Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Intellectual Property








Intellectual Property Define as:


“Intellectual property refers to the ownership of intangible and non-physical goods.  …  Since intellectual property is intangible, it is more difficult to protect than other types of property.”


Intellectual property law protects the creative works of authors, composers, designers, and inventors from being pirated. There are four basic categories of intellectual property: copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Generally, each category is used with different types of material and affords different protections. Copyrights protect original works of authorship from the moment they are created and fixed in a tangible form. Patents protect new and useful machines, articles, substances, or processes through exclusive rights granted by the federal government to their inventors. Trademarks protect identifying marks that distinguish goods or services, such as names, logos, designs, emblems, and distinctive sounds and smells. Trade secrets protect confidential business information or "proprietary information," such as business plans, chemical formulas, and customer lists. (Reference: Lawyers.com)



Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property



Intellectual property plays an important role in an increasingly broad range of areas, ranging from the Internet to health care to nearly all aspects of science and technology and literature and the arts. Understanding the role of intellectual property in these areas - many of them still emerging - often requires significant new research and study. In an effort to promote informed discussion of the intellectual property issues involved in these fields.


The intellectual property in software can be protected three ways: patents, copyrights and trade secrets. Patents protect "inventions" that are useful, nonobvious and novel, and must be approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The scope of the final patent may be quite different than the initial application.
Copyright law applies to "works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression (such as a CD or a book), and applies automatically (a filing with the U.S. Copyright Office is required prior to bringing a lawsuit). Thus, the code of virtually all software is automatically protected by copyright. Copyright prohibits the reproduction, distribution, modification, public performance and public display of software that is "substantially similar" to the original software. If the software is protected only by copyright, anyone can avoid paying a license fee by re-creating the software from scratch without copying it. That is not usually practical, of course, but it does set some limits on what copyright holders can demand in their software licenses. If the price of existing software is too high, competitors will simply rewrite the software from scratch.
Finally, trade secret law protects any information that is not "commonly known" and which the company has taken reasonable steps to keep in confidence. The protection is more limited than patent and copyright protection: Trade secret law prevents only misappropriation, which means wrongful taking. Trade secret law could protect secrets in the source code of the software.


----http://www.cio.com/article/29593/Patent_Copyright_and_Trade_Secret_What_s_the_Difference_



TRADE SECRET





A trade secret is any information that allows you to make money because it is not generally known. A trade secret could be a formula, c­omputer program, process, method, device, technique, pricing information, customer lists or other non-public information. If the economic value of a piece of information relies on it being kept private, it could be a trade secret.
One of the most famous examples of a trade secret is the formula for Coca-Cola. The formula, also referred to by the code name "Merchandise 7X," is known to only a few people and kept in the vault of a bank in Atlanta, Georgia. The individuals who know the secret formula have signed non-disclosure agreements, and it is rumored that they are not allowed to travel together. In the past, you could not buy Coca-Cola in India because Indian law required that trade-secret information be disclosed. In 1991, India changed its laws regarding trademarks, and Coca-Cola can now be sold in that country.
Trade secrets are very different from patents, copyrights and trademarks. While patents and copyrights require you to disclose your information in the application process (information that eventually becomes public), trade secrets require you to actively keep the information secret. Trade-secret protection can potentially last longer than that of patents (20 years) and copyrights (100 years). Some of the ways to protect a trade secret are as follows:

v  Restrict access to the information (lock it away in a secure place, such as a bank vault).

v  Limit the number of people who know the information.

v  Have the people who know the trade secret agree in writing not to disclose the information (sign non-disclosure agreements).

v  Have anyone that comes in contact with the trade secret, directly or indirectly, sign non-disclosure agreements.

v  Mark any written material pertaining to the trade secret as proprietary.

Trade secrets remain valid only as long as no one else has discovered the information independently, the information has not been made public (by employees or published literature) nor discovered by working backward from the original product/process or publicly observing the product/process. If the trade secret is revealed in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, you can sue for damages. However, once the secret is revealed, it is hard to get the trade-secret status resumed. Trade secrets are protected under many state laws, Federal statutes and some international laws.

----http://money.howstuffworks.com/question625.htm

Trade secrets consist of information and can include a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process. To meet the most common definition of a trade secret, it must be used in business, and give an opportunity to obtain an economic advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.

http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/patents/ir_pat_tradesecret.jsp



COPYRIGHT





Copyrights: protect the specific creative expression of an idea through any medium of artistic/creative expression – i.e., paintings, photographs, sculpture, writings, software, etc.   A copyright protects your painting of a haystack, but it would not prohibit another painter from expressing their artistry or viewpoint by also painting a haystack. Likewise, while Ian Fleming was able to receive a copyright on his particular expression of the idea of a secret agent (i.e., a debonair English secret agent), he could not prevent Rich Wilkes from receiving a copyright on his expression of the idea of a secret agent (i.e., a tattooed bald extreme athlete turned reluctant secret agent). 


