Intellectual Propoerty of Law

FREE CONSENT IN CLICK WRAP AGREEMENT IN
MALAYSIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MARYAM RAFIEI
Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM)
43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Tel:60-123420429 E-mail: [email protected]

NAZURA ABDUL MANAP
Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM)
43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Tel: 603-89216373 E-mail: [email protected]


1. ABSTRACT
Technological advancement in the communications industry particularly over the last decade, has given rise to consumers and commercial providers to form their own business or contractual agreements via the Internet. The mark of such technology can be seen in the new form of contract which is called “click wrap”.

Intellectual property is generally characterized as non-physical property that is the product of original thought. Typically, rights do not surround the abstract non-physical entity; rather, intellectual property rights surround the control of physical manifestations or expressions of ideas. Intellectual property protects rights to ideas by protecting rights to produce and control physical instantiations of those ideas. Legal protections for intellectual property have a rich history that stretches back to ancient Greece and before. As different legal systems matured in protecting intellectual works, there was a refinement of what was being protected within different areas. Over the same period several strands of moral justification for intellectual property were offered: namely, personality-based, utilitarian, and Lockean. Finally, there have been numerous critics of intellectual property and systems of intellectual property protection. This essay will discuss all of these topics, focusing on Anglo American and European legal and moral conceptions of intellectual property.

Fashion is a massive industry that thrives in a competitive global environment despite minimal legal protections for its creative design. While many people dismiss fashion as trivial and ephemeral, its economic importance and cultural influence are enormous. The fashion industry is a global phenomenon, with an international language understood by millions of people. Up to date, the fashion scene brings more and more fans willing to pay large sums of money to feel and to look good about their appearance and adornments. This increased interest has caused the fashion industry to face challenges that were not common in the past decades. Consequently, it came necessary to set the rules to make this a bigger and more effective business. As a result, Fashion law came as brand new legal specialty that involves several issues of intellectual property rights, particularly trademark law and copyright law though it can include patents and trade secrets. Patent and trade secrets become relevant when the fashion company has developed new manufacturing process or method as the fashion industry functions on the basis of collaboration, primarily between designers, manufacturers, merchandisers and retailers from all around the world to deliver to consumers' clothing, footwear and accessories.

In the broadest terms my goal in this work is to justify rights to intellectual and intangible property. Some think that this goal is easily attained and offer the following
argument. Control should be granted to authors and inventors of intellectual property because granting such control provides incentives necessary for social progress. Society ought to maximize social utility, therefore temporary rights to intellectual works should be granted. This strategy for justifying rights to intellectual property
is typically given as the primary basis for Anglo- American copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret institutions. Nevertheless, I think the argument is fundamentally flawed. With this in mind, I proceed on two fronts. First, a negative argument is given that undermines the aforementioned widely supported rule utilitarian case for intellectual property. The hope is upon eliminating rule-utilitarian incentives-based arguments, the way will be cleared for a new Lockean justification.
    My positive argument begins with an account of Locke's proviso that justified acquisitions of unowned objects must leave "enough and as good" for others.  One way to interpret Locke's requirement is that it ensures the position of others is not worsened. This can be understood as a version of weak Pareto-superiority. If the possession and exclusion of an intellectual work makes no one worse off, then the acquisition ought to be permitted. In clarifying the issues that surround a Pareto-based proviso on acquisition, I defend an account of bettering and worsening and offer a solution to the baseline problem — what two situations do we compare to determine if someone has been worsened.
    In the simplest terms, the problem I address is one of information control. Moreover, it does not matter what form the information takes — it could be a poem, a novel, a new invention, a computer program, military data, or sensitive personal information. . .

Legal protections for intellectual property have a rich history that stretches back to ancient Greece and before. As different legal systems matured in protecting intellectual works, there was a growing refinement of understanding as to what was being protected. From the ancients through the Enlightenment, several strands of moral justification for intellectual property have been offered: namely, personality-based, utilitarian, and Lockean. This essay will discuss all of these topics, focusing on Anglo-American and European legal and moral conceptions of intellectual property.

