This dissertation explores the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as they relate to publicly financed research and development (R&D) outcomes. Kenya has the opportunity to learn from the experience of the United States of America (US) and South Africa (SA). The US enacted the Bayh-Dole Act (BDA) in 1980 while SA enacted the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Act (IPR-PFRD Act) in 2008. The main research question is whether Kenya ought to enact similar legislation. In addition to the main research question, there are six other secondary questions. The first and second research questions are explored in chapter two which discuss the enactment of the BDA and its impacts in the US. The dissertation uses literature to look at the legislative journey of the BDA which upon its enactment created a uniform approach towards the protection of federally funded R&D outcomes. Literature also points to the fact that years later, the BDA still invokes debates across the US and beyond. There is no consensus on the impact of the BDA. Despite the lack of a clear stand point on its exact effect, several countries have emulated the US and still continue to do so. The third and fourth research questions discussed in chapter three adopts a similar approach but focuses on SA, the first African country to emulate the BDA. The IPR-PFRD Act has been operational since 2010. The limited period of its existence means that the literature available is work in progress. Despite that, SA has had some impacts experienced so far across its leading universities in the form of; realignment of IP policies to comply with the provisions of the IPR-PFRD Act as well as discussions among researchers, innovators and the National Intellectual Property Management Office (NIPMO). There is evidence that Universities, industries and NIPMO are trying to implement the spirit as well as the letter of the IPR-PFRD Act. The fifth and sixth questions discussed in chapter four turn to Kenya. The dissertation tries to establish whether there is a demand in Kenya for legislation that regulates publicly financed R&D outcomes. It proposes that the time is not yet ripe for Kenya to have a BDA model, but that Kenya needs to first develop sustainable capacity and infrastructure to support the protection, management and ownership of IP. Chapter five concludes that Kenya can learn invaluable lessons from the US and SA when it considers regulating publicly-financed R&D outcomes.

We live in an economy where intangible assets have become valuable commodities. These intangible assets are created by individuals, or groups who apply their creativity and ingenuity appropriately. The result of such ingenuity and creativity is product that is deemed to be so important that it qualifies for legal protection. Such assets will benefit any individual, business, company or enterprise that has the ownership right or title and the ability to commercially exploit the asset. Therefore, there is an interest in the ownership and control of the assets as well as the manner in which legal entitlement is devised by the law. Where, the asset is an invention that is patentable the law has granted the employer ownership. This thesis considers how the law balances the right it gives to the employer and the compensation it grants the inventive employee. The thesis seeks to ensure that an employee-inventor has been adequately compensated for his ingenuity and for producing the fruits of his creativity.

My minor dissertation in Intellectual Property Law is about Copyright Law and infringement in relation to mobile television, Internet Protocol Television and Internet Television as well as the online services of downloading and streaming. The thesis will contain of five chapters. The first chapter will give an overview of the nature of the problem, the structure and methodology as well as the named media and their technological background. The second chapter will then introduce the relevant technologies, institutions in charge and the general legislation and will serve as background information for the main issues of copyright. Further I will discuss operational licenses, which have to be distinguished from content licenses in the copyright correlation. Chapter three will be the focus of my thesis and will deal with copyright in connection with ITV, IPTV and mobile-TV. It will inter alia portray the issues of infringement, liability, exceptions and limitations in the named context as well as the proposed Copyright Amendment Bill 2015. The fourth chapter will then commence by discussing the German copyright in the relevant aspects of the topic. It will pay special attention to the legal dichotomy of online-streaming. Chapter five will summarise and conclude the relevant findings of the copyright issues. It will further give prospect to the legal dichotomy in South Africa and how to handle it, since there is no applicable local jurisdiction yet. Hence it will go beyond the comparisons by looking ahead for the developing online media and the necessity of law to properly adapt to it.

No description available.

No / The open door policy since 1979 highlights the globalisation process in China. Since then, all walks of life, and businesses have been affected by globalisation. One clear sign of the global impact is China¿s effort to move gradually from a country ruled by government to that ruled by law although this process is slow moving, especially from an enforcement perspective. This paper intends to study the change of intellectual property (IP) environment in China under the global trend of legal harmony. Objectively, this paper discusses and analyses four related topics¿the legal system in China, the rapidly expanding scope of IP, the evidential data and analysis of the IP activities, and finally, two cases highlighting practical aspects of IP.

Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME) firms operate under various laws and policies on intellectual property rights (IPRs), innovation and technology. International analyses and rankings rate the CSME countries' performance as poor in comparison with others at the same level of economic development. This results in negative impacts on the economic and social welfare of their communities. A paucity of data existed concerning the effects of policies on decisions by local firms to engage in innovation and technology activities. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the effects of policies on IPRs, innovation, and technology on firms in select CSME countries. The questions addressed how IPRs policies affect the choices of innovation activities by firms, and what differences in IPRs policies in Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, influence the decisions by firms to invest in innovation and technologies. Landes and Posner's utilitarian exposition that IPRs should be based on the maximization of social welfare provided the theoretical framework for the study. Various policy papers, firm studies, study reports, and legislation from government and international agencies were analyzed using 4 levels of inductive coding. Findings included a lack of clear IPRs policies, high levels of innovation where policies were weakest, and a general reluctance by firms in the countries to invest in innovation and technology. Further study of the sociological and cultural aspects of IPRs policies, and how they affect innovation in CSME is recommended. This study can help effect social change in the CSME by informing policies that maximize social welfare through innovation and technology.

