| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
097010
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The enactment of anti-circumvention laws in Canada appears imminent and all but inevitable. This article considers the threats posed by technical protection measures and anti-circumvention laws to fair dealing and other lawful uses of protected works, and so to the copyright system more generally. The argument adopts, as its normative starting point, the principle of "prescriptive parallelism" according to which the traditional copyright balance of rights and exceptions should be preserved in the digital environment. Looking to the experiences of other nations, the article explores potential routes towards reconciling technical protection measures with copyright limits, and maintaining a substantive continuity in Canada's copyright balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
097011
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The potential of human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research could prove to provide immense therapeutic value for illnesses not curable under currently existing therapies. However, human ESC research is controversial as it touches the fundamental value of human life. Taiwan has been aiming to become the biotech hub of Asia-Pacific and is becoming a major player in human ESC research. Whether or not the research results from human ESC are patentable could have a profound impact on the progress in this field. In this article, the science of human ESC research is clarified and tested against the existing murky Taiwan patent standards. In particular, this article distinguishes between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning techniques, asks questions about the patentability of totipotent human ESCs and explores the meaning of the word embryo. This article draws comparison with the European practice on ethical standards and concludes that patenting human ESC research might not be so controversial, but Taiwan has to make its patent law clearer in this field to fulfill the country's intended goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
097012
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Intellectual property (IP) is a reward and incentive market-driven mechanism for fostering innovation and creativity. The underlying, but disputed, assumption to this logic is that without IP, the wheel of innovation and inventiveness may grind to a halt or spin at a lower and unhelpful pace. This conventional justification of IP enjoys, perhaps, greater empirical credibility with the patent regime than with other regimes. Despite the inconclusive role of patents as a stimulant for research and development (R&D), special exception is given to patent's positive impact on innovation and inventiveness in the pharmaceutical sector. This article focuses on that sector and links the palpable disconnect between the current pharmaceutical R&D agenda and global public health crises, especially access to drugs for needy populations, to a flaw in the reward and incentive theory of the patent system. It proposes a creative access model to the benefits of pharmaceutical research by pointing in the direction of a global treaty to empower and institutionalize private-public partnerships in health care provisions. Such a regime would restore balance in the global IP system that presently undermines the public-regarding considerations in IP jurisprudence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
097013
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article theoretically examines the potential effect of product patent on the availability of an essential drug in developing countries like India. Previous studies have indicated the possibility of a product patent making a drug unavailable in a developing nation. This has been shown under the uniform pricing policy adopted by the multinational company (MNC) that produces the drug. Allowing for price discrimination and comparing it with the above situation, we have argued that the problem of non-availability of a patented drug is, indeed, much less serious. However, successful price discrimination is not possible when markets are not perfectly segmented and "parallel trade" (a form of arbitrage) by the distributors exists. Our model incorporates such a possibility and establishes that even in the presence of parallel trade, the MNC can earn higher profits by supplying the drug to both the developed and the developing nations than by confining itself to the markets of developed countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|