48 Literature Review

Gives historical perspective for legislation France, Germany and Spain. Subjects which copyright is based. Discusses and outlines the recent Supreme Court include patents, copyright, designs, utility the influence of modern information decision and the case law prior to CAFC. models, moral rights and trade marks, technologies on an evolving copyright Details rift with the PTO over scope passing off, performing rights, plant of what constitutes patentable .subject varieties and trade secrets.

system. Do we need copyright? What would be the effects of abolishing it?

matter. As an economy moves from New ideas are given on which a new manufacturing to service-based growth, International intellectual property con- law could be developed. so the need for watent vrotection of ventions: a tabular guide. C. Burke, computer program; will in&ease

Patent protection in UK and Europe for computer program related inventions. F. Blakemore, Patent ,World, Issue 77, 21-25 (1995). Traces development of case law and legislation in the UK and Eurdpe to sh& the relatively broad boundaries in which such inventions can be protected. Despite the specific ban on patenting computer programs, the sup,ply of such programs may constitute an infringement.

“Us pat. ____.” marks the spot (Part 1) [patent marking].. K., Adamo, Patent World, tissue 77, 26-33 (1995). In US, products which are the subject of patents must be marked as such. The patent marking statutes’ are discussed together with some case law.

Patenting scoue in biotecbnolotiv. J.., H.

European Intellectual Property Review 11 (lo), 477-480 (1995). Covers agreements such as the Paris Convention, Berne Convention, Madrid Agreement, etc. All countries in the world are listed with an indication of the conventions operated.

Trade marks: intellectual property pro- tection on the information superhighway. D. M. Kelly, K. Kumor, European Intellectual Property Review 17 (10) (1995). Gives a description of the Internet and looks at such things as domain names, e-mail names with regard to registration. Litigation has already started with regard to domain names. Probably need to create an Internet task force to look at_ the problems. Is it, possible,to register such names if they are not used as trade marks or service marks? As the Internet grows, so will the intellectual property issues.

The protection of intellectual property for local and indigenous communities. E. da Costa e Silva, European Intellectual Property Review 17 (ll), 546549 (1995). Knowledge. innovation. and vractices are relevant to the sustainable use of biodiversitv. Traditional knowledee and crafts of’ indigenous peoples have commercial value; should this be pro- tected? And if so, are existing laws and courts sufficient? This has still to be tested.

Decolonising Hong Kong’s intellectual property laws. J. O’Connell, European Intellectual Property Review 17 (ll), 555-557 (1995). Outlines Hong Kong’s current intellectual property law regime and looks at what is likely to replace it. There is a need to harmonise with China who will not want to be reliant on old colonial laws. Additionally, current legislation is out of date.

Barton,-ZlC*26 (5), 605-618:. (1995). Copyright harmonisation in the European v Reviews some of the verv broad vatents Union and North America. Y. Gendreau, Patents nreview and uatent fast-alert. in the biotechnology area that ark being issued in the US and discusses the

Eut’opean Intellectual Property Review 17 (lo), 488496 (1995). With increasing

E. N. Cheesman, Da&base (USA), 18

doctrines which underlie this breadth of awareness of the role that copyright (4) 65-71 (1995). The article takes

legislation plays in achieving trade a ‘look at two user-friendly patent

disclosure. Selected patents are examined current awareness products designed for claiming both products and “research liberalisation we need to have har- tools”. The author concludes that some monisation. Regional copyright laws

the pharmaceutical industry, and their roles in comwanv wroduct lines. Patents

of these patents may be a barrier to future innovation and suggests ways in which their scope could be limited without destroying the- incentive for innovation. Mainly concerned with US practice.

Cost of patenting in Europe, EPO, II% 26 (S), 650-667 (1995). Details w$at European industry is paying for patent orotection. The overall costs are broken- down into those arising from in-house vrocedures and those relating to patent’ offices charges and renew; fees. Compares costs in Europe with those. in/ USA and Jawan. Concludes that the costs in Europe are relatively high and that these need to be reduced, especially for SMEs. Costs could be cut in the areas of translation, attorney charges and designation fees. The paper contains many tables and charts.

European parliament must think again about biotechnological protection. W. Rothley, ZZC 26 (5), 668-670 (1995). There is a need for a clear and consistent European legal framework to ensure that biotechnological products are compatible with the wishes of society and the protection ofthe environment whilst also protecting inventors ideas. The wholesale reiection of the orovosed Directive on the legal protectcon *of biotechnological inventions has not helped anyone. Biotechnological developments will con- tinue using existing legislation as far as possible or will .be carried out in secret within the Eurowean Union or outside.

can prove to be obstacies- in the implementation of the GATT-Trips

preview is a-patent fast-alerting service vroduced bv Derwent Information Ltd.

(trade-related aspects of intellectual investigational drugs patent fast-alert property rights) agreement. Compares the dynamics of copyright harmonisation

is also a patent &t-alerting service, but oroduced bv Current Drugs Ltd.

in the US and Europe. Covers such matters as home copying, resale rights,

Both’produce patent summaries covering

sound and audiovisual recordings. Looks pharmaceutical patents and patent appli- cations from a limited number of

at the role” of the European Court of,Justice.

countries or patent offices in a short time frame.

Choice of forum in patent disputes. J. N. Adams, European Intellectual Property Review 17 (lo), 497-502 (1995). Reviews the rules under which forum shopping in Europe takes place in patent disputes and looks at some of the factors which might influence the choice of forum. Statistics are presented on the performance and use of the UK’s domestic tribunals. Factors such as representation, speed of litigation and imbalance of economic strength between parties may influence choice.

The green paper on copyright and related rights in the information society. T. Hoeren, European Intellectual Property Review 17 (lo), 511-514 (1995). This green paper is very sophisticated and balanced. Some aspects still need further consideration, especially transmission on- line which can be regarded as repro- duction, distribution, or communication to the public. Discusses such matters as p&ate copying, exhaustion, repro- ductibn rights, etc.

Inventing around your competitor’s patents. St. Glazier, Managing Intel- lectual Property, Issue 51, 10-14 (1995). Invention itself is not the business goal of most valuable patents. Instead, most patents are obtained for the proper business purpose of keeping competitors away from the market for a new product or service. That is, most patents are not technology driven, and they are not the result of great new technology. Instead, most patents are product driven. Therefore, the providers adopt a strategy to fight the competition that thev know will -develop. If* possible, the strategy includes intellectual wrowertv strategies, which in turn include patent strategies. The patents are then developed to protect the product or service in the market. The article gives eleven basic rules to invention-on-demand, aimed at inventing around a competitor’s patent, or aimed at developing a new patentable product that leapfrogs the marketplace.

Trends in patent law: defining the limits. J. A. Kolasch. M. R. Buscher. Chemtech

1

European intellectual -property rights: Reconceptualising copyright in the digital era. A. Christie, European Intellectual

25 (4), 4&47’(1995). The protection of

a tabular ‘guide. C. Burke, European Property Review 17 (11) 522-530 (1995). intellectual property, especially patents,

Intellectual Property Review 17 (lo), It may be necessary to review and has undergone a great change over the

466476 (1995). Covers Britain, Belgium, alter some of the fundamentals on past 20 years. In the past, patentees had a difficult time maintaining the