The Copyright/Patent Boundary

Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement

ONS and Intellectual Property

The Colour of Copyright

Unavoidable Aesthetic Judgments in Copyright Law: A Community of Practice Standard

The nineteenth century saw significant change in the context and focus of copyright law. During the eighteenth century, copyright laws had national effect, and were tailored to national interests. But during the nineteenth century, different political, industrial, and economic conditions led to demands for a wider outlook. British copyright law exemplifies the challenge of these changes. In 1837 the lawyer and author Thomas Talfourd introduced a copyright bill which expressed a bold vision of copyright reform including significant domestic consolidation and active international copyright arrangements. It took five years before any bill was passed, and its provisions were significantly modified in the process. The resulting 1842 Copyright Act did not achieve all the reforms that its visionary champion had hoped for, and it proved to have a number of defects which grew more obvious as the century wore on. Nevertheless it formed the basis of modern copyright law, and in relation to domestic law its groundwork is visible well into the twentieth century. International copyright took rather longer to develop, but it was of increasing importance. British writers wanted copyright protection not just in Britain itself, but in all places where there was a market for their books. The position in continental Europe, in the British colonies, and in America was therefore of great significance. There were many changes affecting copyright law during this period, which were often ardently contested. There was a great deal of significant legal activity, both in the form of legislation and also in case law. Given the extent of the market for British copyright works, this wider geographical legal context was of direct relevance to all Victorian writers and publishers—and to readers. One difficulty when reforming copyright law is the breadth and significance of the activities and themes that it touches. These include the nature of copyright (and of intellectual property more widely), literary and artistic culture in the broadest sense, popular education, the public interest, the publishing trade, international trade and competition, constitutional freedom and independence, and national character. It is challenging to take account of such issues, even in a domestic context. When other national positions are brought to bear on the outcome, the task of negotiating a copyright law that reconciles all interests can seem almost impossible. In addition, these matters will be subject to political and economic pressures, and touched by the general trends and changes which affect all societies. The debate regarding copyright’s proper aims and mechanisms was a fierce one in the Victorian era—as it had been since the first British copyright statute, the Statute of Anne 1710. It is a debate which is still very much continuing today.

Copy

This proposed Conference paper which emphasis on Intellectual property rights defines as: “The rights given to people over the creation of their minds” (Fred Warshofsky: Intellectual property, John Willey and Sons, 1994, p5). The researchers will focus on Historical Background ,development of Intellectual property , patent, importance and significance, research problem, research methodology, research contents, findings and recommendations. The Historical background and development to industrial intellectual property patent and design act refers to the pioneer International Convention ; 1883 which held in Paris it assumed as bed rock and foundation to whole industrial rights as amended and revised in 1979, Patent Cooperation Treaty, 1970 and Model Law for developing Countries on Marks, Trade Names and Act of unfair Competition, WIPO, 1958, then Strasbourg Agreement Concerning International Patent Classification, 1971. In addition to other International Conventions and national Acts that protecting and organizing industrial intellectual Property and Patent rights Provisions .The Characteristics and main Features of Intellectual Industrial Property :From the above mentioned definition which reflects the apparent characteristics of (I.P) to be two types such as follows: 1)The unpreceded discoveries either in the area of newly discoveries pertaining manufacturing of new models of cars ,refrigerators ,televisions ,airplane ,etc….2)specific trade marks or design recognizing the quality of apparatus manufactured ,e.g: milk, ceiling fan, motor or fashion of clothes .The significance and Importance of the forgoing paper may appears in: (i) exposition and highlighting the International and national legal systems that concerning with the protection of intellectual property and patent’s rights. (ii) It gives key and pre-requisite to protection that given to the authors rights patent and new discovery in the field of applied sciences. (iii) It explores the essentials that tackled to patents, industrial design and ownership of copyrights. For the research Problem: It might respond to such presumed questions: (i) What is the scope of industrial intellectual property? (ii) What are the international organizations that concern to protect patent, trademarks, trade secrets and industrial designs? (iii) What is the patent and ordained procedures that requested for its registration? (iv) Describe the copy right and designs which are protected by Law provisions (v) classify the classes of infringements to industrial and intellectual properties and which: are the prescribed the criminal and civil remedies: The research Methods that adopted: According to on going conference paper the researchers intend to adopt inductive analytical comparative research methodology. Literature Review: There are various masters, Ph.D Thesis and researchers contribution in this context such as: (i) Salwa Jameel Ahmed: Al-Himayt Aljnayiat Li Al-milkyat Al-fikryyah, Ph.D thesis, Ain Shumsh University (2015). (ii) Jide Babafemi: Intellectual Property the Law and Practice of Copyright, Trade marks, Patent and Industrial Design in Nigeria, 1st Edition, Justin Books Limited, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria (2007) (iii) Vinod V. Spole: Managing Intellectual Property: the strategic imperative, 3rd edition, PHI Learning private Limited, New Delhi (2012). Our proposed conference paper is similar with these works but it defers because it focused on Emirates Laws. The Contents of the Paper: It is primary concentrates on: (i) Definition of Industrial intellectual property, it’s features and significance (ii) Patent Protection base on Emirates Laws (iii) Criminal and Civil Protection to copy right and industrial design pursuit to Emirates Laws. (iv) Judicial precedents on industrial and Patent protection with reference to Emirates Laws

