Intellectual property rights and sustainable development: a survey of major issues

Includes bibliography

The problems of intellectual property in Latin America and how to address them

Includes bibliography

Latin America's experience in dispute settlement within WTO: the cases of technical standards, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and intellectual property

Includes Bibliography

World Intellectual Property Organization

Contiene las recomendaciones del seminario regional sobre propiedad industrial para los paises de habla inglesa del Caribe, realizado en Barbados, 25-27 de mayo de 1981.

Progress made by Caribbean countries in the WTO built-in agenda on services and intellectual property rights

Includes bibliography

What Business Reference Librarians Need to Know about Intellectual Property: Presentations sponsored by the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Association (PTDLA) at the American Library Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, June 25, 2006

Presentations sponsored by the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Association (PTDLA) at the American Library Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, June 25, 2006 Speaker #1: Nan Myers Associate Professor; Government Documents, Patents and Trademarks Librarian Wichita State University, Wichita, KS Title: Intellectual Property Roundup: Copyright, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, and Patents Abstract: This presentation provides a capsule overview of the distinctive coverage of the four types of intellectual property – What they are, why they are important, how to get them, what they cost, how long they last. Emphasis will be on what questions patrons ask most, along with the answers! Includes coverage of the mission of Patent & Trademark Depository Libraries (PTDLs) and other sources of business information outside of libraries, such as Small Business Development Centers. Speaker #2: Jan Comfort Government Information Reference Librarian Clemson University, Clemson, SC Title: Patents as a Source of Competitive Intelligence Information Abstract: Large corporations often have R&D departments, or large numbers of staff whose jobs are to monitor the activities of their competitors. This presentation will review strategies that small business owners can employ to do their own competitive intelligence analysis. The focus will be on features of the patent database that is available free of charge on the USPTO website, as well as commercial databases available at many public and academic libraries across the country. Speaker #3: Virginia Baldwin Professor; Engineering Librarian University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE Title: Mining Online Patent Data for Business Information Abstract: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website and websites of international databases contains information about granted patents and patent applications and the technologies they represent. Statistical information about patents, their technologies, geographical information, and patenting entities are compiled and available as reports on the USPTO website. Other valuable information from these websites can be obtained using data mining techniques. This presentation will provide the keys to opening these resources and obtaining valuable data. Speaker #4: Donna Hopkins Engineering Librarian Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Title: Searching the USPTO Trademark Database for Wordmarks and Logos Abstract: This presentation provides an overview of wordmark searching in www.uspto.gov, followed by a review of the techniques of searching for non-word US trademarks using codes from the Design Search Code Manual. These codes are used in an electronic search, either on the uspto website or on CASSIS DVDs. The search is sometimes supplemented by consulting the Official Gazette. A specific example of using a section of the codes for searching is included. Similar searches on the Madrid Express database of WIPO, using the Vienna Classification, will also be briefly described.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

Internet Intermediaries and the Law Applicable to Intellectual Property Infringements

The coordination between territoriality restricted intellectual property rights and the potential global reach of Internet activities has been the focus of significant attention in recent years. The liability of Internet intermediaries offering potentially global services that may facilitate infringements of intellectual property rights by others in multiple countries poses a particular challenge in that regard. At a substantive law level, significant differences remain between jurisdictions regarding secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringements and safe harbor provisions for Internet intermediaries. The present article discusses the conflict of laws aspects of the liability of Internet intermediaries in light of the recent international efforts to adopt soft law provisions on intellectual property and private international law.

Infringement and Exclusive Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property: a Comparison for the International Law Association

The following comparison was written for the first meeting of the International Law Association newly established (2010) Committee on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Chair: Professor Toshiyuki Kono, Kyushu University; Co-Rapporteurs: Professors Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Madrid Complutense University, and Axel Metzger, Hannover University) (hereinafter: ILA Committee), which was hosted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon in March 16-17, 2012. The comparison at stake concerns the rules on infringement and exclusive (subject-mater) jurisdiction posed (or rejected, in case of exclusive jurisdiction) by four sets of academic principles. Notwithstanding the fact that the rules in question present several differences, those differences in the majority of cases could be overcome by further studies and work of the ILA Committee, as the following comparison explains.