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: 25)
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: 16)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
International Data Privacy Law
Number of Followers: 24  
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 2044-3994 - ISSN (Online) 2044-4001
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [413 journals]
  • Governing machine-learning models: challenging the personal data
    • Authors: Leiser M; Dechesne F.
      Pages: 187 - 200
      Abstract: Key PointsThis article confronts assertions made by Dr Michael Veale, Dr Reuben Binns, and Professor Lilian Edwards in ‘Algorithms that remember: Model Inversion Attacks and Data Protection Law’, as well as the general trend by the courts to broaden the definition of ‘personal data’ under Article 4(1) GDPR to include ‘everything data-related’. Veale and others use examples from computer science to suggest some models, subject to certain attacks, reveal personal data. Accordingly, Veale and others argue that data subject rights could be exercised against the model itself.A computer science perspective, as well as case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union, is used to argue that effective machine-learning model governance can be achieved without widening the scope of personal data and that the governance of machine-learning models is better achieved through already existing provisions of data protection and other areas of law.Extending the scope of personal data to machine-learning models would render the protections granted to intelligent endeavours within the black box ineffectual.
      PubDate: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipaa009
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2020)
  • Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data
           flows with external trade
    • Authors: Yakovleva S; Irion K.
      Pages: 201 - 221
      Abstract: Key PointsGlobal data flows underpinning cross-border digital trade have moved centre stage in international trade negotiations. New trade law disciplines on the free flow of data are included in a number of international trade deals.The European Union (EU) has a key role to play in the global governance of the protection of personal data. The EU’s strict data protection regime has sometimes been framed as a digital trade barrier.This article juxtaposes the EU’s governance of fundamental rights to privacy and data protection with external trade policy on cross-border data flows.The process of aligning EU’s normative approach to personal data protection with its external trade policy has been, until very recently, riddled with contradictions.The article concludes with an assessment of the EU’s recent horizontal strategy on cross-border data flows and personal data protection in trade and investment agreements, which aims to align EU external policy.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipaa003
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2020)
  • Australia’s Consumer Data Right and the uncertain role of
           information privacy law
    • Authors: Burdon M; Mackie T.
      Pages: 222 - 235
      Abstract: Key PointsData portability rights are viewed by policymakers worldwide as a significant legal innovation to stimulate competitive digital economies. These rights allow consumers and businesses to seamlessly receive and transfer data for commercialization and efficiency purposes.The newly implemented Australian Consumer Data Right (CDR) provides an illuminating example of the complex relationship between information privacy and competition law which is central to data portability initiatives. The CDR grants consumers and businesses access and transfer rights for consumer data in the Australian banking, energy, and telecommunications sectors, through the implementation of mandated API standards.There are three policy vectors at the heart of the CDR that parallel previous Australian, UK, and EU data portability developments. They are the type of regulated data covered by the CDR scheme, privacy and security protections and the overarching regulatory framework.We argue that the CDR, and its antecedents, primarily construct data portability as a competition law measure. However, while the general policy intention of the CDR is clear, we contend that the scheme reveals an uncertain role for information privacy law as part of its operation. Uncertainty is evident in how policymakers have considered the information privacy law issues inherent in the three policy vectors.We contend that the CDR could give rise to definitional problems with regulated data, duplicated privacy and security protections and a conceptually challenging regulatory framework. In conclusion, we suggest potential solutions that would assist with the operation of the CDR within Australia’s broader information privacy law framework, governed by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which would also better align with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
      PubDate: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipaa008
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2020)
  • To track or not to track' Employees’ data privacy in the age of
           corporate wellness, mobile health, and GDPR†
    • Authors: Brassart Olsen C.
      Pages: 236 - 252
      Abstract: Key PointsEmployers have been increasingly offering wristbands or smartwatches, also known as ‘mHealth devices’, to their employees.The use of mHealth devices at work may come at a price for employees, who may unknowingly or unwillingly share their health information with their employer and third parties, such as mHealth providers. This could lead to data privacy breaches and discrimination in the workplace.The EU regime has recognized that the use of mHealth devices raises issues in the workplace, and Article 29 Working Party has stated that employees’ free consent to the processing of mHealth data is highly unlikely because of the sensitive nature of health data and the unequal nature of the employment relationship.However, the current EU regime leaves room for some exceptions and uncertainty: first, under GDPR, employees’ health data may be processed if the employer can show that such processing is necessary for preventive and occupational medicine; second, GDPR only provides a positive definition of ‘health data’, which leaves room for ambiguity regarding some type of mHealth data, such as lifestyle data.Although the current EU regime recognizes the challenges raised by the use of mHealth devices in the workplace, further clarification would be welcome, as it would enable to create a culture of trust between employees, employers and mHealth developers.
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipaa004
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2020)
  • The layered links model: an alternative approach to international privacy
    • Authors: Bougiakiotis E.
      Pages: 253 - 268
      Abstract: Key PointsCurrently, privacy and data protection lack international (as opposed to regional) regulation in large part because of the diverging values of various countries.Often the laws of various countries may impose conflicting obligations that so far have been addressed via ad hoc agreements.Despite calls for international convergence to avoid them, both in and out of academia, little progress has been achieved in practice.This article argues for an alternative model of international privacy regulation based on the use of layered links that are reflective of the different views of states on data protection regulation.
      PubDate: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipaa002
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2020)
  • Mere access to personal data: is it processing'
    • Authors: Schreiber A.
      Pages: 269 - 277
      Abstract: Key PointsThere is a range of views on ‘access’ as a part of processing under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Access was not mentioned in Article 4(2) GDPR, but could fit the definition of processing, and could also be included within other forms of processing such as retrieval, storage, and transfer.Many scholars view access as central to the definition of privacy, and differentiate ‘intrusion’—including acting on the data, from ‘mere intrusion’—in which data is accessed but nothing further is done.The intrusion/mere intrusion distinction may be irrelevant for the applicability of GDPR, as even ‘mere intrusion’ will generate subjective privacy harm, and may lead to objective privacy harm, and should therefore be protected by data protection law; this is also the view of the EU Commission under the GDPR.A risk-based reading of the GDPR may lead to differential treatment of different forms of access, defining potentially harmful forms of access as processing, and minimalist, transient forms of access as not processing.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipaa005
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2020)
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-