Suchergebnisse

The aim of the article is to analyse the definition of a database which is contained in Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases and to compare it with the definition used in Lithuanian Law on Authors and Neighbouring rights. The definition of a database is important for several reasons. First, it sets the boundaries of the protection available for databases. Second, the definition of a database as well as many others legal definitions are ambiqous and require further explanations. Third, the authentic translation of Directive differs in some aspects from text of the Directive in other languages. Finally there is inconsistency between the definition in directive and the definition used in Lithuanian Law on Authors and Neighbouring rights. In the first part of the article the gradual development of definition of a database until its final version included in Directive is analysed. Then all the elements of definition are considered. Conclusion is given, that definition of database is extremely broad and lacks of clarity. Two requirements of a database that is "database can be in any form" and it consist of "works, data or other materials" make definition of a database extremely broad. Others attributes of database (collection, independent elements, systematical or methodical arrangement of elements, their capability of being individually accessed) are quite unclear and may be interpreted broadly. The last requirement that a database is not computer programs used in the making or operation of databases accessible by electronic means faces the same problem. Therefore court should exam all above mentioned attributes in every case individually.

The aim of the article is to analyse the definition of a database which is contained in Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases and to compare it with the definition used in Lithuanian Law on Authors and Neighbouring rights. The definition of a database is important for several reasons. First, it sets the boundaries of the protection available for databases. Second, the definition of a database as well as many others legal definitions are ambiqous and require further explanations. Third, the authentic translation of Directive differs in some aspects from text of the Directive in other languages. Finally there is inconsistency between the definition in directive and the definition used in Lithuanian Law on Authors and Neighbouring rights. In the first part of the article the gradual development of definition of a database until its final version included in Directive is analysed. Then all the elements of definition are considered. Conclusion is given, that definition of database is extremely broad and lacks of clarity. Two requirements of a database that is "database can be in any form" and it consist of "works, data or other materials" make definition of a database extremely broad. Others attributes of database (collection, independent elements, systematical or methodical arrangement of elements, their capability of being individually accessed) are quite unclear and may be interpreted broadly. The last requirement that a database is not computer programs used in the making or operation of databases accessible by electronic means faces the same problem. Therefore court should exam all above mentioned attributes in every case individually.

Article deals with the situation of enforcement of intellectual property rights in Lithuania after the implementation of 2004 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. First, the authors outline the importance of the proportionality principle which is embedded in the text of the directive, but sometimes may be overlooked because of the rhetoric openly orientated to right holders. Then, the legislative changes in Lithuania's intellectual property laws and tendencies in case law are analyzed. The main findings of the research show that despite considerable changes in Lithuanian laws, the situation in case law was not in fact influenced. ; Straipsnyje siekiama ištirti, kokios įtakos intelektinės nuosavybės teisių gynimui Lietuvoje turėjo 2004 m. balandžio 29 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos 2004/48/EB dėl nuosavybės teisių gynimo (toliau – Direktyva) įgyvendinimas. Tuo tikslu yra analizuojama, kokie pakeitimai buvo padaryti 2006 m. priėmus intelektinę nuosavybę Lietuvoje reglamentuojančių įstatymų – Patentų įstatymo, Dizaino įstatymo, Prekių ženklų įstatymo, Augalų veislių apsaugos įstatymo, Autorių teisių ir gretutinių teisių įstatymo bei Puslaidininkinių gaminių topografijų teisinės apsaugos įstatymo – pakeitimus. Antra, yra analizuojamos teismų praktikos intelektinės nuosavybės bylose tendencijos iki Direktyvos įgyvendinimo ir po jo, nagrinėjant statistinius duomenis apie atskirų intelektinės nuosavybės teisių bylų skaičių, taip pat nagrinėjamos konkrečių gynimo būdų bei priemonių taikymo teismų praktikoje kryptys. Be to, atskirai yra aptariama proporcingumo principo taikymo užtikrinimo svarba intelektinės nuosavybės bylose. Išanalizavus Direktyvos įgyvendinimo procese padarytus intelektinės nuosavybės įstatymų pakeitimus, konstatuojama, kad beveik visi Direktyvoje numatyti gynimo būdai bei priemonės buvo galimi taikyti ir iki ją įgyvendinant Lietuvos įstatymuose, bent jau autorių teisių, teisių į dizainą arba į prekių ženklus pažeidimo atvejais. Vienintelis visiškai naujas gynimo būdas, numatytas įgyvendinant Direktyvą, buvo teismo sprendimo paskelbimas, taip pat alternatyviosios priemonės. Kai kuriais atžvilgiais po Direktyvos įgyvendinimo gynimo lygis netgi sumažėjo, nes po 2006 m. pakeitimų Prekių ženklų įstatyme ir Dizaino įstatyme nebeliko vieno iš iki tol buvusių gynimo būdų – kompensacijos, laikomos itin efektyviu gynimo būdu ir paprastai praktikoje taikomos vietoje žalos atlyginimo. Pasirėmus statistiniais bylų atskirose intelektinės nuosavybės teisių kategorijose duomenimis, prieinama prie išvados, kad Direktyvos įgyvendinimas bylų skaičiui realios įtakos neturėjo. Iš pateiktų duomenų matyti, kad aktyvesni teisminiai ginčai vyksta tik dėl dviejų intelektinės nuosavybės teisių – prekių ženklų ir autorių teisių. Tuo tarpu kitos intelektinės nuosavybės teisės teismuose arba apskritai neginamos (taip yra teisių į augalų veisles ir teisių į puslaidininkinių gaminių topografijas atveju), arba jų skaičius yra itin mažas (patentų ir dizaino atveju). Apžvelgus teismų praktikos tendencijas, Direktyvos įgyvendinimo įtaka taip pat nepastebėta. Apibendrinant tyrimo rezultatus, daroma išvada, kad Direktyvos įgyvendinimas iki šiol didesnės įtakos intelektinės nuosavybės gynimo praktikai Lietuvoje neturėjo.