Casa OTS Holding, S.L. and others vs. BD Barcelona 1972, S.L. and others, Judgment 764/2019 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (section 15th), 26 April 2019 This judgment analyses what level of originality is required for the cumulation of industrial design and copyright protection, and the value that expert reports may have in such assessment.

<i>Google v. Oracle</i> Amicus Merits Stage Brief: Vindicating IP’s Channeling Principle and Restoring Jurisdictional Balance to Software Copyright Protection

This thesis examines the deficiencies and omissions in the current copyright legislation in Sri Lanka in the context of the modern trend of globalisation and its impact on the copyright balance in Sri Lanka. The Intellectual Property Act 2003, which governs inter alia copyright in Sri Lanka, contains several new features such as anti-circumvention provisions that enhance protection by prohibiting the circumvention of technological protection measures used by rights owners. Initial research on enhanced protection revealed that such protection is too broad and overly favours the rights of copyright owners with too little consideration of the needs of users in a developing country like Sri Lanka. Copyright exceptions including fair use in the current copyright legislation in Sri Lanka are ill equipped to provide any meaningful assistance to users of works in the digital environment. This situation is likely to be detrimental to the interests of a developing country like Sri Lanka unless appropriate exceptions are in place. In order to address this issue five major areas are considered in this thesis. Together, these are expected to shape Sri Lankan copyright legislation to cater for the needs in the digital era: (i) the right of communication to the public; (ii) technological protection measures; (iii) fair use; (iv) access for educational purposes and (v) the tension between copyright and contract law. It is contended that it is useful for Sri Lanka to learn from the experience of other countries that have attempted solutions to problems posed by modern technology. The law reform initiatives that have taken place in Australia and the United States of America are of particular importance to Sri Lanka as certain aspects of copyright provisions in Sri Lanka are similar to the corresponding provisions in these two countries. The thesis compares the Sri Lankan copyright provisions with those of Australia and the United States of America and argues that the high degree of protection available in Sri Lanka is not appropriate for a developing country. This argument is developed to confirm the main hypothesis of the thesis that the current copyright provisions in Sri Lanka are not in the interests of the country. The thesis suggests some reforms that are urgently needed.

Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of AI breakthroughs on copyright and challenges faced by intellectual property legal protection systems. Specifically, the study aims to analyze the implications of AI-generated works in the context of copyright law in Indonesia. Method: The research employs a normative legal approach, utilizing secondary data sources including books, legal journals, research findings, and statutory regulatory documents. The study focuses on relevant legal frameworks, such as Law No. 28 of 2014 governing copyright in Indonesia. The analysis is based on existing literature and legal documents to understand the current state of AI-generated works and their eligibility for copyright protection. Result: The research findings reveal that according to Law Number 28 of 2014 in Indonesia, AI-generated works do not meet the originality standards required for copyright protection. However, users of AI-generated works are still bound by the terms and conditions set by the AI platform, which can limit their rights to the work. The impact of AI developments on copyright law includes challenges related to determining creators and copyright holders, redefining the concept of originality, increased instances of copyright infringement, issues concerning moral and personality rights, and collaborations involving both humans and AI. Additionally, challenges related to database protection and patent protection in the context of AI are also highlighted. Conclusion: In conclusion, the advancement of AI technology introduces complexities in intellectual property law. The existing legal frameworks, such as copyright laws, need further adaptation and clarification to effectively regulate AI-generated works in the digital era. Addressing issues related to originality, creatorship, and collaborative works involving AI requires careful consideration and legal adjustments. Additionally, challenges related to database and patent protection in the realm of AI need to be addressed to ensure comprehensive intellectual property protection in the face of evolving technologies. Legal adaptation and clarification are crucial to navigating the intricate intersection of AI and intellectual property law.

The dominant explanatory/justificatory framework informing scholarly commentary on copyright law, policy and theory today – certainly in the US – is law and economics. From this perspective, copyright law exists to underpin markets in certain categories of ‘information good’ (copyright works). These markets in turn function to ensure that the private costs and benefits of information production and consumption line up (more or less) with the social costs and benefits of these activities, ie that ‘free-riding’ on the efforts of information producers is (more or less) curtailed. A widely held view is that this tradition of what might be called ‘copyright-law-and-economics’ is now deeply divided – between adherents to what Glynn Lunney has called ‘copyright’s incentives-access paradigm’ on the one hand, and proponents of what Mark Lemley has called the ‘full value’ or ‘absolute protection’ paradigm on the other. Absolute protection theorists tend towards the view that all uses of copyright works should be capable of being controlled (and so priced) by the right-owner; incentives-access theorists distinguish between uses the control of which would affect the information producer’s incentives ex ante, and those that would not, and recommend that copyright protection should extend to the former category only. This paper examines the features that are said to distinguish the two paradigms from each other, focusing especially on the approach each recommends to copyright’s scope (ie the issue of what uses of copyright works properly constitute copyright infringements). Particular attention is paid to the efforts of critical economists of intellectual property law such as Lemley and Brett Frischmann to retrieve and advance versions of the incentives-access paradigm with a view to counteracting the disadvantages for society they believe are associated with the absolute protection paradigm. Ultimately, however, I conclude that too much has been made of the distinction, and that the debate over which paradigm should have priority in determining the contours of copyright policy distracts attention from a more fundamental issue – the hegemony of economic analysis generally in organising the conceptual and normative universe of legal scholars working in this area. Thus while sympathetic to the impulse underlying the efforts of Lemley and Frischmann – a concern to resist the seemingly relentless expansion of copyright towards the horizon of absolute right-holder control of all uses of copyright material – I argue that their lingering adherence to the presuppositions of economic analysis has stymied their well-meaning efforts to account for the social value of ‘information’ in terms distinct from the merely economic measure of price. My overall aim here is to suggest that, because of its presuppositions, economic analysis – in whatever paradigm it may be packaged – offers at best a blinkered perspective on both copyright law and the field of social life that copyright law affects. I conclude by proposing Jurgen Habermas’s social theory as an alternative framework in relation to which critics of copyright expansionism might fruitfully orient themselves in the future.

