The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property

The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property

Dan Hunter

Language: English

Pages: 257


Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub

In The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, prominent intellectual property scholar Dan Hunter provides a precise, engaging overview and careful analysis of current laws of intellectual property and their history. Hunter first focuses on the central areas of intellectual property law, including copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets. He then explores the politics, economics, psychology and rhetoric of possession and control that influence and interact with this area of law.

Hunter explains how intellectual property has contributed greatly to the innovations that we, as a society, need in our modern lives. He also describes ways in which the expansion of intellectual property can reduce innovation by stopping others from implementing great ideas or producing new work. Hunter helps readers think about modern intellectual property in a way that allows them to see how innovation and progress are linked to intellectual property law, and how small changes in the laws have had significant consequences for our society. Ultimately, Hunter helps readers form their own views about the various areas within the arena of intellectual property.

The Historical Foundations of the Law Relating to Trade-Marks (Columbia Legal Studies, Volume 1)

Introduction to the Law for Paralegals (McGraw-Hill Paralegal Titles)

Lives of the Law: Selected Essays and Speeches: 2000-2010

Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal

America's Constitution: A Biography

Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society



















Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1683 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010). 68. The issue is confined to those types of plants/seeds that are covered by utility patents. Plant patents under §§ 161–164 only cover asexual reproduction (budding, grafting, etc), and the rights granted under the Plant Variety Protection Act are limited by the “brown-bag” exemption in 7 U.S.C. § 2543 that allows farmers to resow saved crop seed that is produced on their farms. 69. This argument

the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, an injunction is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be harmed by a permanent injunction. Although the holding applies only to permanent injunctions, and only those in relation to patent infringement, the decision has influenced the granting of preliminary injunctions and the grant of injunctions in other types of intellectual property cases. It seems that these days district and circuit courts of appeal are more

is, perhaps, the least visible area of intellectual property law. Cases typically involve commercial disputes between two businesses, and, because of the sensitive and secret nature of the idea in dispute, courts often hear evidence in closed session. Recall what we discussed in the first chapter about how all of intellectual property during the Modern Period was of little interest to the public because it was out of sight, and appeared only to be about allocation of interests by two private

nonutilitarian variation over prior designs for similar types of articles. The law also has heightened pleading standards and a very short period of protection—three years. Proponents argue that this will stop the unrestrained copying of fashion designs by “knockoff” outlets such as Forever 21 or Zara, actions which many find moral repugnant. Opponents argue that the fashion industry is notably innovative without this additional protection and suggest that this reform will just create a

has. 44. A patent agent is a person qualified to practice before the PTO, meaning the person must have the requisite scientific or engineering training and have passed the patent bar. A patent attorney is a patent agent who is also legally admitted. 45. Dennis Crouch, How Long Do I Wait for a First Office Action, PATENLY-O, May 3, 2010, 46. 517 U.S. 370 (1996). 47. Cybor Corp. v. FAS

Download sample