Browsing by Subject "Intellectual property law"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    3D Printing Law
    (2016) Hook, Sara Anne
    Whoever you represent in relation to 3D printing, you need to ensure that you're in-the-know regarding the latest rules and regulations. In this fast paced legal program, you'll maximize insight and gain cutting-edge pointers for advising your clients on this new area of law. Dig deep into the science, technology, rules and requirements regulating 3D printing today - AND identify key business, legal, and technical issues that will oversee this evolving landscape now, and in the near future. Review 3D printing laws and get the latest legislative updates, rules and regulations. Identify top liability traps, legal landmines and mistakes. Review intellectual property rights and issues. Analyze 3D printing taxation considerations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    But I'm a Creator/Inventor/Coding, Not a Lawyer: What to Know about Intellectual Property Law, Contracts and More
    (2016-10-21) Hook, Sara Anne; Faklaris, Cori
    What you don’t know can hurt you. This mini-session will offer tips to minimize the chance of being taken advantage of in the workplace or when sharing or creating work with others. Topics include contracts, licensing and intellectual property law (patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and branding), along with special issues related to freelancing and hackathons. Learn how to use the law to protect yourself, your work and your reputation and avoid infringing on the rights of others. Because the law related to technology is changing so fast, even a more seasoned professional will find the session to be helpful. Participants will gain confidence in and knowledge of how to deal with situations involving legal issues. They will know what to look for when asked to sign a variety of documents covering their creative work. They will also be able to discern when to contact a lawyer and what kinds of credentials to look for when selecting a lawyer.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Hot Topics in Informatics and Intellectual Property Law
    (2016-02-11) Hook, Sara Anne
    What is Informatics? What is Legal Informatics? Areas of Law at the Intersection of Law and Technology: Electronic Discovery Cybersecurity 3D Printing New and Emerging Technologies for the Practice of Law Challenges with New and Emerging Technologies: Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) Law Firm Marketing and Advertising Intellectual Property Law Issues The Future of Law Practice and How Informatics Can Help
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Intellectual Property and the Right to Science and Culture: the Reports of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights
    (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2016) Shaver, Lea
    In recent years, the right to science and culture has emerged as a leading conceptual framework for reconciling intellectual property law with human rights. The textual foundation of the right to science and culture dates back to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 27 of the UDHR states: “(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” Despite clear grounding in the international human rights documents, this particular provision has long suffered from obscurity and confusion about its meaning. Fortunately, a new wave of scholarship provides a more solid conceptual foundation for the right to science and culture. This new literature understands the right to science and culture as having two complementary aspects. The “protection” aspect of the right calls for attention to the moral and material interests of authors and scientists. The “participation” aspect emphasises inclusion in the processes of creative expression and scientific discovery, as well as access to the fruits of cultural and technological creativity. This dual nature allows the right to science and culture to play a unique role in intellectual property debates. The encounter between the international human rights and IP regimes had previously been framed strongly in terms of conflict between IP protection and human rights demands. In contrast, the right to science and culture frames both protection and access in human rights terms. It thus points towards solutions in the nature of integrating and reconciling intellectual property and human rights principles, rather than asserting the primacy of one set of interests over the other. These ideas have now found acceptance within the United Nations system. The UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, first offered a detailed and authoritative interpretation of the right to science in a May 2012 report adopted by the UN Human Rights Council (A/HRC/20/26). Among many themes, this report considered the role of intellectual property in shaping enjoyment of the right to science. Between 2013 and 2015, the Special Rapporteur decided to focus even further on understanding and explaining the relationship between intellectual property and the right to science and culture. This subsequent work ultimately resulted in two major reports by the Special Rapporteur, one focused on copyright (A/HRC/28/57) and the other on patents (A/70/279). This short article examines the origins, development, and conclusions of these two reports. I had the privilege to serve as a consultant to the Special Rapporteur in this process, producing drafts, participating in all meetings organised to solicit expert feedback on the drafts, and collaborating on their finalisation. My aim here is to provide an accessible overview of the substance of these reports, as well as to take the reader “behind the scenes” to appreciate some of the challenges and difficulties encountered during the process to provide insight on the choices ultimately made.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Law, Technology and Civic Entrepreneurship
    (2017-03-10) Hook, Sara Anne
    My research centers on the interrelationship between law and technology, both how the law is applied to new technology and the impact that technology has on the law and its practice. During the past year, I published and/or presented on such diverse topics as the extent to which copyright, patent, and trademark law protects websites, apps and GUIs, legal and ethical issues related to social media, and legal considerations for 3D printing. Through my national professional organization, I have advocated for modernization of the U.S. Copyright Office and for an alternative dispute process for small copyright infringement claims. The emerging area of law known as electronic discovery (e-discovery) has been a particular focus of mine for the last decade. E-discovery deals with how to handle digital evidence in all formats before and throughout litigation and sits perfectly at the intersection of law, technology and data science. My recent activities have included efforts to develop a robust and full-featured predictive coding system that will streamline the e-discovery process so that it is less time-consuming and costly and reduces the potential for errors. A passion of mine is microfinance/women’s empowerment, inspired by the work of Muhammad Yunus and my experiences teaching an entrepreneurship course here at SoIC every year since 2003. For six years, I was the leader of a successful microfinance/women’s empowerment project in Mexico and I am now completing a second year of being a project leader and “champion” for microfinance/women’s empowerment projects in Sierra Leone. As part of my efforts, I have been working with graduate students to redesign the website and social media/communications approach for the microfinance organization that oversees and administers these projects.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Local Language Limitations: Copyright and the Commons
    (Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, 2014-08) Shaver, Lea
    Copyright’s system of financial incentives is working well to encourage publishing in some languages, such as English and French, but not in all languages. The law should recognize this reality, and adjust the rules of copyright protection accordingly, creating different regulatory structures for different languages. Smaller language markets will require different regulatory structures to unleash their publishing potential—particularly languages where most readers are very poor. This article suggests that this tailoring can be achieved through the use of “local language limitations” to copyright protection. According to this proposal, a national legislature identifies one or more specific local languages as underserved by the publishing industry. It then enacts a statutory limitation on copyright protection, which creates a bounded commons for material in those languages. By enabling permissionless translation, adaptation, and reproduction, local language limitations will drive down the cost of works in those languages to prices that are affordable to the very poor, while creating legal room for lower-cost translation and distribution models. This approach has four novel virtues. First, it takes advantage of language barriers to promote access for disadvantaged readers, without reducing the protection afforded to authors and publishers in more profitable markets. Second, it illustrates the potential of innovative, syncretic approaches to IP protection, beyond the “one size fits all” model. Third, it promotes reform of copyright law at the domestic level, rather than at the international level, where developing countries have power. Fourth, it enables “copyright experimentalism,” making it possible for researchers and policy makers to draw empirical lessons about the impact of copyright law on creativity based on real-world experience. The Article first introduces the problem of neglected languages of publishing and explains why there are good reasons to believe that loosening copyright rules will, in certain contexts, result in greater creativity as well as broader access. It then explains the proposal for local language limitations, exploring variations on the approach, identifying potential pitfalls, responding to objections, and recommending best practices. Finally, the article discusses the compatibility of local language limitations with international treaties on intellectual property and human rights.