Search results

The legal and economic value of intellectual property is under seige in much of the world. Creators of software find that, throughout much of the industrialized and Third World, their products are illegally copied and sold in breach of bilateral treaties and international protocols. Prosecutions of violators, though increasing in number, offer only a partial solution. Comparatively analyses how Western firms have responded to this issue, which transcends ethics, industrial management, data systems, profit and law. The analysis includes research into those nations which are often found to house a disproportionate share of violators of intellectual property rights.

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.

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.

Little knowledge is needed to be able to make a copy of a disk. Software piracy and pilfering cost the industry billions in sales. A protection strategy, to prevent duplication or changes to the programe that would allow access to a company's own ideas and expertise, is formulated. Methods adopted, including hardware and software devices, and legislation are described.

The Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags constitute a set of instruments that can be used to instruct software robots. However, the current version of Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags are both too simple and ambiguous in an internet world with many potential conflicts, especially in terms of copyright and trespass to chattels. This paper seeks to propose an amendment to the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags to solve the problems.

Instead of following personal experience, this paper surveys several predominant cases in an attempt to find general principles that can be used as guidelines to amend the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags.

According to several court cases, the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags can not only be used to simply allow or refuse the software robots, but also expressing the online copyright authorization policies of webmasters. Any robot following the given policies can prevent possible conflicts, and undoubtedly, any robot ignoring these may be in breach of the law. In terms of adapting to their new roles successfully, the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags need some supplements and adoption; as a result, the webmasters can express their will more explicitly and avoid unnecessary disputes in relation to copyright authorization scope and trespass to chattels as well.

This paper reveals the new function of the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags. Based on this new function, this paper points out the disadvantages of the current Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags and proposes new a comprehensive amendment based on this new function.

Discusses the draft version of the EC Software Directive in terms of the US involvement in the directive, the effect on hardware manufacturers, and the main lobbying groups. Considers the main provisions of the directive, and the major issues of concern: copyright of interfaces, maintenance, interoperability, compatible systems, competition, and open standards.

This paper examines the influence of consumers’ moral intensity, perceived risks and moral judgment on their purchase intention of pirated software. The aspects of moral intensity include magnitude of consequence, social consensus, probability of effect and temporal immediacy. The perceived risks of consumers are related to financial, performance, prosecution and social risks. Moral judgment is based on cognitive moral development and reasoning. Ten hypotheses were developed and tested with data collected using a scenario‐based questionnaire. A hierarchical regression analysis is used to control for variations that are attributed to factors such as gender, age, educational attainment, income, price levels and past software experience of consumers. Results revealed that consumer purchase intention is influenced by certain aspects of their perceived moral intensity, magnitude of consequence, temporal immediacy and social consensus; perceived risks, financial, prosecution and social; and moral judgment, cognitive moral development and moral reasoning. Applicability and implication of the findings as well as suggestions for further research are discussed.

If a company′s software is seized because it has not been legitimately acquired, that company′s business records including business planning, financial records and new business opportunities – go with it. Describes how the Business Software Association of Australia (BSAA) is educating the market in better software practices and prosecuting wilful violations of copyright, and of CheckMARK Technologies in providing a software auditing service.

At the California State Polytechnic University the library buys software to support three models of microcomputers: IBM PC, Apple, and Macintosh. On campus there are three comptuer labs which are maintained by the Computer Center. The library itself contains an IBM PC lab with 40 micros and two different types of printers. The development of a microcomputer software collection began in October 1984, after the Guidelines for Using AACR2 Chapter 9 for Cataloging Microcomputer Software were published and when the OCLC format for machine‐readable data files became available. At the present time the collection comprises about ninety different packages which are housed in Reserve and have a checkout period of four hours.

The paper seeks to explore the rights of researchers to use facts gathered from previous authors, even when there are only one or a small number of sources, and also to explore the limits of non‐literal copying of textual materials.

The paper consists of a conceptual analysis of legislation and cases that illustrate the effects of the law.

The paper finds that the charge of non‐literal copying of factual literary works is not accepted because of low levels of originality in structure of the material. Public policy based on the needs of scholarship provides a more predictable level of access to the contents of works.

Originality arguments are always open to try again. Only a policy statement will give a degree of certainty.

The paper aids in distinguishing the originality and policy arguments and who benefits from each, and also relates this problem to the more familiar one of the protection of free speech.