Suchergebnisse

This article considers the interplay between intellectual property rights and classic property rights raised by Hoffman v. Monsanto (2005) and advances the idea that intellectual property law can serve as an autonomous source of liability for intellectual property owners. The article develops the conceptual advantages of demarcating physical and intellectual properties and allocating rights and responsibilities based on the respective property sphere. It introduces a theoretical Hohfeldian framework, in which the grant of a positive limited-term monopoly right entails a corresponding duty, to establish intellectual property law as a source of internal limits on intellectual property rights. The article is a prolegomena to a detailed matrix of those rights and duties within intellectual property law. This matrix could support patentee duties that go beyond public disclosure of the invention and could establish patent law as an alternative legal framework to tort law to address harms caused by inventions.

In perpetuating and exacerbating restricted access to essential medicines, current trade-related intellectual property rules on medicines may violate core human rights to health and medicines. In this light, there should be serious questions about their necessity, and their justification should be critically assessed from the perspective of human rights standards. These standards require that international trade rules on medicines be justified to the fullest extent possible, and permitted only to the extent to which they can be justified. In this article I explore the impact of trade rules on medicines access, and the growing force of the human right to health. I argue that the limited justification for strong patents in poor countries suggests the need for significant reform of trade-related intellectual property rights. I argue further that human rights standards may offer both normative and practical tools for achieving this reform and challenging trade rules on medicines at various levels. Adapted from the source document.

In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in startups. This enables the rapid development of technology and technological innovation. Many inventors and innovators create intellectual property that is not always adequately protected. When observing the life cycles of startups, it can be noticed that large number of these startups become inactive within the first three years of operation. The aim of this article is to answer the questions: what factors influence startup successes and failures? Is the lack of intellectual property protection one of such factors, and if so, how can startups secure their inventions or innovations? What strategies can be applied to protect intellectual property? What does intellectual property protection look like in Polish startups? Desk research was used as the research method in the article. The literature on the subject was analysed along with the reports and studies of research companies, institutions associating startups and the websites of patent attorneys and law firms that help startups in the protection of intellectual property. Research has shown that, in most cases, startups see the need to protect intellectual property, which is of particular importance in high-tech sectors. Many factors can contribute to the failure of a startup at various stages of its development. It is important that the intellectual property is protected at the initial stage of the startup's development, and that the company has created and applied an appropriate intellectual property protection strategy.

chapter 1 Introduction -- chapter 2 Intellectual Property and the EC Treaty - the Jurisprudence of the European Court -- chapter 3 Intellectual Property and the EC Treaty Licensing Agreements and the European Competition Rules -- chapter 4 Trade Marks -- chapter 5 The EC and the Reform of the Law Affecting Design Protection -- chapter 6 The EC and the Reform of Patents -- chapter 7 The EC and the Reform of the Law Affecting Copyright and Neighbouring Rights -- chapter 8 Conclusion.