Protecting Intellectual Property on The Internet. Experience and Strategies of Trade Mark Owners in a Time of Chance

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Wood
Author(s):  
O.V. Boychenko ◽  
O.Yu. Smirnova

The article considers the legal aspects of the existence of intellectual property on the Internet. The main regulatory documents governing the relationship between the use of intellectual property on the Internet are analyzed, such as: the WIPO international convention, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part 4; Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 09.02.2012; The latest edition of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In the form of a structural and didactic scheme are presented: objects of intellectual property, means of individualization; an algorithm for the interaction of participants in the legislative process to seize illegal content. Features of the problems of protecting intellectual property rights on the Internet, the main causes of violation of intellectual property rights and ways of protecting intellectual property are presented. The losses of various sectors of society from Internet piracy are given. The basic tools of copyright infringement on the Internet are described, as well as existing methods of confirming copyright in content.


Author(s):  
Justine Pila

This book offers a study of the subject matter protected by each of the main intellectual property (IP) regimes. With a focus on European and UK law particularly, it considers the meaning of the terms used to denote the objects to which IP rights attach, such as ‘invention’, ‘authorial work’, ‘trade mark’, and ‘design’, with reference to the practice of legal officials and the nature of those objects specifically. To that end it proceeds in three stages. At the first stage, in Chapter 2, the nature, aims, and values of IP rights and systems are considered. As historically and currently conceived, IP rights are limited (and generally transferable) exclusionary rights that attach to certain intellectual creations, broadly conceived, and that serve a range of instrumentalist and deontological ends. At the second stage, in Chapter 3, a theoretical framework for thinking about IP subject matter is proposed with the assistance of certain devices from philosophy. That framework supports a paradigmatic conception of the objects protected by IP rights as artifact types distinguished by their properties and categorized accordingly. From this framework, four questions are derived concerning: the nature of the (categories of) subject matter denoted by the terms ‘invention’, ‘authorial work’, ‘trade mark’, ‘design’ etc, including their essential properties; the means by which each subject matter is individuated within the relevant IP regime; the relationship between each subject matter and its concrete instances; and the manner in which the existence of a subject matter and its concrete instances is known. That leaves the book’s final stage, in Chapters 3 to 7. Here legal officials’ use of the terms above, and understanding of the objects that they denote, are studied, and the results presented as answers to the four questions identified previously.


Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle

Jurisdiction is the foundational concept for both national laws and international law as it provides the link between the sovereign government and its territory, and ultimately its people. The internet challenges this concept at its root: data travels across the internet without respecting political borders or territory. This book is about this Jurisdictional Challenge created by internet technologies. The Jurisdictional Challenge arises as civil disputes, criminal cases, and regulatory action span different countries, rising questions as to the international competence of courts, law enforcement, and regulators. From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant for online data flows and this raises the question of who governs “YouTubistan.” Services, communication, and interaction occur online between persons who may be located in different countries. Data is stored and processed online in data centres remote from the actual user, with cloud computing provided as a utility. Illegal acts such as hacking, identity theft and fraud, cyberespionage, propagation of terrorist propaganda, hate speech, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces (such as Silkroad) may all be remotely targeted at a country, or simply create effects in many countries. Software applications (“apps”) developed by a software developer in one country are seamlessly downloaded by users on their mobile devices worldwide, without regard to applicable consumer protection, data protection, intellectual property, or media law. Therefore, the internet has created multi-facetted and complex challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. Traditionally, jurisdiction in private law and jurisdiction in public law have belonged to different areas of law, namely private international law and (public) international law. The unique feature of this book is that it explores the notion of jurisdiction in different branches of “the” law. It analyses legislation and jurisprudence to extract how the concept of jurisdiction is applied in internet cases, taking a comparative law approach, focusing on EU, English, German, and US law. This synthesis and comparison of approaches across the board has produced new insights on how we should tackle the Jurisdictional Challenge. The first three chapters explain the Jurisdictional Challenge created by the internet and place this in the context of technology, sovereignty, territory, and media regulation. The following four chapters focus on public law aspects, namely criminal law and data protection jurisdiction. The next five chapters are about private law disputes, including cross-border B2C e-commerce, online privacy and defamation disputes, and internet intellectual property disputes. The final chapter harnesses the insights from the different areas of law examined.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. NP1-NP2

James E.K. Parker, Towards an Acoustic Jurisprudence: Law and the Long Range Acoustic Device, Law, Culture and the Humanities (LCH). DOI: 10.1177/1743872115615502 The following corrections have been made to the article: Under heading III.1, another paragraph has been added. This paragraph begins ‘Whereas normal loudspeaker works…’ Under heading III.2, a paragraph has been edited: ‘In effect, what ATC did with the LRAD…’ Under heading III.2, the first sentence of the last paragraph has been expanded to clarify that the G-20 summit was held in Pittsburgh: The LRAD seems to have been used by police for the first time in Georgia in 2007, before receiving its first and most notorious outing on American soil in September 2009 at protests relating to the G-20 Summit being held in Pittsburgh.66 Under heading III.4, the sentence below in the second paragraph has been changed as follows: The law of property provides the conditions for the circulation and ownership of knowledge that enable developments in the science of acoustics at a US university in the 1950s to re-emerge as failed commercial prototypes in Japan in the 1980s only to be taken up again in 1996 by ACT before being patented, trademarked and marketed first as HSS® and then as the LRAD.82 Under heading III.4, the following has been added to the end of the paragraph ‘If the LRAD was originally imagined…’: Not that the presiding judge in the Toronto case would know however. In his discussion of a deposition by Professor David Wood, of Queen’s University, relating to ‘videos posted on the internet’ documenting the LRAD’s use at Pittsburgh, Justice Brown notes that, ‘unfortunately, Professor Wood did not attach any of those media reports or videos as exhibits to his affidavit. As a result, I cannot attach any weight to his statements.’93 Indeed, it’s not clear that any recordings of an LRAD in action were ever actually played in court. As far as I know, the LRAD has yet to feature in the ‘judicial soundscape’. In the conclusion the word ‘copyright’ has been replaced with ‘intellectual property’: The LRAD is the product of diverse institutions, jurisdictions and areas of doctrine, stretching from the law of intellectual property through the law of war to constitutional and labor law. The references and reference numbers have been updated accordingly. All the subsequent versions of the article will be corrected.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document