Suchergebnisse

The existence or absence of some legal or professional pre-conditions for someone to be allowed to work as a journalist has been a reason for many controversies along the last decades – actually, since the very beginning of the efforts to establish journalism as a legitimate (and legitimized) 'profession', rather than an 'occupation' or a craft. The obligation to have some kind of license to work as a professional journalist exists in some countries (in Portugal, for example) but doesn't exist – and, moreover, that simple idea is strongly criticized – in other countries. Those who oppose to any kind of license emphasize the importance of keeping journalism as an 'open' profession, accessible to any citizen, under the main argument that it is an activity grounded on the right to freedom of expression – a fundamental and universal right. Those who favour some kind of license or pre-requisite to become a journalist underscore the social relevance and sensitiveness of this job in order to fulfil another fundamental right of every citizen – the right to information (to a truthful, independent, accurate and comprehensive information on the actuality). And, because of that, they stress the importance of having well-prepared, professionalized, ethically responsible and accountable people working as journalists, in order to properly meet such a demanding right. In this paper, we try to review and discuss the arguments for and against this subject, putting it in historical perspective and balancing it with the new questions faced by journalism in the digital Internet era we are living now. Furthermore, we argue that a decisive issue in this debate is 'who' might (if so) have the responsibility to grant this professional license and look for its adequate use. In our opinion, this seems to be typically a matter for professional self-regulation, rather than state or government regulation, in order to keep and safeguard the values of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. On the other hand, the values of ...

O Howard's license for keeping shop for the purpose of retailing spirituous liquors on Charlotte Street, opposite the store of Mr. James Hanson. A new license was granted on the 19th of April 1837 for six months.

O Howard's license for keeping shop for the purpose of retailing spirituous liquors on Charlotte Street, opposite the store of Mr. James Hanson. A new license was granted on the 19th of April 1837 for six months.

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION --INTRODUCTION TO THE FOURTH EDITION --BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND AUTHORS --Drafting License Agreements --Intellectual Property Infringement Indemnification --Fundamentals of Intellectual Property --Antitrust and Misuse --International Licensing and Foreign Antitrust Rules --Bankruptcy Considerations --Hybrid Licenses and Royalty Agreements --Contractual Limitations of Liability --Trade Secret Licensing and Contract Issues --Trademark Licensing --Artist's Right of Publicity --Multimedia Licensing --Software Licensing --Licensing BioPharma Patents --Basic Considerations in Music Licensing --Clauses in Patent Licensing Agreements --International Software Outsourcing --New Strategies and Risk Management Practices for Open Source Software --Reserved --Royalty Rate Trends and Valuation in Patent and Technology Licensing --Pricing and Presenting Licensed Technology --Maximizing Income from Licensing --Intellectual Property Valuation --The Licensing Discipline and Intellectual Property Litigation --Alternative Dispute Resolution --The Commercialization of University Inventions: From Technology Transfer to Technology Partnership --Cross-Border Licensing --Intellectual Property Due Diligence --Biotechnology Alliances: Codevelopment and Comarketing Agreements --Forms.

The article is devoted to the study of click-wrap license agreements as a type of wrap license agreements and to the elucidation of the offer and acceptance features in such agreements. The author analyzes the evolution of wrap license agreements in the context of the click-wrap license agreements formation. Careful attention is given to the research of foreign judicial practice concerning a range of issues related to the validity of click-wrap license agreements, the procedure for their conclusion. At the same time, the provisions of national legislation on the outlined topics, as well as a number of scientific works of domestic and foreign legal scholars were studied. It was found that click-wrap license agreements are a special contractual structure with a simplified conclusion procedure, which means that click-wrap license agreements are adhesion contracts, so their terms are set in standard forms and the agreement can be concluded only by joining to its conditions as a whole. Taking into account that click-wrap license agreements are electronic contracts, certain features of the offer to enter into an agreement and the acceptance of such an offer or its rejection are highlighted. It is concluded that pressing a certain button, clicking on a special field, etc. is considered to be an acceptance of the offer to enter into an agreement if the content of these actions is clearly described in the proposal. Based on the findings, the author has developed recommendations for optimizing the functioning of click-wrap license agreements as a regulator of relations of the intellectual property rights disposal. Moreover, the research creates a framework for further study of wrap license agreements in general.