|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Law and Politics
Reference:
Dias Martins R.
Analysis of the tragedies of communities and anti-communities and their consequences in the process of creation and use of patented innovative objects
// Law and Politics.
2016. ¹ 5.
P. 576-583.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=52626
Dias Martins R. Analysis of the tragedies of communities and anti-communities and their consequences in the process of creation and use of patented innovative objectsAbstract: The author explores the question of tragedies of communities and anti-communities during the process of creation of the patented innovative objects, as well as use of patents for strategic purposes; the concept of “patent maze”, “royalty stacking”, etc. are being revealed on the practical examples. The author doubts the ability of the modern model of protection of the objects of patent law to accomplish the goals for which it was intended. The listed issues vividly reflect the distortion of the modern model of regulation of the industrial property, and without understanding of them, it is impossible to project reforms and alternatives of this model. The scientific novelty consists in the author’s attempt to demonstrate that the foundation of the modern model of protection of industrial property in reality is distorted, due to the various reasons stated in the article. The author comes to the conclusion that following the strictly formal approach in implementation of the legislation norms on intellectual property, leads to a serious distortion of the functional designation of intellectual property. Keywords: Strategic patenting, Royalty stacking, Industrial property, Fragmentation of laws, Tendency to patent, Patent maze, Patent trolls, Patent law, Tragedy of anti-communities, Tragedy of communities
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
References
1. Tresse Vitor Schettino; Müller, Juliana Martins Sá. Patentes "Troll" no Contexto Brasileiro: Como Alinhar Experiências Internacionais aos Padrões do Ordenamento Jurídico Nacional? // João Marcelo de Lima Assafim; Salete Oro Boff Luiz Otávio Pimentel. (Org.). Patentes "Troll" no Contexto Brasileiro: Como Alinhar Experiências Internacionais aos Padrões do Ordenamento Jurídico Nacional?. 1ed.Florianópolis: Editora Conpedi 2014, v. , S. 320-339.
2. Brasil. Constituição Federal 1988 // Internet-sayt Palácio do Planalto. URL: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituicao.htm (data obrashcheniya: 20/08/2015). 3. Ascensão José de Oliveira. Direitos Intelectuais: Propriedade ou Exclusivo?. Themis: Revista da Faculdade de Direito da UNL, 2008. S. 117-138. 4. Guerin Kevin. Property Rights and Environmental Policy: A New Zealand Perspective. New Zealand Treasury. – Working Paper 03/02. March 2003. [Elektronnyy resurs] URL: https://ideas.repec.org/p/nzt/nztwps/03-02.html. Data obrashcheniya: 12/04/2016. s.47. 5. Posner, Richard A. The economics of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981. 6. Eurpean Patent Office. Scenarios for the future: how might IP regimes evolve by 2025? What global legitimacy might such regimes have? Europäisches Patentamt, 2007. S. 124. 7. Silva Denise Freitas. Pools de patentes: impactos no interesse público e interface com problemas de qualidade do sistema de patentes. Rio de Janeiro, 2012. Tese (Doutorado em Políticas Públicas, Estratégias e Desenvolvimento, ênfase em Inovação, Propriedade Intelectual e Desenvolvimento)-Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2012. 201 s. 8. Shapiro Carl. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1. MIT press, 2001. S. 119-150. 9. Grazhdanskiy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii (chast' chetvertaya) ot 18.12.2006 ¹ 230-FZ (red ot 12.03.2014) [Elektronnyy resurs] // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus». 10. Lemley, Mark. A. Ex ante versus ex post justifications for intellectual property // The University of Chicago law review, p. 129-149, 2004. URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=494424. Data obrashcheniya: 21/07/2015. 67 s. 11. Timm, Luciano Benetti, and Renato Caovilla. As Teorias Rivais sobre a Propriedade Intelectual no Brasil // Economic Analysis of Law Review 1.1 (2010): 49-77. 30 s. 12. Hettinger E. C. Justifying intellectual property // Philosophy & Public Affairs. – 1989. – S. 31-52. URL: http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Hettinger%20-%20Justifying%20Intellectual%20Property.pdf. Data obrashcheniya: 20/07/2015. 23 s. 13. Hardin Garrett. The Tragedy of the Commons // Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (Dec. 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745. Data obrashcheniya: 21/07/2015. 6 s. 14. Lima Humberto Alves de Vasconcelos. Justificativas Econômicas Utilitaristas para a Propriedade Intelectual. [Elektronnyy resurs] URL: https://www.academia.edu/3891085/Justificativas_Econ%C3%B4micas_Utilitaristas_para_a_Propriedade_Intelectual. Data obrashcheniya: 25/12/2015. 15. Hosie Spencer. Patent Trolls and the New Tort Reform: A Practitioner's Perspective // ISJLP, v. 4, p. 75, 2008. 13 s. 16. Mayergoyz, Anna. Lessons from Europe on How to Tame US Patent Trolls. Cornell Int'l LJ, v. 42, p. 241, 2009. |
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
