<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NISCAIR Online Periodicals Repository Community: JIPR Vol.17 [2012]</title>
    <link>http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/13376</link>
    <description />
    <textInput>
      <title>The Community's search engine</title>
      <description>Search the Channel</description>
      <name>search</name>
      <link>http://nopr.niscair.res.in/simple-search</link>
    </textInput>
    <item>
      <title>Patent Trolls: Legit Enforcers or Harrassers?</title>
      <link>http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/15026</link>
      <description>Title: Patent Trolls: Legit Enforcers or Harrassers?
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Yang, Deli
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Since the turn&#xD;
of the century, ‘patent trolls’ have emerged as one of the most topical debates&#xD;
among patent &#xD;
holders. However, nearly ten years later, stakeholders are still unable to&#xD;
reach consensus as to the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ of ‘trolls’. Against this&#xD;
backdrop, our debates open with the landmark case of Blackberry between RIM and&#xD;
NTP to &#xD;
provide thoughts as to whether NTP is considered a troll. Then there is a focus&#xD;
on some conceptual issues surrounding ‘patent trolls’, and its origin citing&#xD;
relevant mini-cases. This column also lays out the fierce arguments for or&#xD;
against patent trolling among scholars and practitioners and reasoning for the&#xD;
trolling existence. The debates end with some reflections on the implication of&#xD;
patent trolling phenomenon on patent systems, particularly the US structure, subsequently,&#xD;
proposing some relevant solutions.
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Page(s): 573-577</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Has an Agreement been Reached on a Unitary Patent and a Unified Patent Court for Europe, and if so, what is it?</title>
      <link>http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/15025</link>
      <description>Title: Has an Agreement been Reached on a Unitary Patent and a Unified Patent Court for Europe, and if so, what is it?
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Cook, Trevor
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: At the end of June 2012 the European&#xD;
Council, consisting on this occasion of the heads of government of EU Member&#xD;
States, agreed on what has been presented as the final step on the long road to&#xD;
a unitary European patent and a court system in which it would be enforced.&#xD;
Although this agreement brings us closer than ever before to a unitary European&#xD;
patent and a single European patent court, the lessons of history are that this&#xD;
will not be the final stage in the process. Several hurdles still remain to be&#xD;
overcome before the new system is up and running.
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Page(s): 568-572</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Berne Convention and the Iranian Law: Negative Implications of the Differences in the Scope of Application</title>
      <link>http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/15024</link>
      <description>Title: The Berne Convention and the Iranian Law: Negative Implications of the Differences in the Scope of Application
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Manghutay, Ahad Gholizadeh
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: This paper compares Article 3 of the Berne&#xD;
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886 with the&#xD;
corresponding Iranian provision. The Convention has three criteria for granting&#xD;
protection, i.e. nationality, habitual residence and first publication of the&#xD;
work in the Berne Union countries; whereas the Iranian law has only one&#xD;
criterion, i.e. the first publication of the work in Iran. Further, according to the&#xD;
Convention, the performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic&#xD;
or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by&#xD;
wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works and the exhibition of a&#xD;
work of art shall not constitute publication. These exceptions and their&#xD;
origins in the Convention in conjunction with the Iranian criterion leads to a&#xD;
total or partial gap of protection for Iranian authors or artists taking their&#xD;
works for first publication in the Berne Union countries.
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Page(s): 559-567</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Striking a Balance between Intellectual Property Protection of  Traditional Knowledge, Cultural Preservation and Access to Knowledge</title>
      <link>http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/15023</link>
      <description>Title: Striking a Balance between Intellectual Property Protection of  Traditional Knowledge, Cultural Preservation and Access to Knowledge
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Andanda, Pamela
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Protecting traditional knowledge through the&#xD;
intellectual property (IP) regime performs the important function of preventing&#xD;
third parties from using the knowledge inappropriately. However, apart from&#xD;
being inaccessible to most holders of traditional knowledge (TK), the regime&#xD;
does not necessarily guarantee the preservation or safeguarding the knowledge.&#xD;
These concerns call for a consideration of avenues that can be used,&#xD;
particularly at policy making level, to strike a balance between protecting TK&#xD;
through the IP regime and ensuring cultural preservation and access to&#xD;
knowledge. This paper highlights the main challenges that are involved in&#xD;
striking this balance. Apart from utilizing available literature on these challenges,&#xD;
the main suggestions from the World Intellectual Property Organization,&#xD;
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources,&#xD;
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (the IGC) are analysed with a view to&#xD;
proposing directions that can help improve the manner in which TK is protected&#xD;
through IP.
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Page(s): 547-558</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

