The Patent Infringement And The Judicial Present Situation

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines anti-competitive practices as the many ways firms restrict inter-firm competition to maintain or to increase their relative market position and profits without necessarily providing goods and services at a lower price or at a higher quality. The American Federal Trade Commission states that anti-competitive practices include activities such as price fixing, group boycotts and exclusionary exclusive dealings. These activities are generally grouped as agreements between competitors (horizontal conduct) and monopolization (single firm conduct).

Article 1, Section 8 covers patent and copyright but it is specifically noted that the protections under these definitions are not automatically

Proponents of patent reform largely focus on the cost of patent infringement litigation to the U.S. economy and companies. While some argue that the type of patents issued should be limited in order to uphold the intent of Article I, Section 8, others claim that standards for issuing patents should be strengthened in order to reduce the number of costly patent infringement lawsuits. The cost of litigation and standards for issuing a patent is the focus of the proceeding text and justification for patent reform in the United States.

An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Author(s): Stanley M. Besen and Leo J. Raskind Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 3-27 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942699 . Accessed: 24/11/2011 08:39

The copyright in an email is determined by its content. Forwarding emails is generally not considered to be a breach of copyright, but, one should carefully consider the nature of the content of the email and whether it is appropriate to forward it, as other legal issues, such as privacy and confidentiality, also apply.

We live in a world where most humans act like sheep following the herd; most people would rather follow the crowd rather than think for themselves. From cheating on an exam to copying other people’s ideas, that seems to be the norm in our society: most people want the easy way out for everything, as thinking is actually hard to do. So for the very few people who do put effort into thinking and use their creativity to develop novel ideas and implement them through the commercialization of a product or service, they have to be rewarded so that all their effort, time, and money aren’t spent in vain.

According to the research done on the two business clients who are under the Websites R’Us, Inc, a company; it is a company that deals with website making happens to have known of the existing trademark similarity. The two clients, John Smith, has got a registered trademark called Disny World Productions, Inc. which with sells adult literature and movies online. Another client who is also under Websites R’Us is using the same business name although his business is different. Despite the varied business operations by the two clients, many customers have been confused when surfing on the internet like the little Johnny Walker. Following the above analysis, the court determined that the new law (Lanham Act 2006) should be applied on appeal. Through the facts gathered, the case is genuine, and so there is a need for consumers such as little John Walker to get confused. This is trademark infringement, and dissolution should take place.

The professional conduct of Masri and Chen is discussed in relation to the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys .

The professional conduct of Masri and Chen will be discussed in relation to the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys .

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element of novelty, must show “an inventive step”, and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act, 1970 defines “inventive step” as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common general knowledge that exists while

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

The depth of China’s involvement in intellectual property theft is far greater than I would have ever expected. Prior to taking the business law course, I never thought about what intellectual property theft was or the impacts that it has. The report of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, states that “China is the world’s largest source of Intellectual Property theft” (pg 10 & 11) costing the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year, along with millions of jobs.

Because China is a net importer of IP-protected goods, it does not consider IP-protection a priority. Many local communities economically rely on IP infringement, as pirating and counterfeiting employ

The patent rights can be granted to these types of intellectual property as stated above. The patent right for an invention will last for a period of 15 years. Utility models or industrial design patents last for five years.

Ronald A. Cass, a legal consultant and former vice chairman of the International Trade Commission, commented: “I wouldn’t expect there to be a lot of judgments like this one." - Quote regards to the verdict from the American courts not the Japanese courts in reference to how patent disputes are heard by juries.[21]