Skip to main content

Home/ GC_CSC350_SP08/ Group items tagged trademark

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Danny Thorne

Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage - GNU Project - Free Softw... - 0 views

www.gnu.org/...not-ipr.xhtml

freesoftware fsf intellectualproperty rms stallman

shared by Danny Thorne on 29 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias of “intellectual property” suits them.
  • one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed. Patent law has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.
  • If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics.
Danny Thorne

Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 0 views

en.wikipedia.org/...Intellectual_property

copyright intellectualproperty law patent trademark

shared by Danny Thorne on 29 Feb 08 - Cached
  • some scholars question the legitimacy and philosophical basis of such laws
  • the particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or manifested, and not in relation to the ideas or concepts themselves
  • The shift in terminology towards "intellectual property" has coincided with a more general shift away from thinking about things like copyright and patent law as specific legal instruments designed to promote the common good and towards a conception of ideas as inviolable property granted by natural law.[8] The terminological shift coincides with the usage of pejorative terms for copyright infringement such as "piracy" and "theft".
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • the "property" referred to in "intellectual property" is the rights, not the intellectual work.
  • still encourages a natural rights notion rather than a recognition that the rights are purely statutory, and it only characterizes the "property" rather than eliminates the property presupposition.
  • in the United States physical property laws are generally part of state law, while copyright law is in the main measure federal
  • The backronyms intellectual protectionism and intellectual poverty, whose initials are also IP, have found supporters as well, especially among those who have used the backronym digital restrictions management.
Danny Thorne

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. - Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions - 0 views

www.internetlibrary.com/...lib_case476.cfm

copyright fairuse intellectualproperty

shared by Danny Thorne on 01 Mar 08 - Cached
  • transformative nature of the thumbnails Google created, which, by facilitating the public’s ability to search the web for images, serve a different purpose than the original images, which are designed to entertain.
  • Google does not store the images contained on such third party web pages in its cache.  Rather, all that these cached copies contain are html instructions setting forth the location on the internet where the image can be found
  • the Copyright Act, unlike the Trademark Act, does not protect a copyright holder against acts that cause consumer confusion.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Perfect 10 claimed that by assisting users in locating and obtaining access to third party sites that themselves contained infringing images, Google was guilty of contributory infringement.
  • Said the Ninth Circuit:  “Google’s failure to change it operations to avoid assisting websites to distribute their infringing content may constitute contributory liability …”.
  • The District Court was also directed to determine whether Google was immunized from liability for such contributory infringement claims by operation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  The DMCA immunizes Service Providers such as Google from liability “for infringement [including contributory infringement] of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer or hypertext link,” if the service provider meets certain specified criteria.  The parties disputed whether Google in fact met such criteria, and qualified for the protections of the DMCA.  This issue was left to the District Court on remand.
  • Google had no contractual or other right to cause such third party websites to stop displaying infringing content.  As such, the Ninth Circuit held, Perfect 10’s vicarious copyright infringement claims were likely to fail.
  • only delivered html instructions – to wit in-line links – to its users, and not the actual images themselves
  • a user’s act of “caching” copies of infringing images in his computer as part of his review of such infringing materials was a fair use protected from claims of copyright infringement.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page