What Kind of Rights Are Intellectual Property Rights?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. Merges
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Rights

This chapter considers the nature of intellectual property (IP) rights. It addresses some misunderstandings about legal rights, including that they are necessarily absolute, and rejects the view of IP as a regulatory tool rather than property. It then enumerates the key attributes and limits of IP using Hohfeld’s taxonomy of legal relations, and shows that, while none of these limits is enough to disqualify IP from being property, altogether they impose significant restrictions on its scope. Attention then turns to the problems of injunctions and constitutional takings of IP rights. The chapter concludes with observations about why, when properly framed, “rights talk” about IP does not inexorably point to absolutist views. The emphasis throughout is on two consistent thoughts: IP rights are real rights; but they are limited rights. They dominate some interests, but not all, and they are subject to restrictions and limitations that third parties also sometimes hold as rights.

La (des)protección de la propiedad intelectual de las obras del poder público

2017 ◽  
pp. 199-232
Author(s):  
Juan Antonio Ureña Salcedo
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Public Power

LABURPENA: Lan honen hasieran, jabetza intelektualaren arauek botere publikoaren erabilerari (izan botere legegilea, betearazlea nahiz judiziala) lotutako obrei ematen dioten babesgabetasuna aztertzen da. Babesgabetasun hori XXIi. Mendean azkenean ezarri behar den gardentasun publikoari ezin hobeto lotuta dago. Informazio publikoa eskuratzeari eta hura berrerabiltzeari buruzko lege batzuen arabera, ordea, jabetza intelektualaren eskubideak egotea muga bat izan daiteke bai hura eskuratzeko bai berrerabiltzeko. Azterlan honetan lege-irtenbide horren aurkako argudioak ematen dira. Bestalde, jabetza intelektualaren eskubideen titulartasuna lan egiten den administrazioari dagokiola defendatzen eta argudiatzen da hemen (hirugarrenen sarbide hori erraztu behar luke horrek). RESUMEN: Comienza este trabajo con un análisis sobre la desprotección por las normas de propiedad intelectual de las obras vinculadas al ejercicio del poder público (ya sea el Legislativo, el Ejecutivo o el Judicial). Esta desprotección liga perfectamente con la transparencia pública, que tiene que acabar imponiéndose en el s. XXI. Algunas leyes de acceso a la información pública y de reutilización de la misma, sin embargo, apuntan que la existencia de derechos de propiedad intelectual puede constituir un límite tanto para el acceso como para la reutilización. En este estudio se aportan argumentos en contra de esta solución legal. Aquí se sostiene y se fundamenta, además, que la titularidad de los derechos de propiedad intelectual corresponde a la Administración para la que se trabaja (lo que debería facilitar dicho acceso por terceros). ABSTRACT: This work begins with an analysis about the vulnerability provoked by the intellectual property rules regarding works linked to the exercise of public power (either the legislative, the executive or the judiciary). This vulnerability connects perfectly with public transparency, which eventually has to be imposed in the XXI century. Nevertheless, some Acts on access to public information and its re-use indicate that the existence of intellectual property rights can be a limit both for the access and re-use. This study provides arguments against this legal solution. It is argued and justified, besides, that the ownership of intellectual property rights belongs to the Administration to whom someone works (which should facilitate that access by third parties).

scholarly journals Protecting Related Creations to Fashion in the Framework of Literary and Artistic Property Rights of Iran and France

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Sattar Zarkalam ◽  
Amin Rooholamini
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Fashion Industry ◽  
French Law ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Iranian Law ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Time Periods

In today’s world where the process of development and the industry is evolving more rapidly than expected, the legal notions are going forward on their compliance in line with these developments. The increasing development of intellectual property rights and their samples is an example of this change. One of the most important issues and instances of this tendency in legal rights is associated with fashion productions and creations. France, as one of the greatest leading country in fashion industry since long time ago, has legally protected the dress and beautiful creations in the intellectual property rules and in the different time periods, under the various titles, including the drawings and models rights, industrial property rights, literary and artistic property rights. French jurisprudence has broadly interpreted the concept of the fashion industry and consequently, the dress and beauty creations that have evolved not only the goods, but all parties involved in the production of the fashion industry. In Iranian law also, although there is no progress in this field compared to French law, with an optimistic interpretation of the rules of its intellectual property, it can be associated with Droit d'-auteur rules in addition to the industrial property rights under different titles such as design and drawings, Applied artwork, folklore etc.

