What's Wrong With Intellectual Property Rights?: And the Public Interest in Privatizing Our Common Genetic Heritage

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bita Amani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property Rights and Access in Crisis

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-416
Author(s):  
Karen Walsh ◽  
Andrea Wallace ◽  
Mathilde Pavis ◽  
Natalie Olszowy ◽  
James Griffin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Access Barriers ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Cultural Engagement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe importance of access to intellectual property rights (IPR) protected subject-matter in two crucial areas – public health, and educational and cultural engagement – has been extensively demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although they involve separate legal areas, patent and copyright, the common thread linking the two is intellectual property's difficult relationship with access in the public interest. This paper examines the tensions caused by access barriers, the tools used to reduce them and their effectiveness. It is clear that the access barriers magnified by COVID-19 are not restricted to narrow or specific contexts but are widespread. They are created by, and are a feature of, our existing IPR frameworks. Open movements provide limited remedies because they are not designed to, nor can adequately address the wide range of access barriers necessary to promote the public interest. Existing legislative mechanisms designed to remove access barriers similarly fail to effectively remedy access needs. These existing options are premised on the assumption that there is a singular “public” motivated by homogenous “interests”, which fails to reflect the plurality and cross-border reality of the public(s) interest(s) underpinning the welfare goals of IPR. We conclude that a systemic re-evaluation is required and call for positive and equitable legal measures protective of the public(s) interest(s) to be built within IPR frameworks that also address non-IPR barriers. The current pandemic and development of a “new normal” provides a crucial opportunity to comprehensively consider the public(s) interest(s), not just during a global health crisis, but on an ongoing basis.

scholarly journals LIMITED TURNOVER OF ECONOMIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE FIELD OF NATIONAL SUCURITY AND DEFENSE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Олена Тверезенко
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Defense Procurement ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Defense

During the execution of the state defense order (hereinafter — SDO) may be created objects of intellectual property rights (hereinafter — OIPR), namely: inventions, utility models, industrial designs and topographies of semiconductor products, as well as objects of copyright in the form of computer programs, databases, engineering, technological and software documentation, etc.The Law of Ukraine «On the State Defense Order», adopted in 1999, in no way regulates the legal relationship regarding the creation of OIPR, their use and disposal of economic intellectual property rights to such objects during the SDO. Economic rights to IPR are types of objects of civil rights. Based on the provisions of Art. 178 of the Civil Code of Ukraine objects of civil law are divided into 3 groups depending on degree of their turnover:1) objects that can be freely transferred to another person;2) objects with limited turnover (may belong only to certain participants in the turnover or whose stay in the civil turnover is allowed by special permission);3) objects withdrawn from civil circulation (which are not allowed in civil circulation).Economic rights to certain OIPR are restricted in civil circulation (for example, to a trade name) or withdrawn from civil circulation (for example, to a geographical indication).In addition, the exercise of intellectual property rights may be restricted in certain areas in order to protect the public interest. Such public interest consists, among other things, of the protection of the state interests during the introduction into civil circulation of property rights to OIPR, created during the execution of SDO.Taking into account the provisions of Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On Science Parks», we propose to establish an imperative provision in this Law and the draft Law of Ukraine «On Defense Procurement» (Reg. № 2398-d of November 27, 2019). Such changes should stipulate that economic rights to OIPR created during defense procurement are limited in civil turnover. The exercise of rights to such OIPR is possibleonly with the consent of the state customer in the field of defense.Restriction of civil turnover of economic intellectual property rights to these objects should be aimed not only at eliminating the possibility of transferring (assigning) economic rights to such objects, but should also implement other options for their introduction into civil circulation, including the right to use OIPR or to transfer economic rights to the specified OIPR into pledge. In order to improve the legal regulationof these legal relations, it is necessary to amend the legislation of Ukraine in the field of pledge. Peculiarities of securities of intellectual property rights should be enshrined in a separate section of the Law of Ukraine «On Pledge». Such changes should include, inter alia, the obligation to negotiate agreements on pledge of economic rights to OIPR, created during the implementation of the SDO with the public customer. Relevant provisions should be enshrined in the draft Law of Ukraine «On Defense Procurement». The improvement of the legislation studied in the article will contribute to a systematic solving of the issue of establishing the conditions for the execution of economicrights to OIPR, created as a result of SDO, namely the need for such approval of the state customer, that will ensure public interests in the field of national security and defense of Ukraine by the provision of control over the civil turnover of such objects. 

