Search results

The purpose of this monograph is to examine the main elements of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 which received the Royal Assent on the 15th November 1988. The Act provided for a major overhaul of the law on copyright and on registered designs, as well as certain adjustments to patent and trademark law and two major new regimes on performers' rights and design rights. While this is a major domestic reform the law is unlikely to remain unaltered for long because of the move towards a single market within the E.E.C. by 1992. This will lead to the introduction of harmonised regimes on the various elements of intellectual property law such as copyright and industrial design which will no doubt require some readjustment to U.K. domestic law. Recently the E.E.C. Commission published a Green Paper on “Copyright and the Challenge of Technology” which suggests solutions to some questions such as the vexed problem of illegal home taping which are different to those adopted by the U.K. in the new Act. [On 21/12/88 a draft directive on Copyright & Computer Software which proposes a harmonised regime for the protection of computer programs and related matters was published]. It also has to be borne in mind that while Article 222 of the Treaty of Rome states that the treaty does not affect the existence of national intellectual property right regimes the “exercise” of these national rights may be found to infringe the provisions of the Treaty on free movement of goods (Arts. 30–36) or on competition law (Arts. 85–86).

This chapter provides an overview of five modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

This chapter provides an overview of the five main modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and designs – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

In a recent edition of the nation's favourite soap, Coronation Street, a small incident occurred which illustrated in a nutshell the problems facing the deviser of an industrial design in seeking to protect that design from being copied. Angie, a student of fashion design at the local polytechnic put on a successful show of her designs. Emboldened by the favourable reception she set out a couple of days later for an appointment with a local dress manufacturer to try and sell her designs. She returned a few hours later in tears and with hopes dashed. She had arrived at the firm only to discover that her designs were already being made up into dresses. The designs had been copied at the show and already sold to or copied by them. The incident was not without its silver lining in that in getting drunk to forget the whole sad affair this lead to a romantic interlude with fellow lodger, Curley Watts! It is the purpose of this article to examine the main strands of protection for industrial designs and to look at a proposed new European Community Design Law which has recently been published by the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law (Munich, 1991). This proposal is being put to the EC Commission as the basis for an EC Regulation.

The problems that the great developments in digital information and the Internet are creating for copyright may be partly solved through new legislation as well as through the implementation of technological systems (generically known as ECMS) that help protect it. These two approaches – legal and technological – interact, as the new copyright laws protect these electronic measures through the prohibition of their circumvention. The contents of the three main legal norms that have regulated this area to date, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the European Directive and the new Australian Copyright Act, are analysed in an attempt to determine what impact they might have on the traditional limitations and exceptions to copyright (fair use/dealing, private copying, library privileges) that benefit libraries, their users and the general public.

The concept of intellectual property poses potentially difficult questions for those sympathetic to the Austrian economic viewpoint. Austrians are staunch proponents of the free market and this leads them to strongly defend private property rights. It also leads to a strong condemnation of government granted monopolies. If both of these positions are taken, then how should an Austrian view intellectual property? This paper attempts to develop a market oriented public policy position concerning copyright protection. It concludes that markets are much more efficient, and desirable, for protecting intellectual property than is the government.

While copyright law remains a significant area of law providing easily obtained and low cost protection to the copyright owners of e‐commerce‐related computer programs, it is not without its weaknesses. Patent law has in recent times emerged to provide the necessary reinforcements. The emergence of the law of patent, especially in the area of programs that essentially protect business models, is not without its critics. The purpose of this paper is to consider the protection afforded to the owner of an inventive e‐commerce computer program by the laws of copyright and patent. This paper will canvass the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

This chapter suggests that, while researchers and teachers of university technology transfer often think exclusively in terms of patents and the Bayh-Dole Act, we ought to adopt a more nuanced view of intellectual property rights (IPRs). In the text, I discuss the primary non-patent types of intellectual property (IP) protection, copyright, trademark, and trade secret, and argue that while patents are normally the “default” position when we think about protecting technologies and profiting from them, evidence suggests that patents are among the least important means of capturing value from innovation. Moreover, I suggest that while many consider that IP protections act as substitutes for one another, thinking about IPRs as complements is a more relevant approach to this issue. Adopting this more nuanced view better reflects reality and does a superior job of alerting our audiences to the opportunities available in the technology commercialization process.

This chapter provides evidence on how young technology startups are employing intellectual property (IP) protection when innovating and competing in the United States. Although researchers and teachers of university technology transfer often think only in terms of patents and the Bayh-Dole Act, this chapter suggests that adopting a more nuanced view of IP rights is appropriate. After reviewing the primary non-patent types of IP protection available in the U.S. (copyright, trademark, and trade secret), we explain that while patents are often considered the strongest protection, for some entrepreneurs – particularly those operating in the U.S. software and Internet sectors – patents may be the least important means of capturing value from innovation. We present evidence from the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey to demonstrate that IP is used by U.S. startups in very different ways, and to different effects, across technology sectors and other company-specific characteristics. Contrary to the common assumption in academic discourse, we show that different forms of IP protection often serve as complements, rather than substitutes.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the Chinese and American efforts in keeping the balance of innovation and copyright protection, with an emphasis on China's strategies under Western, especially American pressure. The research findings are expected to enhance mutual efforts from the two countries to protect copyright and boost innovation and facilitate genuine communication between both sides in their decade‐long intellectual property right (IPR) disputes.

For data collection, this study adopted in‐depth interviews of 45 participants who were either copyright holders as publishers and authors, or ordinary consumers in China. Under the theoretical guidance of strategies and tactics, thematic analysis was used to reveal the emerging themes in the transcripts concerning Chinese cultural perceptions of copyright in general and the relationship between innovation incentives and copyright protection in particular.

First, both countries used strategies for the calculation and manipulation of power in the enactment and implementation of their copyright laws. Second, in order to defend their own interests and obtain national advantages, both countries made full use of various tactics. It is promising for the large developing countries like China to implement and enforce their copyright law and other IPR regulations more effectively under global bargaining and collaborating.

Since little research has been done on the hidden agenda in the USA‐China copyright disputes, this paper attempts to fill this void by exploring the genuine intentions of both the USA and China in the enactment and implementation of their respective copyright laws and the strategies taken for their communication with the relevant parties at different stages of their own IPR development.