Copyright protection exists from the moment a work is created in a fixed, tangible form of expression. The copyright immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author, or those deriving their rights through the author, can rightfully claim copyright. In the case of works made for hire, the employer—not the writer—is considered the author. 


The First Sale Doctrine

The physical ownership of an item such as a book, painting, manuscript or CD is not the same as owning the copyright to the work embodied in that item.
Under the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc., of the item. However, it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder. Why? Because the transfer of the physical copy does not transfer the copyright holder's rights to the work. Even including an attribution on a copied work (for example, putting the author's name on it) does not eliminate the need to obtain the copyright holder's consent. To use copyrighted materials lawfully, you must secure permission from the applicable copyright holders or a copyright licensing agent.

Duration of Copyright

The term of copyright protection depends upon the date of creation. A work created on or after January 1, 1978, is ordinarily protected by copyright from the moment of its creation until 70 years after the author's death.
For works made for hire, anonymous works and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
For works created, published or registered before January 1, 1978, or for more detailed information, you may wish to refer to the public domain section of this guide or request Circular 15 ( "Renewal of Copyright"), Circular 15a ("Duration of Copyright") and Circular 15t ("Extension of Copyright Terms") from the U.S. Copyright Office Web site, www.copyright.gov.

Registration and Notification of Copyright

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created and fixed in a tangible form, such as the first time it is written or recorded. No other action is required to secure copyright protection – neither publication, registration nor other action in the Copyright Office (although registration is recommended).
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is recommended. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention effective March 1, 1989. If a copyright holder wants to use a copyright notice, he or she may do so freely without permission from or registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. In fact, the use of a copyright notice is recommended because it reminds the public that the work is protected by copyright.

A copyright notice should contain all the following three elements:
  1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), the word "Copyright" or the abbreviation "Copr."
  2. The year when the work was first created.
  3. The name of the owner of the copyright.

Example: © 2005 John Doe
Public Domain

The public domain comprises all works that are either no longer protected by copyright or never were. It should not be confused with the mere fact that a work is publicly available (such as information in books or periodicals, or content on the Internet).
Essentially, all works first published in the United States before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain in the United States. The public domain also extends to works published between 1923 and 1963 on which copyright registrations were not renewed.
All materials created since 1989, except those created by the U.S. federal government, are presumptively protected by copyright. As a result, the chances are high that the materials of greatest interest to students and faculty are not in the public domain. In addition, you must also consider other forms of legal protection such as trademark or patent protection before reusing third-party content.

Public domain materials generally fall into one of four categories:

  1. Generic information such as facts, numbers and ideas.
  2. Works whose copyrights have lapsed over time or whose copyright holders have failed to renew a registration (a requirement that applies to works created before 1978).
  3. Works published before March 1989 that failed to include a proper notice of copyright.
  4. Works created by the U.S. federal government.
In rare instances, works may also be "dedicated" (i.e., donated) to the public domain.

Penalties of Copyright Infringement

By reproducing, republishing or redistributing the work of a copyright holder without permission, you may be violating or infringing on his or her rights under the Copyright Act.
If the copyright holder has registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the infringement, the copyright holder may sue for compensation. Court-ordered compensation may include damages such as lost profits from the infringing activity or statutory damages ranging from $250 to $150,000, plus attorneys' fees, for each infringing copy. Even higher damages may be awarded if the court feels that the infringement was committed "willfully."
You may also be criminally liable if you willfully copy a work for profit or financial gain, or if the copied work has a value of more than $1,000. In these cases, penalties can include a one-year jail sentence plus fines. If the value is more than $2,500, you may be sentenced to five years in jail plus fines. Criminal penalties generally apply to large-scale commercial piracy.

