There has been a longstanding concern about protecting intellectual capital. The legislation awards a generator of the capital with a finite period of a monopoly right to access it.Under the protection, a right holder may exclusively exploit its intellectual capital and assign or license the right. This privilege allows a generator to recoup its investment steadily, accumulate additional funds, and make another investment into the next capital. The protection also facilitates capital transfer without fear of theft. Moreover, some exclusive rights, e.g., patents, are granted in return for public dissemination of the capital. This disclosure allows others to generate the next capital starting from existing capital predecessors left and removes unnecessary redundancy in its generation.These classical models legitimizing the protection seem to describe a virtuous circle for intellectual capital generation. Indeed the circle might be valid, yet it is as long as the legislation assures unimpeded access to needed capital and accelerates the generation of radical or even incremental capital genuine.Once an exclusive right is established, the use of intellectual capital by others is restricted to protect the right holder’s private profit. As long as the legislation is based on this principle, it is not hard to perceive that the right is counterintuitive to the public interests when society desires protected capital, particularly one serving a sizeable public need.There is a growing divergence between the interests of right holders and society. They are rapidly losing their balance with sheer expansion in both volume and scale of intellectual capital worldwide. The intrinsic functionality of restricting access to capital has led to critical blockages throughout the legislation, and they are more evident than ever before. In order to reduce the divergence and establish a new balance of interests, we propose reforming the legislation to ensure others freely access and adopt the capital while protecting the private profit of a right holder. Little room remains for doubt over its necessity.By our proposal, the International Central Bank for Intellectual Properties (ICB/IP) would issue the Intellectual Property Currency (IPC) when the national central bank financed the implementation of intellectual capital and the generation of the next one. ICB/IP would sell IPC to obtain the economy’s money, with which ICB/IP would buy the economy’s assets under the Balance Sheet Approach. IPC would integrate intellectual capital into the world economy directly, and ICB/IP would make interventions and operations on IPC and the economy’s assets, e.g., the Asset Reclassification and Valuation, as needed for the global economy’s stability.Suppose that a patentee resides in Economy B, holding its patent in Economy A. An implementer in Economy A filed its national intellectual property office with a request to finance the implementation of a patent innovation, e.g., a license fee for a contract with the patentee in Economy B. The office examines a recipient's eligibility, the purpose of funding, its amount, and other requirements in light of the fundamental legal conceptions of funding: the extended concept of reward and the chain of innovating.Once the office decides to grant the requested funding, the national central Bank A in Economy A issues Money A to buy Asset A from authorities in Economy A, which remit Money A to the implementer. S/he sells Money A to buy Money B with it for the payment of the license fee. Meanwhile, ICB/IP issues and sells IPC by recording it on the liability side in the ICB/IP balance sheet to buy Money A through the money market. Correspondingly, Bank A records IPC not on the liability side but on the reserve asset side in the Bank A balance sheet. Then, ICB/IP buys Asset A from Bank A with Money A.The simple principle of the bank balance sheet provides the foundation of the funding, signifying a monetary injection intensively to finance the generation and implementation of intellectual capital. In the long run, the classical view indicates a possibility of the monetary injection free from inflation. In the short run, theory predicts its potential function as an anti-stagflation.The primary tenet behind protecting intellectual capital is arguably not merely to protect it but more to underpin growth in the capital while balancing society's interests with those of individual generators
