Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Copyright (3)
- Intellectual property (2)
- Preemption (2)
- Andean Pact (1)
- Author disfavored work (1)
-
- Contract (1)
- Derivative works (1)
- Design (1)
- Design defect litigation (1)
- Dissemination (1)
- Drug patents (1)
- Goodwill (1)
- International law (1)
- Latin America (1)
- Licensing (1)
- Motion pictures (1)
- Patent (1)
- Patent protection (1)
- Prisoner dilemma (1)
- Public good (1)
- Publicity (1)
- Standard (1)
- Technology (1)
- Torts (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. V. Ives Laboratories, Inc., Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. V. Ives Laboratories, Inc., Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Supreme Court Case Files
No abstract provided.
Notes On Preemption And Misc - 1981, Wendy J. Gordon
Notes On Preemption And Misc - 1981, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
As one of my students indirectly commented (the Herzog midterm?), section 301 PURPORTS to be exclusive. "Nothing in this title shall annul state rights etc." One student, Chris Binnig, indirectly suggested a way out of the exclusivity problem, other than the common sense of Abrams, namely that 301 talks about the general scope of copyright- something which may require some policy inquiry.
The Transfer Of Technology To Latin America, Gabriel M. Wilner
The Transfer Of Technology To Latin America, Gabriel M. Wilner
Scholarly Works
The transfer of technology to Latin America has taken place through both the licensing process and direct investments by foreign enterprises that are often transnational corporations. National law has concerned itself first with the creation of rights in technological knowledge and the protection of these rights by law. The regulation of these rights as set out in contractual relationships and the regulation of direct investment, particularly the technological component thereof, were dealt with thereafter. Other matters such as the repatriation of profits (exchange control), customs controls, and various taxes have also become a part of the national regulatory scene today. …
Publicity Never Dies; It Just Fades Away: The Right Of Publicity And Federal Preemption, David E. Shipley
Publicity Never Dies; It Just Fades Away: The Right Of Publicity And Federal Preemption, David E. Shipley
Scholarly Works
This Article explores the nature and developing boundaries of the state law doctrine of the right of publicity. It investigates the doctrine's conflict with the 1976 Copyright Act and federal policy concerning intellectual property, and concludes that the 1976 Act precludes publicity actions aimed at protecting certain types of publicity interests. In other situations, the overriding objectives of federal copyright policy preempt the right to the extent that the right defined as perpetual; moreover, such protection in perpetuity violates the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution. Many types of publicity actions, however, should escape preemption either because the asserted rights …
When Works Collide: Derivative Motion Pictures, Underlying Rights, And The Public Interest, Peter Jaszi
When Works Collide: Derivative Motion Pictures, Underlying Rights, And The Public Interest, Peter Jaszi
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
Dramatic motion pictures' are prime examples of what copyright law terms "derivative works' because they are almost invariably based upon one or more prior works. Derivative works are so-called because they borrow from original works whether or not those works are in the same media. The universe of derivative works is broad. It encompasses everything from stuffed toys representing cartoon characters to translations of serious-minded literature.
The Uncertain Search For A Design Defect Standard, Steven A.G. Davison
The Uncertain Search For A Design Defect Standard, Steven A.G. Davison
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Notes On Misc Re Contract - 1981, Wendy J. Gordon
Notes On Misc Re Contract - 1981, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
Once there is a patent, voluntarily-accepted user restrictions may not be enforceable. Or, at least, an attempt on the patentee's part to condition access of certain types on obtaining such restrictions, may be impossible. See 30 BNA PTCJ 104 (5/30/85)(Restrictions voided on availability of deposited yeast strains.) Filed under Yeast case.