Hylly
Henkilönnimi Ruse-Khan, Henning Grosse, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Is IP Good for Our Planet?
Julkaistu Verlag C.H. Beck, München : 2022.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa GRUR International, ISSN 2632-8623 ; 71(8)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Summarising the objectives of the principal multilateral IP treaty, Art. 7 TRIPS proclaims that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) ‘should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology’, so as to benefit both ‘producers and users of technological knowledge’ and hence operate ‘in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare’. Nevertheless, these utilitarian objectives for IP remain contested. Usually, debates focus on whether in particular patent protection actually leads to more ‘technological innovation’ and ‘dissemination of technology’ – or whether more openness and less (or no) protection is to be preferred. Empirical evidence for measurable improvements in welfare – which after all should form the basis for policies that pursue utilitarian objectives – has long been inconclusive when it comes to the patent system as a whole (Machlup, 1958). It is therefore perhaps not surprising that, on a global level where one is confronted with territorial patent protection operating in vastly different socio-economic circumstances, the common denominator most seem to be able to agree on is that ‘one size does not fit all’.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke GRUR International, 2632-8623 ; 71(8)
*000 ab a ar
*00117175
*008 s2022||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*1001 $aRuse-Khan, Henning Grosse,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aIs IP Good for Our Planet? /$cHenning Grosse Ruse-Khan.
*264 1$aMünchen :$bVerlag C.H. Beck,$c2022.
*300 $as. 683–684
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v71(8)
*520 $aSummarising the objectives of the principal multilateral IP treaty, Art. 7 TRIPS proclaims that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) ‘should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology’, so as to benefit both ‘producers and users of technological knowledge’ and hence operate ‘in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare’. Nevertheless, these utilitarian objectives for IP remain contested. Usually, debates focus on whether in particular patent protection actually leads to more ‘technological innovation’ and ‘dissemination of technology’ – or whether more openness and less (or no) protection is to be preferred. Empirical evidence for measurable improvements in welfare – which after all should form the basis for policies that pursue utilitarian objectives – has long been inconclusive when it comes to the patent system as a whole (Machlup, 1958). It is therefore perhaps not surprising that, on a global level where one is confronted with territorial patent protection operating in vastly different socio-economic circumstances, the common denominator most seem to be able to agree on is that ‘one size does not fit all’.
*650 7$aimmateriaalioikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3068$2yso/fin
*650 7$ateknologinen kehitys$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p8956
*650 7$aympäristönsuojelu $2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p13
*653 $aTRIPS
*830 $aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v71(8)
*852 $hSA-GRUR International
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.