Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 26 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 16)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 35)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Propiedad Intelectual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi     Open Access  
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.158
Number of Followers: 26  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 2190-3387
Published by Digital Peer Publishing Homepage  [2 journals]
  • Data-Related Aspects of the Digital Content Directive

    • Authors: Metzger; Axel, Efroni, Zohar, Mischau, Lena, Metzger, Jakob
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1:
      Keywords: Statement
      PubDate: 2018-05-25T00:00:00Z
  • Against the Dehumanisation of Decision-Making – Algorithmic Decisions at
           the Crossroads of Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and Freedom of

    • Authors: Noto La Diega; Guido
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These re-volve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intu-ition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy. Nowadays algorithms can decide if one can get a loan, is allowed to cross a bor-der, or must go to prison. Artificial intelligence techniques (natural language pro-cessing and machine learning in the first place) enable private and public deci-sion-makers to analyse big data in order to build profiles, which are used to make decisions in an automated way. The lack of transparency of the algorithmic deci-sion-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the deci-sion. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing. To counter the increased mo-nopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade se-crets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms. First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade se-crets are discussed. Second, the EU General Data Protection Regulation is critical-ly assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful in-formation about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision. Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm. Only an integrated ap-proach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and free-dom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Editorial

    • Authors: Guibault; Lucie, Sein, Karin
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1:
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • “This Video is Unavailable”: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of
           User-Generated Content on YouTube

    • Authors: Erickson; Kristofer, Kretschmer, Martin
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: What factors lead a copyright owner to request removal of potentially infringing user-generated content' So-called “notice-and-takedown” measures are provided in the United States under Section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act (as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998) and enabled in the European Union under the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC). While the combination of limiting liability (“safe harbor”) and notice-and-takedown procedures was originally conceived as a means of balancing innovation with the interests of rightholders, there has been limited empirical study regarding their effects. This research investigates, for the first time, the factors that motivate takedown of user-generated content by copyright owners. We study takedowns within an original dataset of 1,839 YouTube music video parodies observed between January 2012 and December 2016. We find an overall rate of takedowns within the sample of 32.9% across the 4-year period. We use a Cox proportional hazards model to investigate propositions from rightholder groups about the factors that motivate takedowns: these include concerns about commercial substitution; artistic/moral concerns; cultural differences between firms; and YouTube uploader practices. The main finding is that policy concerns frequently raised by rightholders are not associated with statistically significant patterns of action. For example, the potential for reputational harm from parodic use does not appear to predict takedown behavior. Nor does commercial popularity of the original music track trigger a systematic response from rightholders. Instead, music genre and production values emerge as significant factors. We suggest that evolving policy on intermediary liability - for example with respect to imposing filtering systems (automatically ensuring “stay-down” of potentially infringing content) - should be carefully evaluated against evidence of actual behavior, which this study shows may differ materially from stated policy positions.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Open Science and Public Sector Information – Reconsidering the exemption
           for educational and research establishments under the Directive on re-use
           of public sector information

    • Authors: Richter; Heiko
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: The article discusses the possibilities of including public research and educational establishments within the scope of the Directive regulating the re-use of public sector information (2003/98/EC – ‘PSI Directive’). It subsequently evaluates the legal consequences of such an inclusion. Focusing on scientific information, the analysis connects the long-standing debates about open access and open educa-tion to open government data. Their common driving force is the call for a wide-spread dissemination of publicly funded information. However, the regulatory standard set out by the PSI Directive is characterized by considerable legal uncer-tainty. Therefore, it is difficult to derive robust assumptions that can form the ba-sis for predicting the effects of extending the PSI Directive’s scope to research in-formation. A potential revision of the PSI Directive should reduce this uncertain-ty. Moreover, PSI regulation must account for the specific incentives linked to the creation and dissemination of research results. This seems of primary importance for public-private research collaborations because there is a potential risk that a full application of the PSI Directive might unduly affect incentives for such col-laborations.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Informing Consent: Giving Control Back to the Data Subject from a
           Behavioral Economics Perspective

    • Authors: Ramírez López; Santiago
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: The development of data privacy legislation in Europe and America has been highly influenced by the idea that individuals must maintain the autonomy to take decisions regarding the general purpose and uses of their personal data; an idea that has been generally instrumentalized with the mechanism of informed con-sent. Recently, both companies and researchers in the field have criticized this idea, arguing that with the new advances and technological progress, consent has lost importance due to the ubiquity of the data processing and the absence of real participation of the data subjects. This article seeks to take into account both points of view, by recognizing the importance of the autonomy of individuals to determine the destination of their personal data, but also by understanding the practical implications and the impossibilities derived from obtaining an informed consent from data subjects that are generally unfamiliar with the topic. Based on the analyses regarding the difficulties of obtaining an effective and informed consent, this contribution will examine how some of the bias and impasses stud-ied through the discipline of behavioral economics may help us to understand the current problems in relation to the way in which consent is requested and provid-ed by the data subjects. This contribution concludes by proposing alternatives that seek to overcome these biases and impasses with an easier provision of infor-mation of the data processing and the implementation of a data management and a value-oriented model, which would benefit the data subjects.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Copyright, Doctrine and Evidence-Based Reform