Due to low patenting intensity, trade secret protection is the primary tool for the protection of valuable entrepreneurial knowledge base in the Baltic states. The adoption of the Trade Secrets Directive, which aims to harmonize trade secret protection at the European Union level, potentially has a significant impact in the region. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the changes brought by the Trade Secrets Directive may not have a desirable harmonization effect. Firstly, it is a minimum harmonization directive which allows more far-reaching protection in the different EU Member States. Secondly, some aspects of the protection of trade secrets are at the discretion of the EU Member States. Two notable examples are the duration of the limitation period and the scope of the lawful acquisition, use and disclosure of a trade secret. Thirdly, the Directive leaves some essential questions outside its scope. One of such issues is the employee's duty of confidentiality, especially after the termination of an employment contract. Besides, the Baltic states differ about the additional level of protection – the so-called "confidential information". The paper aims to evaluate the implementation models of the Trade Secrets Directive in the national law of the three Baltic states, i.e., Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and to compare them. Likewise, the paper endeavours to highlight the remaining or newly emerged differences in the legal protection of trade secrets. To achieve this aim, the authors analyse the legal regulation of trade secrets in the three Baltic states before and after the implementation of the Trade Secrets Directive.

Due to low patenting intensity, trade secret protection is the primary tool for the protection of valuable entrepreneurial knowledge base in the Baltic states. The adoption of the Trade Secrets Directive, which aims to harmonize trade secret protection at the European Union level, potentially has a significant impact in the region. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the changes brought by the Trade Secrets Directive may not have a desirable harmonization effect. Firstly, it is a minimum harmonization directive which allows more far-reaching protection in the different EU Member States. Secondly, some aspects of the protection of trade secrets are at the discretion of the EU Member States. Two notable examples are the duration of the limitation period and the scope of the lawful acquisition, use and disclosure of a trade secret. Thirdly, the Directive leaves some essential questions outside its scope. One of such issues is the employee's duty of confidentiality, especially after the termination of an employment contract. Besides, the Baltic states differ about the additional level of protection – the so-called "confidential information". The paper aims to evaluate the implementation models of the Trade Secrets Directive in the national law of the three Baltic states, i.e., Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and to compare them. Likewise, the paper endeavours to highlight the remaining or newly emerged differences in the legal protection of trade secrets. To achieve this aim, the authors analyse the legal regulation of trade secrets in the three Baltic states before and after the implementation of the Trade Secrets Directive.

Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: "The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?" Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression

Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: "The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?" Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression.