CONCLUSION

In the light of the given scenario in the space law field, there is
evidently a crucial need for legislation especially in terms of
Intellectual property protection measures. Despite there being
as many as 5 treaties that guide space law that are subscribed
to by scores of countries, only one, namely the United States
has enacted explicit provision establishing a link between
invention, jurisdiction and territory via the Section 105 of 35
USC.
This lack of legislation has been a major cause of the
questioning of the legitimacy of application of earth based IPR
laws in space. The situation is not helped by the fact that earlier
conventions include articles that do not necessarily make the
process any smoother.
For eg, articles 1 and 2 of the Outer Space Treaty 1967
determine that outer space is free for use and exploration by all
states and that it is not subject to national appropriation by
claim of sovereignty or by means of use or occupation or by any
other means.
Given that most IPR laws derive their authority from mostly
nations and organizations validated by agreements on such, it
makes it very hard to come up with space suitable IPR laws that
encapsulate all or most scenarios in this uncharted territory at a
global level.

The rapid privatization of the field has also led to multiple

private profit oriented companies looking to push boundaries
and in order to create a free market it is essential that the laws
made create a system equally accessible. Space exploration and
other related fields may be turning out to be major industries
of the future and it would prove economically viable to be one
of the first the create such a market to encourage further
foreign investment and development in the field.