In Turkey, most university administrators and academic staff members are not yet fully aware of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Researchers often have difficulty in licensing opportunities that can provide additional revenue streams due to the lack of either strategic policies set by the administration or a dedicated technology transfer (or licensing) office (TTO). This paper attempts to shed some light
on the relationship between intellectual property rights and licensing awareness in Turkish universities as well as how this is affected by the lack of TTOs. Semi-structured exploratory interviews were conducted with 45 researchers in two different faculties (Medicine and Engineering). Results show that most of the participants, including a higher-than-expected percentage from the Faculty of Engineering,
were not aware of the importance of the technology that they had developed in terms of licensing and royalties that they could earn. In conclusion, it can be said that universities in Turkey have to undergo a policy change regarding managerial issues, especially with regards to Technology Transfer Offices. Increasing the visibility of technology transfer options and agreements, as well as further research on this topic, is recommended.

""Abstract.
This paper presents important issues on whether the Law of Contract of 1975, Cap .345R: E 2002, curter the needs for the Formation of Electronic Contract in Tanzania. The paper will consist of Five Parts in terms of alphabet A-E. The intent of the paper is not to provide an exhaustive treatment of the subject but a good understanding of the subject.
In Part A, the attempt here is simply to familiarize the reader with a careful understanding of the Concept of Contract. Here then, the author will trace back the history of contract and law, where it was rooted. How do the ancient world defined and understand the concept of contract. What were the regulations regulate the whole concept of contract. And lastly different types of contracts.
In Part B, as the fact that a studied area is Tanzania, now the concept of contract in Tanzania Legal Regime will be discussed.
After the discussion of the concept of contract and the law in Tanzania Arena, the new world of contract formation that is cyber contracts will be considered in Part C, which will include the origin, meaning, elements and types of cyber contract.
In Part D, it is where the issue of whether the Law of Contract of 1975, Cap .345R: E 2002, curter the needs for the Formation of Electronic Contract in Tanzania will be discussed by looking at the aspect of contract formation, validity and other essential aspects of the contract.
The last part is Part E in which after considering all the facts explained in Part D, the author will have to give his assessment on the issue and provide his recommendation as to what must be done if there is any problem concerning enforceability of electronic contract and conclusion.
""

After a brief introduction to the subject matter of intellectual
property, an internal and external critique of Anglo-American systems of intellectual property protection will be offered. Internally, it will be argued that incentive-based social progress justifications for intellectual property fail – alas, if we are to conduct a cost benefit analysis it appears that a different model or a different set of rights would be better than our current system.  Social progress incentive-based arguments do not justify current copyright, patent, and trade secret models of intellectual property protection. Moreover, even if these arguments could be modified, they would seem to require allowances for multiple patents for the “same” intangible work, not patent monopolies. Externally, it will be argued that consequentialism – more specifically, rule-utilitarianism – is beset with numerous seemingly insurmountable difficulties and cannot provide an adequate foundation for intellectual property. If the internal or external arguments succeed, then we will have to either find a different justification or abandon systems of intellectual property protection altogether.

It is argued that intellectual property rights are no different than rights to “lives, liberties, and estates” – that is, intellectual property rights should not be seen as state created entities offered as an inducement to bring forth new knowledge. The upshot of viewing intellectual property rights as state created monopolies, far too often controlled by the powerful and well connected, is the seemingly pervasive opinion that systems of intellectual property represent the mafia family on a global scale.  In my view, to be justified, to warrant worldwide coercion, systems of intellectual property should be grounded in a Lockean a theory of property – a theory that acknowledges and protects the natural rights of authors and inventors.  After presenting a Lockean argument, I will consider, and ultimately reject, several common objections to intellectual property.

What I will address in this Article, and one that I took up over fifteen years ago, is: should we consider intellectual works to be the proper subjects of Lockean property claims? My answer then and now is "yes," with the acknowledgement that such a view may require substantial revisions to Anglo-American systems of intellectual property. I will argue that intellectual property rights are no different from rights to lives, liberties, and estates - that is, intellectual property rights should not be seen as state-created entities offered as an inducement to bring forth new knowledge. The upshot of viewing intellectual property rights as state created monopolies, far too often controlled by the powerful and well-connected, is the seemingly pervasive opinion that systems of intellectual property represent the mafia family on a global scale. In my view, to be justified and to warrant worldwide coercion, systems of intellectual property should be grounded in a Lockean theory of property - a theory that acknowledges and protects the natural rights of authors and inventors. Part II of this Article will present the main outlines of a Lockean theory of intellectual property. Part III will take up several specific objections that have been leveled against my preferred view. Finally, Part IV will consider several general objections to intellectual property.

