Inhoudsopgave:
|
\u003cp\u003e\n\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\nThis is a book dedicated to the significance and legacy of landmark cases in \nthe field of intellectual property. Eleven well-known scholars offer in-depth \ncommentary and analysis of cases that have made an impact on legal theory or \ncritical thinking about the scope and purpose of the protection of \nintellectual and industrial creativity. All the cases covered have proven \nuseful in developing doctrine, even though subsequent developments have made \nsome appear \u0026#8216;misleading\u0026#8217; rather than \u0026#8216;leading\u0026#8217;, and for some recent cases it \nis too early to say whether their approach will become mainstream. Among the \nfundamental questions \u0026#8211; all profoundly interesting, and to which no definite \nanswers have yet been found \u0026#8211; arising in the course of the analysis are the \nfollowing:\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Who should be master over the reputation, esteem and legacy of authors and \ntheir works \u0026#8211; authors and their heirs, or subsequent copyright owners?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; What, if any, protection should be granted to achievements in the absence of \nconfusion?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Should prevention of unfair competition allow one to \u0026#8216;reap what one has not \nsown\u0026#8217;?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Should we protect commercial investment beyond the scope of defined \nintellectual property rights?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Should it be considered a tort to use a well-known mark in a way that may \ndilute its repute and distinctive character?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; What kinds of monopolies should be protected, if any?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Does the patent system in its current form allow us to question the \nassumption that technological progress is good per se, and that novel and \ninventive solutions should thus be protected?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Should extraneous considerations such as public good and social usefulness \nbe considered at the stages of grant and enforcement of patent rights?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Should we grant patents over living organisms whose workings and \nreproduction are a long way from being completely understood?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8226; Should the rules developed for the enforcement of property rights limit a \npatentee\u0026#8217;s remedies to appropriate damages, thereby effectively granting a \ncompulsory licence?\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\nThe book concludes with an analysis of two case clusters remarkable for the \nworldwide dimension of the dispute. The authors show how litigation over Lego \nin about 30 jurisdictions and Budweiser in over 40 jurisdictions has enriched \ndoctrine on such issues as contract, trade marks, trade names, geographical \nindications, property rights in general, human rights, and various \ninternational and bilateral treaties, all as they impinge on the protection of \nintellectual property rights. For scholars in the field, as well as for \nlawyers seeking a rich vein of doctrine to buttress a case, this unusual book \nwill be of incomparable value. As a masterful clarification of salient \ndoctrine, it represents a major contribution to the legal theory underpinning \nintellectual property law.\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\n\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\n\u003c/p\u003e |
nl
en