"International" Copyright

There is no such thing as an "international" copyright that automatically protects a work throughout the world. However, the most widely-adopted copyright treaty, theBerne Convention, states that once a work is protected in one of the Convention member countries, it is protected by copyright in all of them. As of mid-2004, 156 countries, including the U.S., belong to the Berne Convention.
The Berne Convention further states that the scope and limitations of any copyright are based upon the laws of the country where the misuse of the copyright-protected work takes place (rather than the country where the work originated). For example, if you photocopy an article in the U.S., then U.S. copyright law applies to determine whether that copy was lawful. Similarly, if you digitize an image in the UK, the copyright laws of the UK apply to determine whether that digitized use is lawful.
There are grey areas, however, when it comes to the online usage of copyright-protected content. For example, if an article is uploaded in the U.S. and then viewed on a Web site in Australia, where is the "copying" taking place – and is more than one "copy" being made? Courts in the U.S. and around the world have yet to provide definitive answers as to what country's laws should be used to determine online copyright infringement in this case. To avoid a potential legal challenge from the copyright holder, many institutions follow a policy of "when in doubt, obtain permission" in these situations.




PATENT 



--A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of aninvention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process. Patents are a form of intellectual property.
The procedure for granting patents, requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a granted patent application must include one or more claims that define the invention. A patent may include many claims, each of which defines a specific property right. These claims must meet relevant patentability requirements, such as novelty and non-obviousness. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, importing, or distributing a patented invention without permission.


Patent law is the area of law that relates to intellectual property rights. These are also often known as patent rights, and they are used to protect the rights of a group or individual over their own original inventions. Patent laws cover the regulation and enforcement of these intellectual property rights. Patent law in the US is also responsible for the creation of the US Patent and Trademark Office, which is the body that administers patent law.
A patent is the right to a specific invention that is granted by a particular government. Patent rights can be held by an individual or by a group, such as a company. They may be held by the original inventor of the patented process or product, but they can also be transferred to another person or group. The patent laws prevent anyone other than the holder of the patent from making use of the protected idea, without obtaining permission from the patent holder. If someone does try to use the patented idea illegally, then the patent laws specify the legal action that the patent holder can take against them.
Patent laws specify the types of inventions that can be patented and the process through which a patent can be obtained. Patent laws vary between different countries. In the United States, an invention must meet three criteria if it is going to be eligible for a patent. It must be a new idea, it must have some sort of use or purpose, and it must be non-obvious, so it is not possible to patent an idea that anyone could have.
Patent law also specifies the process for dealing with the enforcement of patents in cases of patent infringement. If a patent holder feels that their rights have been violated, then they can make use of patent law in order to enforce their rights. However, pursuing this kind of legal action can be expensive and very complicated, so it can be difficult for small businesses or individual inventors to pursue claims against large companies.
Some attorneys specialize in patent law. It is possible to obtain a patent without using the services of a lawyer, but a patent attorney may be hired to help to ensure that the patent is obtained properly and that it will be enforceable under patent law. Patent attorneys can also provide up-to-date advice on patent law, which can be important, particularly when dealing with patents in areas of technology that are developing rapidly. Patent attorneys can also be used when dealing with patent infringement problems, when they can help the patent holder to deal with the complexities of the laws governing these types of cases.
Patent law is a complex, but important area of law. It provides important protection for anyone who has created an original idea and it determines which inventions can be made use of by other people. If you are interested in finding out more about what patent law means for inventors and businesses, then you may want to spend some time exploring the fedcirc.us website, where you will find some useful information about the importance of patents and how they work.
1. PATENTABLE MATTERS

Patentable Inventions. — Any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable shall be Patentable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process, or an improvement of any of the foregoing. (Section 21)
Non-Patentable Inventions. — The following shall be excluded from patent protection:

22.1. Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
22.2. Schemes, rules and methods of performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
22.3. Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practiced on the human or animal body. This provision shall not apply to products and composition for use in any of these methods;
22.4. Plant varieties or animal breeds or essentially biological process for the production of plants or animals. This provision shall not apply to micro-organisms and non-biological and microbiological processes.
Provisions under this subsection shall not preclude Congress to consider the enactment of a law providing sui generis protection of plant varieties and animal breeds and a system of community intellectual rights protection:
22.5. Aesthetic creations; and
22.6. Anything which is contrary to public order or morality. (Section 22)


2. NOVELTY REQUIREMENT

Novelty. — An invention shall not be considered new if it forms part of a prior art. (Section 23)
Prior Art. — Prior art shall consist of:
24.1. Everything which has been made available to the public anywhere in the world, before the filing date or the priority date of the application claiming the invention; and
24.2. The whole contents of an application for a patent, utility model, or industrial design registration, published in accordance with this Act, filed or effective in the Philippines, with a filing or priority date that is earlier than the filing or priority date of the application: Provided, That the application which has validly claimed the filing date of an earlier application under Section 31 of this Act, shall be prior art with effect as of the filing date of such earlier application: Provided further, That the applicant or the inventor identified in both applications are not one and the same. (Section 24)
3. NON-PREJUDICIAL DISCLOSURE

