The case studies examined in this volume demonstrate the human rights abuses that State policies cause by building mega-dams without any forethought to the indigenous peoples whose homes will stand in the way of these vast concrete barrages. On one level, it is still perplexing to me why governments cause such pain and anguish to their citizens – and to their bureaucrats, police, and armies, who must deal with angry mobs of people, who are about to be dispossessed or who have already been driven out of their homes. Of course, on another level, one is not so naïve as not to recognize that power, politics, self-interest, and corruption are also the mainstay of governments and government policies.
Edited by Jordi Jaria-Manzano and Susana Borrás
The starting point of this article is a short documentary film that I and five colleagues produced in the course of the Business of Film module at Queen Mary University of London's Intellectual Property Law LLM Programme. During the process of production, we faced some borderline issues regarding our unauthorized uses of others’ copyright works. When we put ourselves into the copyright's author's shoes, three problems arose regarding our use of possible limitations and exceptions: the lack of guidance; the fear of liability; and the unharmonized status of limitations and exceptions at an international level. This article examines these problems from a copyright policy perspective and invites documentary festivals to undertake a mission of guiding new documentary directors through the complex, unharmonized world of copyright limitations and exceptions.
Chinese law has adopted the safe harbour principle from American law which emphasizes that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) do not have a general obligation for monitoring. However, in judicial practice, the courts have put forward the requirement of duty of care. This paper analyses the Chinese courts’ judgments since 2001, when legislative protection of the ‘right to network dissemination of information’ was introduced. It intends to analyse the specific contents of the duty of care of ISPs and related impact factors in judicial practice, including the link model, link content, and whether to obtain economic benefits.
This article is concerned with the producer market in patented technology, and whether price differentiation based on field-of-use – a common strategy adopted by businesses with high fixed costs – is economically efficient. The focus is on the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions, including also the Internet of Things (IoT) applications, and the economic growth in the digital economy, especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The central argument proposed is that the absolute difference in the value between usages of essential standardized technologies determines whether a single price for all usages or specific field-of-use prices are economically efficient. A small difference in value should result in a single price and a large difference in different prices. Pricing policy is critical to create a world-wide sustained technology development including contributions from, and applications for, emerging markets and developed markets, thereby growing the digital economy.
In this literature review, three evaluation angles of the literature are used: a market analysis under neo-classical assumptions of price-taking agents and marginal (incremental) value; an expanded market analysis where the willingness to pay (WTP) replaces marginal cost as criteria for what price should be paid for licences; and an analysis of market designs with similar characteristics as the SEP market in terms of risk, using experimental economics (behavioural) and auction theory. All analyses angles investigate the principle of field-of-use licensing, established already in the first known patent law in 1474.
Cheng-Yuan (Kevin) Cheng and Ling-Chieh Kung
Innovation can enhance the usefulness of products and services, but technological innovation may be hindered by many potential barriers. One important potential barrier is patent infringement litigation. In this study, we review the relationship between US patent features and US patent litigations, identify potential patent risk factors, and quantitatively evaluate patent infringement litigation risk. We find that certain factors do have significant impacts. By identifying these risk factors, we may manage product development strategies and patent application strategies to avoid being litigated by competitors. The difference between patents filed before and after the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act is also reported.
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Case law from Singapore shows that one of the ways in which intellectual property rights holders have protected their rights is through private prosecutions. This is the case although the relevant pieces of legislation on patents, copyright and trade marks are silent on the issue of private prosecutions. The question of who is entitled to institute a private prosecution in intellectual property rights infringements remains unclear to some people. The purpose of this article is to discuss the issues of locus standi to institute a private prosecution in intellectual property cases and the measures to minimize abusing the right to institute a private prosecution.