Indigenous intellectual property 1998 and 2006, the Ngati Toa iwi attempted to trademark the Ka Mate haka and to forbid its use by commercial organisations without their permission. The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand turned their claim down in 2006, since "Ka Mate" had achieved wide recognition in New Zealand and abroad as representing New Zealand as a whole and not a particular trader. In 2009, as a part of a wider settlement of grievances, the New Zealand government agreed to: However, a survey of nineteenth-century New Zealand newspapers found Ka Mate was used by tribes from other parts of New Zealand,
Intellectual property disparate laws into a collective term. He argues that "to avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of 'intellectual property'." Similarly, economists Boldrin and Levine prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which they argue, is very dissimilar from property rights. They further argued that “stronger patents do little or nothing to encourage innovation”, mainly explained by its tendency to create market monopolies, thereby restricting further innovations and technology transfer. On the assumption that intellectual