Information Ownership in the Cloud

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-176
Author(s):  
Chris Reed
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Physical Object ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Confidential Information ◽  
Database Right ◽  
The Law ◽  
Types Of Information

This chapter discusses information ownership in the cloud. The law has struggled with ownership of digital information precisely because it is no longer recorded in permanent form on a physical object which can be owned. The law attempts to solve this problem by creating legal rights in some types of information, in the form of intellectual property rights. However, intellectual property rights are highly limited in scope in order to prevent the monopolisation of information. Thus, disputes over information ownership, and negotiations involving transfer of digital information, can be surprisingly difficult to resolve. The chapter then looks at copyright, database right, and the protection of confidential information. It shows that owning property rights in information, most likely copyright and database right, has little importance in terms of the cloud relationship. Cloud computing does, however, create some risks to confidential information because each player in the cloud is handing over some element of control to other players.

scholarly journals FEATURES AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC COMPONENTS OF THE CONCEPTS “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY” AND “RIGHT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (42) ◽  
pp. 99-116
Author(s):  
Oksana Korotiuk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Legal Personality

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

22. Competition law and intellectual property

2019 ◽  
pp. 531-555
Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

This chapter discusses the relationship between competition law and intellectual property rights. Competition law may limit the ability to exercise intellectual property rights. Article 101 TFEU and Chapter I Prohibition may apply to agreements to license intellectual property, as well as pay-for-delay settlements between a patent holder and potential competitors. Article 102 TFEU and Chapter II Prohibition may apply to the use of intellectual property rights by a dominant undertaking, particularly when the protected asset is essential to third parties. The existence of intellectual property rights does not automatically confer a dominant position — the product or service may still face competition.

Connection, Collaboration, and Community

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhuri Tikam
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Legal Frameworks

This article describes how building up on the foundation of knowledge created by the previous scholars is the base of any scholarly communication. Usually scholars also willing to share their findings to others to gain guidance, approval and recognition. The user should use the shared information while protecting moral and legal rights of the authors. To protect the creator's intellectual property rights, copyright and other legal schemes were introduced. However, these legal frameworks became too rigid for users to use the shared data. Sometimes even when the creator is willing to share the data, h/she could not do the same due to copyright bindings. This gave rise to need for a supporting legal framework which protects the rights of the authors and allows him/her to share her work willingly as per the chosen criteria. The license should be easy to prepare, understand and share. Creative Commons offers the required types of licenses which are globally approved. The article discusses about the background, attributes and advantages and challenges of Creative Common's licenses.

scholarly journals Contractual and legal regulation of preservation of results of scientific research in confidentiality and use of such information in case of research and development: practices of EU and countries of the world

2021 ◽  
pp. 202-213
Author(s):  
K. SHAHBAZYAN
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The World ◽  
Access Rights ◽  
Different Sources ◽  
The Eu

The article analyzes the category of agreements in the field of research and development – non-disclosure agreements (confidentiality agreements), provides examples of such agreements with different sources of funding; as well as there are being considered the wordings of confidentiality provisions in general agreements for research and development –  the article compares the practice of application of these provisions in the EU and countries of the world. The requirements are considered for settling the issues of protection of intellectual property rights in the aspect of confidentiality and distribution of rights to use the information, obtained during the research in the project, use of such info during the further researches and granting access rights to such information to third parties. Aspects that should be included in similar types of agreements in Ukraine are proposed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document