Intellectual Property
In: Yearbook of European law, Band 9, Heft 1, S. 315-322
ISSN: 2045-0044
In: Yearbook of European law, Band 9, Heft 1, S. 315-322
ISSN: 2045-0044
In: The EU Deep Trade Agenda, S. 137-178
In: Journal of international economic law, Band 1, Heft 4, S. 603-606
ISSN: 1464-3758
In: Yearbook of European law, Band 13, Heft 1, S. 485-496
ISSN: 2045-0044
In: Yearbook of European law, Band 12, Heft 1, S. 635-641
ISSN: 2045-0044
In: Yearbook of European law, Band 10, Heft 1, S. 469-479
ISSN: 2045-0044
In: Perspectives on intellectual property series
In: The international & comparative law quarterly: ICLQ, Band 56, Heft 4, S. 899-906
ISSN: 1471-6895
In: The international & comparative law quarterly: ICLQ, Band 43, Heft 1, S. 212-217
ISSN: 1471-6895
In: The international & comparative law quarterly: ICLQ, Band 41, Heft 1, S. 200-206
ISSN: 1471-6895
Are intellectual property rights like other property rights? More and more of the world's knowledge and information is under the control of intellectual property owners. What are the justifications for this? What are the implications for power and for justice of allowing this property form to range across social life? Can we look to traditional property theory to supply the answers or do we need a new approach? Intellectual property rights relate to abstract objects – objects like algorithms and DNA sequences. The consequences of creating property rights in such objects are far-reaching. A Philosophy of Intellectual Property argues that lying at the heart of intellectual property are duty-bearing privileges. We should adopt an instrumentalist approach to intellectual property and reject a proprietarian approach – an approach which emphasises the connection between labour and property rights. The analysis draws on the history of intellectual property, legal materials, the work of Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, Marx and Hegel, as well as economic, sociological and legal theory. The book is designed to be accessible to specialists in a number of fields as well as students. It will interest philosophers, political scientists, economists, and legal scholars, as well as those professionals concerned with policy issues raised by modern technologies and the information society.
BASE
Introduction. The transition of Ukraine to the information society requires a constructive rethinking of the role of intellectual property, which acts as the driving force behind the creation of competitive advantages and the formation of the potential of industrial and economic relations at the national and international levels.In many cases, market relations are not capable of ensuring the transformation of the results of innovation activity into goods. Therefore, in the given conditions, effective state regulation of the commercialization of intellectual property objects becomes the first place.Purpose. The purpose of this work is to study the processes of commercialization of intellectual property and the possibility of adapting foreign experience to the realities of today's Ukraine.Methods. Theoretical analysis and graphical method.Results. In accordance with the main goal in the work the following issues are considered: various scientific approaches to the definition of the concept of "intellectual property" are investigated; considered the main ways of using intellectual property; highlighted and analyzed the main groups of problems of regulation of relations connected with the commercialization of the results of intellectual property; the experience of foreign countries regarding the commercialization of the results of intellectual property was considered, namely, the main problems of this process were identified, possible solutions were proposed and the main toolkit used in the settlement of these problems was identified; The mechanism for the development of solutions based on the problems described in the work will be based and presented in a schematic form.Originality. The experience of commercialization of the results of intellectual activity abroad is generalized. The mechanism of solving the problems of commercialization of the results of intellectual activity is proposed.Conclusions. Thus, we can conclude that any problem of commercialization of intellectual property objects can be solved by finding a compromise between the parties, taking into account the legislative framework operating in the country, the choice of fundamental criteria, the assessment of the effectiveness and risks of a number of proposed options. Every solution proposed for the next implementation must be documented in the enterprise and have a correlation with the main development strategy.
BASE
In: The courier: the magazine of Africa, Caribbean, Pacific & European Union Cooperation and Relations, Heft 201, S. 22-41
ISSN: 1784-682X, 1606-2000, 1784-6803
World Affairs Online
Introduction to the 2018 Annual Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette'Blockbuster Sermons' and Authorship Issues in Evangelicalism TJ Geiger, Baylor UniversityPlagiarizing a Pushcart Prize Lanette Cadle, Missouri State UniversitySue for Mario Bros.: Nintendo vs Emulation Kyle D. Stedman, Rockford UniversityCockygate: Trademark Trolling, Romance Novels, and Intellectual Property Devon Fitzgerald Ralston, Winthrop UniversityA (Zombie) Legislative Proposal with Implications for Fair Use and Remix Culture Kim Gainer, Radford University
BASE
Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Improperly defined intellectual property rights in a government contract can result in the loss of an entity's critical assets or limit the development of applications critical to public health or safety. Conversely, successful contracts can spur economic development, innovation, and growth, and dramatically improve the quality of delivered goods and services. Contracting for intellectual property rights is difficult. The stakes are high, and negotiating positions are frequently ill-defined. Moreover, the concerns raised must be tempered with the understanding that government contracting can be challenging even without the complexities of intellectual property rights. Further, contractors often have reasons for not wanting to contract with the government, including concerns over profitability, capacity, accounting and administrative requirements, and opportunity costs. Within the commercial sector, companies identified a number of specific intellectual property concerns that affected their willingness to contract with the government. These included perceived poor definitions of what technical data is needed by the government, issues with the government's ability to protect proprietary data adequately, and unwillingness on the part of government officials to exercise the flexibilities available concerning intellectual property rights. Some of these concerns were on perception rather than experience, but, according to company officials, they nevertheless influence decisions not to seek contracts or collaborate with federal government entities. Agency officials shared many of these concerns. Poor upfront planning and limited experience/expertise among the federal contracting workforce were cited as impediments. Although agency officials indicated that intellectual property rights problems may have limited access to particular companies, they did not cite specific instances where the agency was unable to acquire needed technology. Agency officials said that improved training and awareness of the flexibility already in place as well as a better definition of data needs on individual contracts would improve the situation."
BASE