No description available.

In recent times companies have been forced to become more and more digitalized in order to spread company information and facilitate communication with clients, con-sumers and their own employees. The knowledge to integrate software and launch the company into the digital world cannot always be found within the company itself. Therefore, companies often resort to employing consulting companies to enable this for them. Because of copyright, the software created does not solely belong to the employing company – the intellectual property rights automatically stay with the con-sulting company that made it. When the consulting company omits details concerning intellectual property rights in the employment contract, the standard rules in the Swedish Copyright Act and the international directives kick in and give the consulting company the full rights to the programmes that it has created – with a few exceptions. The employing company may only alter the software in order to ensure that it is fully compatible with the al-ready existing programmes it utilises and the operating system it uses. Even reverse engineering is permitted as long as the information gathered is only used for ensuring the compatibility. Information in databases is protected as it is creatively arranged in systematic or me-thodical way by the one that has made a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the information. The substantial investment depends on the one that has taken the risk of investing in the particular database. As databases are rarely made by consulting companies on behalf of a client, and the rules are sufficiently clear as to whom the ownership of the database is, there are few questions concerning data-bases. Because of this, the assumption would be that the current legislation is work-ing properly. One of the more troubling issues in regards to copyright is that even though reverse engineering is illegal, proving infringement comes down to evidence and what parts that are quantitatively or qualitatively significant in the original programme. Cur-rently, there is no registry of copyrighted works in Sweden and so there is not telling who made the programme first if the work happens to spread. The creators of soft-ware have expressed concern and allegedly lobbied for a new directive giving more protection to the original creators. The culmination of the lobby work was the Soft-ware Patent Directive, which proposed that software should be seen as an invention and therefore eligible for patenting. However, there were many reasons as to why software should not be patented, most notably increased cost and the years of wait-ing for the patent grant, and the directive was rejected. Still, the concerns persisted and no greater protection has been given to the creators of software.

In December of 2010, Costco v. Omega came down from the Supreme Court. The Switzerland-based watchmaker Omega sold Seamaster Collection watches, which were affixed with its copyrighted logo, in the United States as well as in foreign markets. Omega priced watches in the United States market higher than elsewhere. Costco obtained Omega’s watches from a third party that had purchased the watches abroad, then sold them at its membership warehouses for cheaper prices than authorized Omega dealers in the United States. Consequently, Omega sued Costco for copyright infringement. Costco pursued a defense based on the first sale doctrine in response. While from a legal perspective the case was a copyright dispute, this categorization does not make sense from an economic view. Rather, the application of economic models reveals that the core issue in Costco centers about price discrimination, not copyright. This thesis uses a law and economics framework to analyze the facts of and the decision in Costco to determine whether the outcome was welfare maximizing and to assess the implications that the case will have on copyright law in the future.

<p>In recent times companies have been forced to become more and more digitalized in order to spread company information and facilitate communication with clients, con-sumers and their own employees. The knowledge to integrate software and launch the company into the digital world cannot always be found within the company itself. Therefore, companies often resort to employing consulting companies to enable this for them. Because of copyright, the software created does not solely belong to the employing company – the intellectual property rights automatically stay with the con-sulting company that made it.</p><p>When the consulting company omits details concerning intellectual property rights in the employment contract, the standard rules in the Swedish Copyright Act and the international directives kick in and give the consulting company the full rights to the programmes that it has created – with a few exceptions. The employing company may only alter the software in order to ensure that it is fully compatible with the al-ready existing programmes it utilises and the operating system it uses. Even reverse engineering is permitted as long as the information gathered is only used for ensuring the compatibility.</p><p>Information in databases is protected as it is creatively arranged in systematic or me-thodical way by the one that has made a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the information. The substantial investment depends on the one that has taken the risk of investing in the particular database. As databases are rarely made by consulting companies on behalf of a client, and the rules are sufficiently clear as to whom the ownership of the database is, there are few questions concerning data-bases. Because of this, the assumption would be that the current legislation is work-ing properly.</p><p>One of the more troubling issues in regards to copyright is that even though reverse engineering is illegal, proving infringement comes down to evidence and what parts that are quantitatively or qualitatively significant in the original programme. Cur-rently, there is no registry of copyrighted works in Sweden and so there is not telling who made the programme first if the work happens to spread. The creators of soft-ware have expressed concern and allegedly lobbied for a new directive giving more protection to the original creators. The culmination of the lobby work was the Soft-ware Patent Directive, which proposed that software should be seen as an invention and therefore eligible for patenting. However, there were many reasons as to why software should not be patented, most notably increased cost and the years of wait-ing for the patent grant, and the directive was rejected. Still, the concerns persisted and no greater protection has been given to the creators of software.</p>