Browse by title

You are looking at 1-10 of 146 items :

  • Intellectual Property x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Shamnad Basheer

The Indian patent regime has been celebrated and censured in equal measure: celebrated by those that see in it the vestiges of a past, where nations could craft a patent policy to suit national priorities – without succumbing to the pressures of a global patent script and dictated largely by the industrial interests of the developed world – and censured by those who think that India's extensive use of TRIPS flexibilities to advance developmental priorities comes at the cost of global innovation incentives and a uniform patent paradigm.

Indeed, the present frame of the Indian patent regime contains a unique set of provisions not ordinarily found in other regimes. Patent working is one such provision. While most patent regimes demand ‘disclosure’, in that the patentee must elaborate the invention in full so as to educate the public and enable those skilled in the art to replicate it with relative ease, the Indian patent regime goes one step further. It requires that the disclosure even extend to the mode and manner in which patents are being worked for the greater public good. This information can then be used to trigger compulsory licences and even patent revocations. To this extent, the Indian patent regime not only grants exclusive IP rights, but also imposes a set of IP duties.

As an IP duty, patent working is central to the innovation ecosystem, for its disclosure helps foster greater transparency by inter alia pegging specific patents to products. This information is particularly valuable in the high technology sector, where it is often impossible to co-relate patents and the technological products that embody them, and vice versa. Unfortunately, Indian patentees routinely flout this important legal tenet, and the government has all but turned a blind eye to it.

This paper reflects on this important statutory mandate and its jurisprudential underpinnings, particularly in relation to two technology sectors: pharmaceuticals and high technology (IT and telecommunications). It highlights a writ petition filed by the author of this paper to showcase the sheer callousness with which the patent working requirement has been treated by both patentees and the government alike. It then discusses the ways in which the mandate could be strengthened so as to pave the way for a more meaningful patent regime and a more transparent innovation ecosystem.

This content is available to you

Edited by Johanna Gibson

This content is available to you

Edited by Johanna Gibson

This content is available to you

Pamela Andanda

The application of exceptions to copyright infringement in online news articles has become contentious with the widespread practice of aggregation. The specific concern is whether reproducing or adapting news articles that are published on competitors’ websites without permission falls within the scope of the exceptions to copyright infringement in respect of news articles or, alternatively, such conduct is protected by fair use.

This paper provides a South African perspective on the above concern by comparing the USA case of Meltwater 1 with the South African case of Moneyweb, 2 which has attempted to provide clarity on copyright in the context of online journalism. The paper first analyses the complexities of the rapid rise of online news, which raise questions such as whether hyperlinking is sufficient attribution and the difference between ‘scraping’ and aggregation, as well as the effects of these practices on competing media. It then considers whether the doctrine of fair use, which should arguably be flexible enough to adapt to the changing obligations in the context of new technologies, 3 is capable of providing clear guidance on reasonable online media practice beyond South Africa. The central argument is that the doctrine of fair use should foster online innovation and the sharing of public information while ensuring respect of copyright.

This content is available to you

  • Elgar Law, Technology and Society series

Michael J. Madison

This chapter explores the related ideas of access to knowledge resources and shared governance of those resources, often known as commons. Knowledge resources consist of many types and forms. Some are tangible, and some are intangible. Some are singular; some are reproduced in copies. Some are singular or unique; some are collected or pooled. Some are viewed, used or consumed only by a single person; for some resources, collective or social consumption is the norm. Any given resource often has multiple attributes along these dimensions, depending on whether one examines the resource’s physical properties, its creative or inventive properties, or its natural, factual or ideational properties. Access questions are, accordingly, diverse. That diversity is compounded by the proposition that access is itself a property of a resource, in the sense that resource characteristics are, to a substantial extent, socially and culturally constructed. Social construction means not only that boundaries among properties of a resource may be blurred but also that those properties and boundaries may change over time. By virtue of that diversity, investigating access to knowledge resources creates the risk of producing a conceptually fragmented and unhelpful landscape of theory and application on a resource-by-resource basis. This chapter suggests that the investigation of access to knowledge resources may be unified under the umbrella concept of knowledge commons, the study of governance of shared knowledge resources. It presents a framework for understanding knowledge commons and illustrates its application to several questions of access to the material and immaterial dimensions of specific knowledge resources.
This content is available to you

  • Elgar Law, Technology and Society series

Jessica C. Lai and Antoinette Maget Dominicé

This content is available to you

  • Elgar Law, Technology and Society series

Edited by Jessica C. Lai and Antoinette Maget Dominicé

This content is available to you

  • Elgar Law, Technology and Society series

Edited by Jessica C. Lai and Antoinette Maget Dominicé

This content is available to you

  • Elgar Law, Technology and Society series

Edited by Jessica C. Lai and Antoinette Maget Dominicé

This content is available to you

  • Elgar Law, Technology and Society series

Edited by Jessica C. Lai and Antoinette Maget Dominicé