    • Authors: van Gompel; Stef
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 4: Copyright lawmaking is conventionally embedded in a doctrinal tradition that gives much consideration to coherence and formal consistency with legal-theoretical foundations. This contrasts discernibly with the recent trend to base copyright policies and their elaboration into effective legal norms on empirical evidence. Recognizing that both approaches have their relative strengths and weaknesses, this paper explores how evidence-based policy can be reconciled with the traditional doctrinal approach to copyright lawmaking. It suggests that unproven doctrinal constellations that unnecessarily focus the legislative intention unequally on protecting copyright holders should be removed, but that lawmakers at the same time should also not stare blindly on economic evidence if legitimate claims based on fairness rationales are put forward, which also have to be weighed in as evidence.
      PubDate: 2017-12-21T00:00:00Z
  • From Cyberpunk to Regulation – Digitised Memories as Personal and
           Sensitive Data within the EU Data Protection Law

    • Authors: Garstka; Krzysztof
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 4: Every new medium through which information can be communicated is likely to bring new challenges for the established data protection laws and paradigms. In the light of progressing research aimed at deciphering the human brain, this article seeks to analyse the General Data Protection Regulation’s ability to respond to the possible appearance of memory digitisation technology. To this end, the article draws on the fictional setting of a PC game entitled Remember Me, where such a technology was developed and embraced by the society. In an exploratory analysis, the GDPR’s definitions of personal and sensitive data are tested regarding their ability to remain “technology-neutral” in the face of an information technology capable of identifying individuals in unique and unprecedented ways. The article confirms the Regulation’s preliminary potential to accommodate the studied invention and proposes an interpretation of the corresponding articles of the GDPR, aimed at the adequate protection of data subjects.
      PubDate: 2017-12-21T00:00:00Z
  • Designing Competitive Markets for Industrial Data – Between
           Propertisation and Access

    • Authors: Drexl; Josef
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 4: As part of the project to establish a Digital Single Market, the European Commission has launched a ‘Free Flow of Data’ initiative. This initiative is meant to enhance the growth potential of the emerging data economy, which is characterised by the digitisation of production (smart factories) and the advent of digitised products such as smart—driverless—cars, or smart wearables that will be able to communicate with each other and the environment through the Internet of Things. Furthermore, the enormous amount of data generated and controlled by the industry could serve as a most valuable input for other new data-driven services and for applications in the public interest, such as the operation of smart cities, smart and resource-efficient farming, or measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Obviously, this new data economy has to rely on the commercialisation of data. But what kind of regulation is needed in order to make the data economy work' Do we need new ownership rights in data' Or should regulation focus on access in order to make data as widely available as possible' The European Commission is currently trying to formulate answers to these questions. This article aims to assist the Commission by working on a pro-competitive framework for issues of both ownership and access.** In so doing, this article undertakes two things: first, it analyses to what extent intellectual property laws already provide control over data and then discusses the need and justification for introducing new rules on data ownership. Second, it analyses whether EU competition law already provides remedies to promote access to data, and furthermore explores whether and under which conditions the introduction of new access regimes would be advisable. This article is to be considered as on-going research. It does not yet take into account more recent developments in 2017.
      PubDate: 2017-12-21T00:00:00Z
  • Editorial: A Christmas Gift

    • Authors: Dusollier; Séverine
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 4:
      PubDate: 2017-12-21T00:00:00Z
  • Where is the Harm in a Privacy Violation' Calculating the Damages
           Afforded in Privacy Cases by the European Court of Human Rights

    • Authors: van der Sloot; Bart
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 4: It has always been difficult to pinpoint what harm follows a privacy violation. What harm is done by someone entering your home without permission, or by the state eavesdropping on a telephone conversation when no property is stolen or information disclosed to third parties' The question is becoming ever more difficult to answer now that data gathering and processing initiatives have grown and are no longer focused on specific individuals, but on large groups or society as a whole. What specific harm is done by the NSA and other intelligence services gathering data on almost everyone or by the thousands of CCTV cameras registering the daily life of citizens on the corner of almost every street' There has been a longstanding debate within the literature regarding whether ‘dignitary’ or ‘immaterial’ harm should be protected under the right to privacy. Or should only harm that can be measured and quantified in monetary terms (economic harm) be taken into account' This article takes a descriptive and statistical approach to provide an insight into what types of damages are awarded, how they are calculated, and how the damages relate to the type of harm that is inflicted. It does so by analysing the damages awarded by the European Court of Human Rights with respect to privacy violations.
      PubDate: 2017-12-21T00:00:00Z
  • Non-Commercial Quotation and Freedom of Panorama: Useful and Lawful'