Cultural heritage management within the scope of law and policy necessitates a fluid understanding of both the tangible and intangible elements underpinning cultural resources, as well as a broader appreciation for what might be considered ‘law.’ While the tangible components of cultural heritage have been privileged due to their ability to be quantified and tracked, we argue that without recognizing the intangible dimensions of heritage, tangible “cultural property” or “heritage” has little or no meaning or value. A new set of management strategies for intangible cultural heritage is needed; in this follow-up piece we consider some of the overarching issues that frame developments in IP and professional heritage management and guide efforts to resolve or avoid problems encountered as such. We also explore the legal and ethical dimensions of IP, as well as the collaborative research approaches that constitute good practice.

“El proyecto de ley 2157-D-2015 (…) pretende extender la duración de los plazos de protección del derecho patrimonial del titular de obras fotográficas hasta 70 años posteriores a la muerte del autor. El plazo actual de protección es de 20 años. Para ello se propone reformar los artículos 34 y 34 bis de la Ley N° 11.723. Como suele ser el modus operandi de estas reformas, los efectos son retroactivos. Es decir, en caso de que el proyecto se convierta en ley, muchísimas obras fotográficas que se encuentran en el dominio público volverán a ingresar al dominio privado (patrimonio) de sus últimos titulares.”

“Como se ve los beneficiados con la mentada reforma serán los fotógrafos, los titulares derivados pero más probablemente quienes gestionan los derechos patrimoniales (SAVA), quienes podrán explotar durante un período de tiempo mucho mayor tales derechos. Pierde la sociedad toda, ya que muchas fotos que hoy se reproducen libremente serán re-privatizadas. Como desarrollaré más adelante, el exceso de derechos de propiedad intelectual, o su excesiva duración lleva a la infraexplotación de las obras y a un aprovechamiento sub-óptimo por parte de la sociedad.”

“Entonces, se preguntará el lector, si los economistas más brillantes sostienen que extender los derechos de autor por encima de los plazos actuales es contrario al bienestar general… ¿por qué se siguen extendiendo los plazos?”

Esta manera de legislar en un área clave para la sociedad y economía de la información, a la que decimos queremos pertenecer como nación, debe cesar de una vez por todas. Argentina necesita una legislación moderna, equilibrada y eficiente en materia de propiedad intelectual; lo que requiere frenar la constante expansión de los plazos y concentrarse en otros aspectos centrales: eliminar las formalidades, enforcement más efectivo, facilitar el otorgamiento de licencias online, incorporar los derechos de los usuarios, regular las obras huérfanas, control antitrust de las sociedades de gestión colectiva, entre otras medidas clave. Además hay que incorporar en el debate a todos los stakeholders, no sólo los que están de un lado de la cancha. 

“La ciudadanía tiene que hacerle saber a sus representantes que no es apática en materia de propiedad intelectual. Sirva este humilde aporte para concientizar a colegas, legisladores y ciudadanos en general.”
“El proyecto de ley 2157-D-2015 (…) pretende extender la duración de los plazos de protección del derecho patrimonial del titular de obras fotográficas hasta 70 años posteriores a la muerte del autor. El plazo actual de protección es de 20 años. Para ello se propone reformar los artículos 34 y 34 bis de la Ley N° 11.723. Como suele ser el modus operandi de estas reformas, los efectos son retroactivos. Es decir, en caso de que el proyecto se convierta en ley, muchísimas obras fotográficas que se encuentran en el dominio público volverán a ingresar al dominio privado (patrimonio) de sus últimos titulares.”

“Como se ve los beneficiados con la mentada reforma serán los fotógrafos, los titulares derivados pero más probablemente quienes gestionan los derechos patrimoniales (SAVA), quienes podrán explotar durante un período de tiempo mucho mayor tales derechos. Pierde la sociedad toda, ya que muchas fotos que hoy se reproducen libremente serán re-privatizadas. Como desarrollaré más adelante, el exceso de derechos de propiedad intelectual, o su excesiva duración lleva a la infraexplotación de las obras y a un aprovechamiento sub-óptimo por parte de la sociedad.”

“Entonces, se preguntará el lector, si los economistas más brillantes sostienen que extender los derechos de autor por encima de los plazos actuales es contrario al bienestar general… ¿por qué se siguen extendiendo los plazos?”