The global fashion industry produces a huge variety of creative goods to market. The fashion industry profits by developing creative content as in the music, film, video game, and book industries. However, unlike those industries, the fashion industry’s principal creative production lies outside the domain of intellectual property law. Fashion has not been historically protected by copyright law due to differences in the legal treatment of the fine arts, like literature, music, and art, which are accorded copyright protection, and crafts, which are generally not accorded such protection. Although fashion is meant to be functional (i.e., it must fit the human body and keep it warm and dry), it is also artistic and creative. Most would agree that fashion is rarely a fine art because it also fulfills a utilitarian function, but this should not necessarily preclude designers from being able to protect their investment in truly innovative designs, as artists and musicians are able to do. The law has traditionally treated each field of IP as an instance of discrete and mutually exclusive protection. Patents protect innovation in terms of functional design, while copyrights protect artistic expression. Finally, trademarks protect goodwill and reputation. These firm divisions between patentable and copyrightable subject matter have left the creative designers of utilitarian objects such as clothing without protection. The growth of the fashion industry has spawned an increased public awareness about fashionable designer products. In light of the popularity of certain designers or specific designs, design piracy has increased exponentially. Design piracy is the copying of a designer’s original designs, thereby enjoying the benefit of his/her artistic work at no expense. Copyists can thus free ride on the efforts of designers, thereby discouraging future investments in creative fashion design. Design piracy is not new; however, while it once took several years for a fashion to descend the price line into low-priced production, this progression is now nearly immediate. Technological advances have made it possible for design pirates to obtain another creator’s designs and manufacture duplicates overnight. Because of the pervasiveness of design piracy, the practice of copying is now considered commonplace in the fashion industry. Accordingly, the original designers of iconic fashion pieces stand to lose substantial amounts of revenue after expending the capital necessary to create them. This study compares Korea and the United States to understand the implications of Korea’s fashion design protections. This paper describes the research on fashion design protection practices in both countries, analyzes the present situation state of fashion design protection in these countries, and compares their legal principles related to fashion design protection. To this end, a literature review is presented that draws on relevant studies and national statistical data on both countries. First, the research on Korea and U.S. fashion design piracy can be summarized as follows. For fashion design in Korea, previous studies focus on the current status of counterfeit fashion goods, intellectual property protection in the fashion market and the protection of applied arts including fashion design. However, these studies have some limitations; many lack specific, concrete discussion on the current status of intellectual property and protection methods, instead providing general, comprehensive discussions. In contrast, studies in the U.S. context focus on the present situation of counterfeit goods in the fashion market, the nature of the fashion market, the essential features of design piracy and the legal protection of fashion design under the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. The breadth of studies on U.S. design piracy studies is much wider compared to those on Korea. In particular, as bills regarding the protection of design under copyright law such as DPPA or IDPPA are submitted to Congress, studies on the protection of design under legal laws are actively conducted. Fashion design protection in Korea versus the United States and the relevant legal principles can be summarized as follows. There are similarities and differences in the protection of fashion design across both countries. First, both countries are similar in terms of fashion design protection under patent law. Both countries provide some protection for fashion design under copyright law. Fashion design still lacks the criteria that have been established for literary works, but criteria are being developed to facilitate the protection of fashion design under copyright law. The most significant difference between the two countries regarding the protection of fashion design lies in the political efforts undertaken to protect fashion design. Unlike Korea, the United States has continued to enforce a separate law for the practical protection of fashion design to address two problems: first, the screening process generally takes a long time, which hinders the protection of fashion, and second, it is difficult to protect the middle area of design rights.

In recent years, concerns about the costs to nonshareholders of corporate law's shareholder primacy regime have prompted a variety of law reform proposals. My article begins with analysis and critique of so-called communitarian proposals but nevertheless rejects the contractarians' insistence that nonshareholders should rely entirely on self-protection through contract. The basis for my position is the fact that wealth constraints inevitably limit the ability of many nonshareholders to bargain and pay for adequate safeguards. For example, lower-level employees might value job security but, for practical reasons, be unable to accept lower wages to pay for it. My proposal retains a commitment to private ordering but suggests that changes in existing contractual default rules might improve bargaining outcomes for nonshareholders. (I focus on employees and the current at-will default rule.) The analysis draws on recent economic research indicating that people value entitlements more highly if they own them than if they do not. Even though default rules do not themselves confer entitlements, beneficiaries of default rules seem to behave as if they do. Changing the default rule from employment at-will to job security therefore could increase employees' bargaining leverage and allow them to capture a larger share of gains from trade in employment contracting, regardless of whether contracts end up including at-will or job security terms. The final section of the article addresses the argument for retaining the at-will default rule on the ground that employment at-will is more efficient than job security. Because the primary argument in favor of at-will's superior efficiency is its pervasiveness in contracting practice, I rely on recent research on path dependency to respond that pervasiveness does not necessarily indicate superiority. The asserted efficiency of the at-will default rule therefore does not provide a sufficient reason to reject the potential distributive benefits of a job security default.