Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Protecting Innovation In Computer Software, Biotechnology, And Nanotechnology, Dennis S. Karjala
Protecting Innovation In Computer Software, Biotechnology, And Nanotechnology, Dennis S. Karjala
Dennis S Karjala
In the 1970=s, paying virtually no attention to the fundamental distinction between patent and copyright subject matter, Congress decided to protect computer programs as a Aliterary work@ under copyright law. As a result, a work of technology for the first time was consciously placed under the protective umbrella of a statute designed for art, music, and literature. While the vulnerability of computer program code to cheap and easy verbatim copying supplied a policy basis for Aanti-copy@ protection of code, courts often analogized these congressionally anointed Aliterary works@ to broadly protected novels and plays rather than thinly protected technical specifications and …
Why Intellectual Property Rights In Traditional Knowledge Cannot Contribute To Sustainable Development, Dennis S. Karjala
Why Intellectual Property Rights In Traditional Knowledge Cannot Contribute To Sustainable Development, Dennis S. Karjala
Dennis S Karjala
This paper makes a simple point: If sustainability (however defined) is the goal, intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge do not move us toward the achievement of that goal. The reason is that the only social policy justification for recognizing intellectual property rights at all is that they supposedly serve as an incentive to create socially desirable works of authorship and inventions. They are not and should serve as a reward for past achievements. In other words, outside of their usual incentive function of promoting new technology, intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge have no role to play in the …
Protecting Innovation In Computer Software, Biotechnology, And Nanotechnology, Dennis S. Karjala
Protecting Innovation In Computer Software, Biotechnology, And Nanotechnology, Dennis S. Karjala
Dennis S Karjala
In the 1970’s, paying virtually no attention to the fundamental distinction between patent and copyright subject matter, Congress decided to protect computer programs as a “literary work” under copyright law. As a result, a work of technology for the first time was consciously placed under the protective umbrella of a statute designed for art, music, and literature. While the vulnerability of computer program code to cheap and easy verbatim copying supplied a policy basis for “anti-copy” protection of code, courts often analogized these congressionally anointed “literary works” to broadly protected novels and plays rather than thinly protected technical specifications and …
Creativity And Copyright, Dennis S. Karjala
Creativity And Copyright, Dennis S. Karjala
Dennis S Karjala
Nearly everyone, from layperson to professional, thinks of copyright as the primary mode of legal protection for the intellectual fruits of creative artists and authors. While necessarily conceding that copyright has been extended in recent decades to cover a large number of highly mundane works, most scholars still see authorial “creativity” as the one element common to the vast array of works that now fall under the copyright umbrella. In the United States, this view has purportedly been elevated to constitutional status with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service, which stated in dictum that creativity …
Copyright And Creativity, Dennis S. Karjala
Copyright And Creativity, Dennis S. Karjala
Dennis S Karjala
This article challenges the commonly articulated position that copyright is designed for the protection of “creativity” and argues that the Supreme Court in the well known case of Feist v. Rural Telephone Service was wrong in appending, as a constitutional matter, a creativity requirement for copyright protection. The central thrust is that “creativity” is useless in making the basis intellectual property determination of whether a given work should be (a) protected under copyright, (b) protected under patent, or (c) not protected at all under intellectual property law, because all three categories routinely include creative works, even highly creative works, within …
Copyright And Creativity, Dennis S. Karjala
Copyright And Creativity, Dennis S. Karjala
Dennis S Karjala
This article challenges the commonly articulated position that copyright is designed for the protection of “creativity” and argues that the Supreme Court in the well known case of Feist v. Rural Telephone Service was wrong in appending, as a constitutional matter, a creativity requirement for copyright protection. The central thrust is that “creativity” is useless in making the basis intellectual property determination of whether a given work should be (a) protected under copyright, (b) protected under patent, or (c) not protected at all under intellectual property law, because all three categories routinely include creative works, even highly creative works, within …