The disclosure of information contained in the application during the twelve (12) months preceding the filing date or the priority date of the application shall not prejudice the applicant on the ground of lack of novelty if such disclosure was made by:
  • The inventor;
  • A patent office and the information was contained (a) in another application filed by the inventor and should not have been disclosed by the office, or (b) in an application filed without the knowledge or consent of the inventor by a third party which obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor; or
  • A third party which obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor. (Section 25.1)
25.2. For the purposes of Subsection 25.1, "inventor" also means any person who, at the filing date of application, had the right to the patent. (n)
4. INVENTIVE STEP

Inventive Step. — An invention involves an inventive step if, having regard to prior art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the filing date or priority date of the application claiming the invention. (Section 26)

5. INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENT

Industrial Applicability. — An invention that can be produced and used in any industry shall be industrially applicable. (n)

6. RIGHT TO A PATENT

Right to a Patent. — The right to a patent belongs to the inventor, his heirs, or assigns. When two (2) or more persons have jointly made an invention, the right to a patent shall belong to them jointly. (Section 28)


7. FIRST-TO-FILE RULE

If two (2) or more persons have made the invention separately and independently of each other, the right to the patent shall belong to the person who filed an application for such invention, or where two or more applications are filed for the same invention, to the applicant who has the earliest filing date or, the earliest priority date. (Section 29)


8. OWNERSHIP OF COMMISSIONED WORK

30.1. The person who commissions the work shall own the patent, unless otherwise provided in the contract.
30.2. In case the employee made the invention in the course of his employment contract, the patent shall belong to:

  • The employee, if the inventive activity is not a part of his regular duties even if the employee uses the time, facilities and materials of the employer.
  • The employer, if the invention is the result of the performance of his regularly-assigned duties, unless there is an agreement, express or implied, to the contrary. (Section 30)
9. RIGHT OF PRIORITY

An application for patent filed by any person who has previously applied for the same invention in another country which by treaty, convention, or law affords similar privileges to Filipino citizens, shall be considered as filed as of the date of filing the foreign application: Provided, That:
  • the local application expressly claims priority;
  • it is filed within twelve (12) months from the date the earliest foreign application was filed; and
  • a certified copy of the foreign application together with an English translation is filed within six (6) months from the date of filing in the Philippines. (Section 31)

10. UNITY OF INVENTION

38.1. The application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions forming a single general inventive concept.
38.2. If several independent inventions which do not form a single general inventive concept are claimed in one application, the Director may require that the application be restricted to a single invention. A later application filed for an invention divided out shall be considered as having been filed on the same day as the first application: Provided, That the later application is filed within four (4) months after the requirement to divide becomes final or within such additional time, not exceeding four (4) months, as may be granted: Provided further, That each divisional application shall not go beyond the disclosure in the initial application.
38.3. The fact that a patent has been granted on an application that did not comply with the requirement of unity of invention shall not be a ground to cancel the patent. (Section 38)



11. PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS

44.1. The patent application shall be published in the IPO Gazette together with a search document established by or on behalf of the Office citing any documents that reflect prior art, after the expiration of eighteen ( 18) months from the filing date or priority date.
44.2. After publication of a patent application, any interested party may inspect the application documents filed with the Office.
44.3. The Director General subject to the approval of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, may prohibit or restrict the publication of an application, if in his opinion, to do so would be prejudicial to the national security and interests of the Republic of the Philippines. (Section 44)

12. STATUS BEFORE PUBLICATION
A patent application, which has not yet been published, and all related documents, shall not be made available for inspection without the consent of the applicant. (Section 45)

13. RIGHTS CONFERRED BY PUBLICATION

(Section 46) The applicant shall have all the rights of a patentee under Section 76 against any person who, without his authorization, exercised any of the rights conferred under Section 71 of this Act in relation to the invention claimed in the published patent application, as if a patent had been granted for that invention: Provided, That the said person had:
46.1. Actual knowledge that the invention that he was using was the subject matter of a published application; or
46.2. Received written notice that the invention that he was using was the subject matter of a published application being identified in the said notice by its serial number: Provided, That the action may not be filed until after the grant of a patent on the published application and within four (4) years from the commission of the acts complained of. (n)

14. THIRD PARTY OBSERVATION

Following the publication of the patent application, any person may present observations in writing concerning the patentability of the invention. Such observations shall be communicated to the applicant who may comment on them. The Office shall acknowledge and put such observations and comment in the file of the application to which it relates. (Section 47)
15. SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION

