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).

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.

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.

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.

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KARYA SENI BATIK YANG BELUM TERDAFTAR MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Work Of Art

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