4.1 What is Intellectual Property?
Intellectual property is the intangible asset used to describe a variety of rights that results from innovation, invention and all the works originate from the creation of mind (Duening, Hisrich and Lechter, 2015). According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), this property is not about the copies of the work but the knowledge and information reflected in them. World Intellectual Property Organization classified these creations into industrial property (which refers to inventions, trademarks) and copyright which involved literary or artistic creations (Gilman, 2013). Illegal use of these properties may cause damage to the original authors, founders as well as to the state (Malikovna, 2015).
4.2 Limitation of Intellectual Property
…show more content…
However, society has found out some downside and the limitation where an intellectual property owner’s control is not unlimited. First of all, there are some innovations is not eligible under the protection of US intellectual property law. In patent law, the law of nature, abstract of ideas and the natural phenomena is not under protection. Furthermore, generic marks also unprotected under the trademark law. In copyright law, a creation must be fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible for protection to adhere (Dennis,
As I mentioned earlier not everyone is aware of what The Family and Medical Leave Act is, what the law is for, and how it can be or should be used when they should if the company where they work employs more than 50 people. By law employers are supposed to inform all employees about FMLA. In the case of Jeffrey Angstadt verses Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc. Angstadt was wrongfully fired because he did not know about the FMLA and could not balance his work responsibilities and taking care of his ill wife.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
Rachael Martinelli Case Study 8-2: The Outsourced Work 1. Is BE bound by the terms of the project labor agreement, which it did not directly sign, including the duty to submit this labor dispute to final and binding arbitration for resolution? I believe that Bolton Engineering (BE) should not always be bound to the terms of the project labor agreement, that they did not directly sign. Bolton Engineering should only be bound to these conditions if they are working onsite. They did not directly sign the with the labor union so they should only have to follow the labor union when they are working on the premises of Rocket Motor Corporation.
Barker v. Wingo 407 U.S. 54 (1972) Tomica Brown-Wright Strayer University SOC 205 Society, Law, and Government Dr. Terry Lunsford October 26, 2014 Introduction According to Justia (2014) Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case that tried the determinations of whether or not the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial for defendants in criminal cases have been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set forth four factors to be considered in the determination the (1) length of delay there isn’t an absolute time limit that is just one factor used in determining whether a speedy trial has been denied.
Back in June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Asian-American rock band named “The Slants” and stated the federal government cannot ban trademarks, on the grounds that it offends, to do so violates the first amendment right to freedom of speech. While the rock band was trying to trademark their name as an act of “re-appropriation,” an attempt to reclaim a slur used against their community, the outcome of the court ruling has opened a door for those who would use this ruling for less principled causes. The disparagement clause in the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act prohibited the registration of any mark that officials consider disparaging or offensive to people, institutions, beliefs, etc. Now that the clause is deemed unconstitutional for
Libertarians and Free Market Conservatives have different opinions on the idea of eminent domain according to lecture three titled, Eminent Domain. The libertarian’s side on the issue of eminent domain says that if an owner receives ownership of property through purchasing it or inheriting the property, the owner has full right over that property, according to the lecture. The owner can decide what happens to the property as long as the property isn’t used in the harming of anyone. In the example spoken about in lecture three, the idea of buying a person’s house to produce a highway in its place proves the views of the libertarian society. Libertarians believe the owner has the right to refuse to let the state buy their house, as it is not
Missouri Law and Monopolies America is a nation that is founded on the belief that personal freedoms are important. This notion certainly extends to the realm of business decisions as well--as such, early on in America’s history, there were not many regulations placed on businesses. However, over time, monopolies began to develop. These monopolies were considered to be bad for the market, because they discouraged competition, and as a result, led to over inflated prices on various goods and services.
Lawrence Lessig’s research on piracy and copyright laws suggest the issue began long before Napster’s free website of burning music for personal use. In fact, stolen content was first documented one hundred years ago when Thomas Edison’s inventions were stolen before copyright laws were in place. Moreover, Lessig compares piracy and loopholes throughout history. Thomas Edison’s phonographs and Henri Fourneaux’s player pianos (used to record music) forced copyright laws just as cable companies’ piracy techniques forced copyright laws.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under Arizona and First Amendment law, did the trial court correctly find that a comedian’s hateful rhetoric constituted fighting words and was thus not protected speech when at a comedy show he: (1) made derogatory references in regards to a politician’s heritage; (2) called for the killing of the politician’s family; (3) mentioned the politician’s name; and (4) repeated his language by posting on the politician’s social media pages? 2. Did the trial court correctly find that the comedian’s speech was a “true threat” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment when he: (1) called for the beating of a politician; (2) lit a campaign poster on fire depicting the politician; and (3) caused the severe emotional distress of
Incorporation Doctrine and McDonald v. Chicago The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied.
Eminent Domain Imagine having a home in a beautiful neighborhood where your family started a life for themselves, now imagine the government coming in and with one fell swoop, destroy your neighborhood in order to make room for a new golf course. Also, in order to compensate you for the loss of your home they hand you a check as if it were to make up for all the love and memories lost. It is an issue that many home owners and some business owners can tell you about from personal experience, when the government took over their properties in order to make room for a new school, new railroad or golf course and they call it eminent domain.
The Right of Eminent Domain Eminent domain -- the right of a government to take private property for public use by the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its authority. The United States uses Eminent Domain to put aside land every year for National Parks (i.e. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Everglades). However, in recent years, the government has been under attack for seizing these lands. Some people argue it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment which states that any land taken by the government from private property must be given compensation. Because of this, it has become more challenging for the United States government to reserve land for public use.
INTRODUCTION Now with the copyright law, Copyright Act, Chapter 63 established on 1987 with the new revised version on 2006, any author who creates their own original works automatically has the privilege to have copyright protection. Original works means works that are created with own effort and through processes of developed ideas and their whole new way to express their ideas in their final product. Not only are the works protected in their own country but also countries that signed the international agreements. Meaning works are protected in countries that signed the international agreements with the same effect as though the works was made there. Therefore, works cannot be produced without permission in another country.
In the article “The Ketchup Conundrum” (2004), Malcolm Gladwell, longtime journalist with The New Yorker, justifies that perfection is plural in nature, and in an attempt to find perfection for the general public one will only achieve perfection from the perspective of a paucity of people. Gladwell proves this notion by discussing statistics that show the fault in singular perfection (“...data were a mess-there wasn’t a pattern”) by including proof of discrepancies (“...everyone had a slightly different definition of...perfect...”) through success stories that appear inapplicable to ketchup (“...the rules...which apply to...virtually everything in the super market, don’t apply to ketchup.”), and by leading readers to the discovery that Heinz
A Case Study on Polluter’s Dilemma I. Background/Point of View On a small plastic manufacturing, Jonica Gunson works as an environmental compliance manager. The company where she is working with is now facing a serious situation that needs to have a fast and decisive decision, decision whether to invest or not to invest money on new technology that will help decrease or as possible eliminate the level of toxic in the water which is flowing from the back of the factory up to lake. Though the company is compliant with the levels of emissions set by the Environmental Management board, the manager sees that environmental procedures for this specific toxic are sheathing behind logical evidence, particularly that there is a protest from a certain scientist that is publish in the newspaper.