The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law

Author(s):  
Christophe Geiger
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 141
Author(s):  
Anis Mashdurohatun ◽  
Hayyan Ul Haq ◽  
Sony Zulhuda

The purpose of this study is to examine and to analyze the construction of social functions of Intellectual Property Rights. Furthermore, it is also intended to know the urgency of social functions of Intellectual Property Rights and to reconstruct the social function of Intellectual Property Rights based on the value of Justice. The method used was doctrinal and non doctrinal approach by using primary and secondary data source. Moreover, the data was analyzed by using analytical descriptive. The result of the research shows that, the construction of social function of IPR has not been in accordance with Pancasila justice value. The urgency of social functions of IPR is as a form of crystallization of communal, inclusive and religious values. While the reconstruction of the social function of IPR was based on the value of Justice, namely by harmonizing the principle of Corporate Social Responsibility with the crystallization of communal, inclusive and religious values in using the IPR products, especially for copyrights and patents.


Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 24-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mindaugas Kiškis

Straipsnyje analizuojamos istoriškai svarbiausios tradicinės, taip pat šiuolaikinės intelektinės nuosavy­bės teisių filosofinės doktrinos, siekiama atskleisti intelektinės nuosavybės teisių tikslus ir paskirtį, išana­lizuoti teorijų įtaką teisėkūrai ir teisei taikyti. The article revises traditional historically significant, as well as modern philosophical doctrines of intellectual property rights, emphasizes the social goals and purposes of intellectual property rights, weights up the impact that philosophic doctrines have on intellectual property legislation and interpre­tation thereof.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-32
Author(s):  
Mahbubl Islam

The emergence of the Internet has changed the ways in which we create, distribute, access, and use information. The Internet provides manifold opportunities for users, operators, businesses, and the public at large for speedy, cheap, and global dissemination of information, knowledge, research, and entertainment. At the same time, it also poses complex conceptual and empirical challenges for intellectual property and related rights. Works of intellectual property can be digitized and transferred over the Internet. Many trademarks have been placed on it by the companies for advertising and marketing goods and services. In the field of copyright, a number of works of literature, film and art, and notably computer programs, have been transferred over the Internet. The patent system has also migrated onto the Internet. It is now popular for companies to patent their online business methods. In the Internet Sphere, the infringer can easily misdirect consumers to its website by using another’s trademark as a meta-tag, and it is also easy to copy and distribute other’s copyright materials unlawfully. Due to global nature of the Internet, an Internet IP infringement usually happens not only within one country but also across borders. All of these have raised many difficulties for the protection of IPRs in Internet sphere. Therefore everyone has been dubious of what the actual laws concerning Intellectual Property rights are in relation to Internet sphere. Today the Internet explosion has made the question of how to enforce IP law on a global scale as an imperative issue. In this Article, the author tries to accentuate the existing as well as changing IPR challenges brought about by the Internet and project what issues a national legislature should consider to meet the demands of the digital revolution. The core object of this study is to scrutinize the compelling factors behind the Intellectual Property Rights Infringements through the Internet and investigate the existing Legal Responses in International, Regional and Local levels. However, the findings demonstrate that mass-awareness, consensus and mutual co-operation among the developed and developing countries, proper enforcement of the existing laws as well as bringing amendments to some areas of Law can be cited as a potential solution.  


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Li ◽  
Charles M. Roslof

A fundamental tenet of intellectual property law is that it is beneficial to give creators some measure of ownership over their creative or scientific works. New innovations in technology have changed the way works are created, but current IP law still lacks clarity regarding IP rights in works by non-human creators, including robots and animals. Legal scholarship has not reached a consensus on how principles of intellectual property can or should be applied, broadly, to works of non-human creators.In this study, we explore possible directions for the future of IP law, specifically involving works by non-human creators. We look at the (scant) legal precedent in these two realms and provide comparisons of the legal precedent and academic discourse surrounding each topic. Based on findings from this comparative analysis, we offer potential recommendations and future paths of research for the field of IP rights of non-human creators.


Author(s):  
Pratyush Nath Upreti

AbstractThis article analyses the role of national and international intellectual property (IP) law in assessing IP as a protected investment. It offers two approaches for controlling investment arbitration related to intellectual property rights (IPRs), followed by an examination of the implications and challenges of those approaches. Its main argument is that even if a dispute arises from an investment (IP as an investment), it does not necessarily fall under the jurisdictional requirements of investment arbitration. Rather, assessing IP as an investment must be done by referring to national laws. This is more relevant in the case of IPRs as they are territorial. This means that rights and obligations are derived from national IP legislation. Essentially, only those IPRs that are “protected” by national regimes should be treated as investments. This article also examines the language used in investment agreements and arbitral awards to analyse the role of national law, particularly in determining the validity and scope of IP investments. Then it examines three IP-related arbitral cases to discuss how arbitral tribunals have used national law. Finally, it suggests approaches for controlling investment arbitration by integrating the territoriality principle and the social objectives and bargains achieved through international IP treaties.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document