scholarly journals Bruce Lee’s Case: Intellectual Property vs. Free Access to Culture and Protection of Public Interest

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-92
Author(s):  
Magdalena Łągiewska ◽  
Kamil Zeidler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Modern Culture ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
Bruce Lee

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of Bruce Lee’s case by presenting the intellectual property rights mechanisms in the People’s Republic of China. The aim of this paper is to bring attention to the trademark law as well as to shed new light on infringements of personality rights, in particular portrait rights, in trademarks. This begs the question as to what kind of legal action should be undertaken by Bruce Lee’s heiress to protect her rights. Moreover, the article touches upon the conflict between the public interest and trademarks and tries to answer the question how to balance private holders’ rights with the public interest. In order to provide some hypothetical scenarios, the study focuses primarily on Bruce Lee’s case background and the new amendments to trademark law in China, bringing the authors to final deliberations on Bruce Lee as part of modern culture belonging to mankind as a whole. Therefore, our research aims to find a solution to the challenging problem of reconciling intellectual property rights protection mechanisms with the common cultural heritage.

Intellectual Property as a Public Interest Mechanism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Tushnet
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Intellectual Resource ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
General Welfare ◽  
Private Control ◽  
The Right

This chapter describes the principal arguments about intellectual property rights as mechanisms for promoting the public interest, as opposed to particular private interests. Public interest arguments typically feature in balancing accounts of intellectual property rights that evince concern for the distribution of benefits as well as for the production of new works or inventions. Public interest rationales also often feature in justifications both for the rights themselves and for limitations or exceptions to those rights when private control of an intellectual resource would not promote the general welfare. The chapter considers patents, copyright, trademarks, and related rights, including the right of publicity. It concludes by examining various challenges faced by public interest accounts.

scholarly journals LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE BALANCE OF INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE INTERESTS OF SUBJECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE FIELD OF HEATCH CARE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Анастасія Ротаєнко
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Medicinal Product ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
The Public ◽  
Balance Of Interests ◽  
Additional Protection

The article explores the issues of maintaining the balance of interests of subjects of intellectual property rights and society in the field of medicine and pharmacy. Historically, Ukraine has come a long way in recognizing the area of intellectual property as one that needs legal protection. Nowadays the issue of finding the boundaries and balance between the intellectual property sphere that seeks to fully securethe rights of patent holders and the health care sector, which is aimed at adhering to the principle of availability of medicines and treatments, is very relevant.So, what is the main conflict between the inventor`s interest and the public interest in the healthcare sector? For the most part, the inventor's interests are limited to two goals: to obtain the protection of his scientific achievement within the time limits established by law and to extend these terms when necessary. These interests are the result of the existing marketing authorization procedure. According to this procedure, a medicinal product must undergo a clinical trial, and in order to protect inventor’s patent rights, its owner must undergo a patenting procedure. This shortens the period of real profit. As a consequence, the drug manufacturer is trying to find ways to continue its monopoly on the market. And society is suffering from his actions. As the main public interest in health is the availability of medicines, treatments and diagnostic methods. The protection of this interest is now even identified as one of the priority areas of Ukraine's public policy. As a result, in order to ensure a balance between the interests of society and inventors, Ukraine has made a number of decisions about cooperation with internationalorganizations such as the UN and WIPO, and made the drafting of the National Intellectual Property Strategy.In our view, there is now a need in the Ukrainian legislation to amend patent protection in order to promote health care. Therefore, in this article, we have proposed the following mechanisms to ensure the balance of interests of inventors and society in the health sector:•to establish the possibility of obtaining certificates of additional protection with warnings that the term of such protection will be calculated depending on the time elapsed between the submission of the application for the invention and obtaining the marketing authorization of the medicinal product; •to introduce the possibility of filing a reasoned objection to the application for the invention, a request for the information search on the basis of the claims and the possibility of filing the same reasoned objection to the issue of certificates of additional protection;•to implement the «Bolar position», which will accelerate the release of generic medicines;•to abolish the possibility of patenting as inventions methods of treating the human or animal body by surgical or therapeutic and diagnostic methods;•to enhance the granting of compulsory, open and voluntary licenses to ensure the availability of medicines.

