modern scientific-technological age, there has been debates as to what is the motive power for wealth creation and rapid industrial and economic growth. Francis Bacon, who lived around 150 years before the Industrial Revolution, advanced his " linear " model as below:
 

Government funded ==> pure science ==> applied science ==> economic

Academic research or technology growth.

Adam Smith, who lived through the years of the IR, suggested an alternative model as below:
 

Pre-existing technology -à new technology -à wealth.

Academic science

with the new technology in turn or synergically generating new academic science. Whereas the former was fully accepted as a dictum by the erstwhile socialist countries , the capitalist economies accepted both models with varying levels of joint participation with the industries , with bulk of the public funded R&D tuned essentially to the strategic and long-gestation futuristic programmes.

2.As expected , the above policies were reflected also in their approaches to the crucial issue of protection of Intellectual Property Rights right from the beginning. Whereas the capitalist countries enacted IPR laws matching with the needs of the time, with Great Britain becoming naturally the pioneer and subsequently the United States incorporating the same as part of its constitution itself, the erstwhile socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union never had any worthwhile patent law at all ( Peoples Republic of China has enacted a TRIPS compliant patent law only in 1995). In other words, IPR 's and their efficient protection has always continued as an integral part of capitalist development. To quote James Boyle , Professor of Law, Washington University, from Harward Journal of Law and Technology 47,1996,

"In the American tradition,intellectual property law is largely motivated by utilitarian concerns. It is not designed to give property rights solely as a reward for hard work or to provide creators with a dependable annuity for their children, though it may in fact produce those results in some cases.It is about setting up conditions under which creators can and will produce new works..Setting the proper level of intellectual property protection requires a complex balancing act...If the level of protection is low,negative effects follow.Prospective authors turn to other careers.Drug companies drcrease investment in R&D..If IP rights are set too high, future creators will be deprived of the raw materials they use to create new works.For example, could Bill Gates have created MS-DOS if BASIC and CP/M had been proprietary systems protected by an expansive IP regime ? It is just as dangerous to produce a system with too much IP protection as one with too little". 

Hence the reason that any IPR Law must match with the contemporary political economy (scientific-technology base included) of the country , failing which the resultant law will do only serious damage to national growth.

3. Interestingly enough , Karl Marx was one of the very early authors who tried to understand the quintessence of economic advancement through the development of Modern Machinery ; and he could explain the relationship so elegantly through the invention of the Double Acting Steam Engine by James Waat and protection of his IPR interests through his patent in April ,1784. Since the Industrial Revolution , which laid the basis of the modern era, would not have been possible without the motive power of the steam engine, it is perhaps appropriate that the New Series will start with the James Waat's invention itself.