    • Authors: Rosati; Eleonora
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 4: This contribution seeks to assess both the practical implications and lawfulness of national copyright exceptions that – lacking a corresponding provision in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 (the InfoSoc Directive) – envisage that the only permitted use of a copyright work for the sake of the applicability of a certain exception is a non-commercial one.By referring to different national exceptions allowing quotation and freedom of panorama as case studies, the paper shows some of the shortcomings deriving from different approaches to the same permitted uses of copyright works across the EU, as well as the resulting (negative) impact on the very objective underlying adoption of the InfoSoc Directive: harmonization. This contribution concludes that – in general terms – diverging approaches to copyright exceptions, including limiting the availability of certain exceptions to non-commercial uses, may be both impractical and contrary to the system established by the InfoSoc Directive.
      PubDate: 2017-12-21T00:00:00Z
  • The Power of Positive Thinking: Intermediary Liability and the Effective
           Enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression

    • Authors: Kuczerawy; Aleksandra
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 3: The Internet intermediary liability regime of Directive 2000/31/EC places hosting providers in the role of private gatekeepers. By providing an incentive in the form of a liability exemption, the EU legislature has ensured that hosting providers cooperate in the policing of online content. The current mechanism results in a situation where private entities are co-opted by the State to make decisions affecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression. According to the theory of positive obligations, States not only have to refrain from interfering with fundamental human rights, but also actively protect them, including in relations between private individuals. This paper analyses whether the doctrines of positive obligations (under the European Convention on Human Rights) and effective protection (under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) may require the States to take additional measures to protect the right to freedom of expression from interference online. In particular, the paper analyses whether the Charter may require the EU legislature to take additional measures to ensure that the right to freedom of expression can be effectively enjoyed online, for example by introducing procedural safeguards in the legal framework regarding removal of online content.
      Keywords: Special Issue: Intermediary Liability as a Human Rights Issue
      PubDate: 2017-11-30T00:00:00Z
  • Editorial: Intermediary Liability as a Human Rights Issue

    • Authors: Husovec; Martin
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 3:
      Keywords: Special Issue: Intermediary Liability as a Human Rights Issue
      PubDate: 2017-11-30T00:00:00Z
  • What Does It Matter Who is Browsing' ISP Liability and the Right to

    • Authors: Burke; Ciarán, Molitorisová, Alexandra
      Abstract: JIPITEC 8 (2017) 3: Disputes concatenating privacy, speech and security through the right to anonymity are particularly hard cases to adjudicate. The traditional paradigm, according to which anonymity plays a double role – protecting fundamental rights, as well as potentially threatening them – continues to drive policies that, in turn, emphasise the risks and downplay the opportunities of anonymity in the online world. The content/metadata distinction is a residue of such ambiguous views, persistent in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) approach towards the right to anonymity in ISP liability cases. The article initially explores the argumentative grounds behind the CJEU’s recent McFadden judgment (part 2.). Against the backdrop of the theory of balancing of interests, this paper critically examines the Court’s reductionist position. Our critique suggests a method of avoiding the disproportionately narrow scope of analysis that accompanies this position. For this purpose, we establish the right to anonymity at the periphery of both the freedom of expression and information, and the right to private life and data protection, while contesting the right to anonymity as a right sui generis. We proceed with three key points. By inspecting the nature of the right to anonymity, we unveil the interconnectedness between the right to freedom of expression and information and the right to private life and data protection (part 3.). Chilling effects represent an often understated evidence of this relationship. In addition, we see that affecting certain means of exercising a particular fundamental right, such as is its anonymous exercise, brings forward important extra-legal considerations, facilitating the discernment of chilling effects in any analysis of human rights. It is argued that regulating anonymity could pose a significant obstacle to the exercise of a fundamental right as a whole, and consequently impact upon the core of that right (part 4.). Harmonisation-driven attempts to develop human rights guarantees, framed in seemingly robust procedures established by the CJEU, at the level of data collection or retention as well as data disclosure by an ISP, have the potential to be derailed by nation-specific considerations. Taking such considerations seriously can reverse the imminent impact upon the core of the fundamental rights in question, which the narrow scope of traditional human rights analysis easily discounts. This requires diverting from the “targeting by dissuasion” argument as a mere technical exercise, and acknowledging the subtle subterranean relationship of the fundamental rights being considered (part 5.).
      Keywords: Special Issue: Intermediary Liability as a Human Rights Issue
      PubDate: 2017-11-30T00:00:00Z
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-