The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M. Salzberger
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Physical Property ◽  
Microeconomic Theory ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Commons

This paper focuses on the normative analysis of intellectual property rights, in light of the technological revolution of the Internet and accompanying technologies. After a brief overview of the various philosophical justifications for awarding intellectual property rights, it identifies two major Law and Economics paradigms for the analysis of intellectual property: the incentives paradigm, which is founded upon the public goods analysis of neo-classical microeconomic theory, and the tragedy of the commons literature, which is based on the economic analysis of externalities. The paper raises several points of critique towards both frameworks of analysis and especially towards their inability to point to the desirable extent of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the direction of their reform required as the result of the recent technological revolution. It further criticizes the dominant contemporary Law and Economics writings in this field as shifting to a new proprietary paradigm that pre-assumes information to be an object of property, overlooking its fundamental differences from physical property and focusing on its management rather than on its initial justifications. The paper is concluded with some tentative thoughts on the general notion of “Property Rights” in light of the contemporary approach concerning intellectual property.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PENCATATAN LOGO SEBAGAI CIPTAAN SETELAH BERLAKUNYA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA

NOTARIUS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 118
Author(s):  
Widowati Maria Teresa ◽  
Budi Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Entities

With the enactment of Law Number 28, 2014 About Copyright the creation of art in the form of a logo or distinctive sign is used as a brand in the trade of goods/services or used as a symbol of the organization, entity, or legal entities can not be recorded. Logo that cannot be registered as creation may be registered as trademarks and obtain trademarks protection. Associated with the unregistered logo in the List of Works does not reduce the copyrights protection of the logo, because the protection of the logo as Creation appears declaratively. Consequences of the unlisted logo in the List of Works are logo will not get an official passage on Creation. The government needs to tighten substantive and material checks on all works listed in the field of Intellectual Property Rights and the government may take the initiative to carry out dissemination and counselling accessible to the public especially for business practitioner. Keywords : Logo, Legal Protection, Copyrights AbstrakDengan diberlakukannya Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta, seni lukis yang berupa logo atau tanda pembeda yang digunakan sebagai merek dalam perdagangan barang/jasa atau digunakan sebagai lambang organisasi, badan usaha, atau badan hukum tidak dapat dicatatkan. Logo yang tidak dapat dicatatkan sebagai Ciptaan dapat didaftarkan sebagai Merek dan mendapatkan perlindungan Merek. Terkait dengan tidak dicatatkannya logo dalam Daftar Ciptaan tidak mengurangi perlindungan Hak Cipta atas logo, karena perlindungan logo sebagai Ciptaan muncul secara deklaratif. Konsekuensi dari tidak dapat dicatatkannya logo dalam Daftar Ciptaan adalah Ciptaan logo tidak akan mendapatkan petikan resmi atas Ciptaan. Pemerintah perlu untuk memperketat pemeriksaan substantif maupun materiil terhadap seluruh karya yang didaftarkan di seluruh bidang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan dapat mengambil inisiatif untuk melakukan diseminasi dan penyuluhan yang dapat diakses secara mudah bagi masyarakat pada umumnya dan pelaku bisnis pada khususnya. Kata kunci : Logo, Perlindungan Hukum, Hak Cipta 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document