Esta manera de legislar en un área clave para la sociedad y economía de la información, a la que decimos queremos pertenecer como nación, debe cesar de una vez por todas. Argentina necesita una legislación moderna, equilibrada y eficiente en materia de propiedad intelectual; lo que requiere frenar la constante expansión de los plazos y concentrarse en otros aspectos centrales: eliminar las formalidades, enforcement más efectivo, facilitar el otorgamiento de licencias online, incorporar los derechos de los usuarios, regular las obras huérfanas, control antitrust de las sociedades de gestión colectiva, entre otras medidas clave. Además hay que incorporar en el debate a todos los stakeholders, no sólo los que están de un lado de la cancha. 

“La ciudadanía tiene que hacerle saber a sus representantes que no es apática en materia de propiedad intelectual. Sirva este humilde aporte para concientizar a colegas, legisladores y ciudadanos en general.”

PREPRINT DE LA VERSIÓN FINAL PUBLICADA EN LA SECCIÓN "DOCTRINA" DE "EL DIAL" EL 16.10.2015.

Fashion is a three trillion dollar a year industry with a 100% participation rate. So how do companies like Louis Vuitton, Ralph Lauren, Gucci, and Christian Louboutin promote their brands globally while still protecting their designs? 

To what extent are creators, from individual fashion designers to million-dollar brands, protected under intellectual property law? How do you balance protecting IP with fostering innovation? Lawyers, law professors, and industry experts discuss the role of intellectual property in the fashion industry, explaining three recent cases that continue to spark debate on design protection in the United States.

This research explores the experiences of 18 gifted high school students career decision process which took 2 years 8 months. The students were from three different schools in İstanbul, and they had been taking career counseling in order to decide about their majors in their university years. The interactions with the students provided the data to answer the research questions, ''What are the difficulties, if any, to choose the right career path after the high school years, particularly the major that they want to study at the university?'' The data were gathered through in-depth interviews during the therapies including, the preparations of the documents for overseas applications which were recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed for patterns. The patterns became the prevalent themes for discussion in the findings and analysis.

Cultural heritage is comprised of a wide array of expressions of human knowledge and creativity, ranging from stories, songs, and traditions—and the language by which they are conveyed — to the various physical manifesta- tions of human enterprise. It is a melding of the tangible and the intangible. Although substance and meaning are inseparable in cultural heritage, it is the tangible that has been given the greatest attention in heritage management. This is not surprising given that the conservation of objects and localities may be grounded in physical necessity or juridical laws that strive to balance economic interests with varied rationale for heritage preservation; intangible heritage arises, transforms, and takes on priority and meaning with individual and collective knowledge systems, legal orders, preferences and aesthetics.

Cultural heritage is comprised of a wide array of expressions of human knowledge and creativity, ranging from stories, songs, and traditions—and the language by which they are conveyed — to the various physical manifesta- tions of human enterprise. It is a melding of the tangible and the intangible. Although substance and meaning are inseparable in cultural heritage, it is the tangible that has been given the greatest attention in heritage management. This is not surprising given that the conservation of objects and localities may be grounded in physical necessity or juridical laws that strive to balance economic interests with varied rationale for heritage preservation; intangible heritage arises, transforms, and takes on priority and meaning with individual and collective knowledge systems, legal orders, preferences and aesthetics.

As an international corporate Sasol is always striving to increase value and reduce costs.  There is no exception to this rule when dealing with IP assets of the company and questions like:

Does the rising cost of litigation and changing risk/reward analysis of obtaining IP protection deter innovation?

Is IP protection still worth it?

Does the legal system favour large purses and drive bad patent behaviour?

need to be constantly considered and answered.

In this overview, the speaker will focus on current challenges of the IP system and in particular propose recommendations on harmonization of IP laws, standardised, aligned and stricter patent examination through the various patent offices and alternatives to expensive and time consuming litigation.

Insight into the development, implementation and management of effective IP business strategies will be discussed.  In particular issues such as choosing the appropriate intellectual property vehicle, identification of IP risks, choosing the suitable intellectual property instrument in order to mitigate these risks and alternative risk mitigation strategies to avoid litigation will be addressed.

The speaker aims to demonstrate that an effective IP strategy includes identifying technology and product/service specific plans to realize value, while minimizing risk and any disruption to core business initiatives and ultimately will result in the freedom to operate your business.

In order for creativity to flourish, information and knowledge must be allowed to interact with some degree of freedom, yet IP law by its very nature disregards all but fixed manifestations of creativity. The rules of the old economy enshrine and protect only “frozen creativity” (Riddestrale and Nordstrom, 2001;170)  yet in a digital age, where fluidity is the norm, trying to hold on to such concepts is at best futile and at worst disastrous.