英语论文网

知识产权法作业

引言

有效的知识产权保护的理论目的是奖励创意创新的同时促进商业利用的机会(戴维斯2007)。对商业公约的限制促进了自由市场消除障碍，是对保护创造力的必要性很合适的理由。的确，上面的声明中指出了知识资产的经济价值依赖于有效的法律保护。然而,一些批评人士质疑了知识产权保护的传统方法是否是精确的，以及既定的插槽是否足以适应技术变革所面临的挑战,特别是互联网的扩张的挑战。(克莱夫,特罗夫和贝内特 1998)。

互联网的范围已经随着电子商务业务的增长正在扩大,这突显出知识资产的经济价值与技术发展的密切关系。知识产权保护不得不因此在竞争挑战的权利和知识价值的保护之间做出平衡，而知识价值的保护是受到了通过技术变革而扩大其边界的挑战(班布里奇2007)。

intellectual property laws

INTRODUCTION

The theoretical purpose of effective intellectual property protection is to reward creative innovation whilst simultaneously promoting opportunity for commercial exploitation (Davis 2007). Restrictions on commercial convention promoting a free market without barrier are justified on grounds of necessity to protect creativity. Indeed the statement above points to preservation of economic value of intellectual assets being dependant on effective legal protection. However, some critics have questioned whether the traditional methods of intellectual property protection within rigid and established slots are sufficient to accommodate the challenges faced by technological change, in particular the proliferation of the Internet (Clive, Throne & Bennett 1998).

The Internet has widened the scope for business growth through e-commerce, which highlights the close relationship of economic value of intellectual assets with technological development. Intellectual property protection has to therefore strike a balance between competing rights and preservation of intellectual value which is challenged by the widening boundaries of exposure through technological change (Bainbridge 2007). Accordingly, as the above statement propounds, legal protection of intellectual assets should therefore “reflect the impact of economic and technological change”. This analysis will focus on how far the current system of intellectual property protection actually reflects economic and technological change in context of patents and trademark law.

PATENT LAW

Patent protection is rooted in the reward of novel innovation through the grant of a limited monopoly (Hollyoak & Torremans 2005). Section 125(1) of the Patents Act 1977 (PA) states that a patent shall (unless the context requires otherwise), be taken to be that specified in a claim of the specification as interpreted by the description and any drawings in the specification; and that this will determine the extent of patent protection. Accordingly, claims are of central importance to balancing protection of the patentee's rights vis-?-vis the need for certainty for any competitors wishing to enter a similar market to know that their conduct does not constitute patent infringement.

Hence the importance of correct interpretation, however the intrinsic nature of patents has rendered interpretation of patent claims inherently problematic fuelling academic debate (Pendleton 2004). The central issue that has exercised the courts is the appropriate method of interpretation, particularly on infringement claims (Macqueen, Waelde & Laurie 2007). Bainbridge's observations of the intricacies of patent infringement emphasise the fine balance that interpretation must address:

“Patent infringement is not measured in terms of whether a substantial part has been tak本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。