SECTION 48. Request for Substantive Examination.
48.1. The application shall be deemed withdrawn unless within six (6) months from the date of publication under Section 41, a written request to determine whether a patent application meets the requirements of Sections 21 to 27 and Sections 32 to 39 and the fees have been paid on time.
48.2. Withdrawal of the request for examination shall be irrevocable and shall not authorize the refund of any fee. (n)

16. AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION

An applicant may amend the patent application during examination: Provided, That such amendment shall not include new matter outside the scope of the disclosure contained in the application as filed. (Section 49)
17. EFFECTIVE DATE OF PATENT
50.1. If the application meets the requirements of this Act, the Office shall grant the patent: Provided, That all the fees are paid on time.
50.2. If the required fees for grant and printing are not paid in due time, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
50.3. A patent shall take effect on the date of the publication of the grant of the patent in the IPO Gazette. (Section 50)

18. TERM OF PATENT

Term of Patent. — The term of a patent shall be twenty (20) years from the filing date of the application. (Section 54)

19. CANCELLATION OF PATENT

61.1. Any interested person may, upon payment of the required fee, petition to cancel the patent or any claim thereof, or parts of the claim, on any of the following grounds:
a.     That what is claimed as the invention is not new or Patentable;
b.     That the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by any person skilled in the art; or
c.     That the patent is contrary to public order or morality.
61.2. Where the grounds for cancellation relate to some of the claims or parts of the claim, cancellation may be effected to such extent only. (Section 61)

20. REMEDY OF INVENTOR

If a person, who was deprived of the patent without his consent or through fraud is declared by final court order or decision to be the true and actual inventor, the court shall order for his substitution as patentee, or at the option of the true inventor, cancel the patent, and award actual and other damages in his favor if warranted by the circumstances. (Section 68)

RIGHTS OF PATENTEES AND INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS

21. PATENT RIGHTS

Rights Conferred by Patent (Section 71)
71.1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:
(a) Where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to restrain, prohibit and prevent any unauthorized person or entity from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing that product;
(b) Where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to restrain, prevent or prohibit any unauthorized person or entity from using the process, and from manufacturing, dealing in, using, selling or offering for sale, or importing any product obtained directly or indirectly from such process.
71.2. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession the patent, and to conclude licensing contracts for the same. (Sec. 37, R.A. No. 165a)

22. LIMITATION OF PATENT RIGHTS

(Section 72) Limitations of Patent Rights. — The owner of a patent has no right to prevent third parties from performing, without his authorization, the acts referred to in Section 71 hereof in the following circumstances:
72.1. (DOCTRINE OF NATIONAL EXHAUSTION) Using a patented product which has been put on the market in the Philippines by the owner of the product, or with his express consent, insofar as such use is performed after that product has been so put on the said market;
72.2. Where the act is done privately and on a non-commercial scale or for a non-commercial purpose: Provided, That it does not significantly prejudice the economic interests of the owner of the patent;
72.3. Where the act consists of making or using exclusively for the purpose of experiments that relate to the subject matter of the patented invention;
72.4. Where the act consists of the preparation for individual cases, in a pharmacy or by a medical professional, of a medicine in accordance with a medical prescription or acts concerning the medicine so prepared;
72.5. Where the invention is used in any ship, vessel, aircraft, or land vehicle of any other country entering the territory of the Philippines temporarily or accidentally: Provided, That such invention is used exclusively for the needs of the ship, vessel, aircraft, or land vehicle and not used for the manufacturing of anything to be sold within the Philippines. (Secs. 38 and 39, R.A. No. 165a)

23. PRIOR USER

73.1. Notwithstanding Section 72 hereof, any prior user, who, in good faith was using the invention or has undertaken serious preparations to use the invention in his enterprise or business, before the filing date or priority date of the application on which a patent is granted, shall have the right to continue the use thereof as envisaged in such preparations within the territory where the patent produces its effect.
73.2. The right of the prior user may only be transferred or assigned together with his enterprise or business, or with that part of his enterprise or business in which the use or preparations for use have been made. (Section 73)

24. USE OF INVENTION BY GOVERNMENT

SECTION 74. Use of Invention by Government.
74.1. A Government agency or third person authorized by the Government may exploit the invention even without agreement of the patent owner where:
(a) The public interest, in particular, national security, nutrition, health or the development of other sectors, as determined by the appropriate agency of the government, so requires; or
(b) A judicial or administrative body has determined that the manner of exploitation, by the owner of the patent or his licensee is anti-competitive.
74.2. The use by the Government, or third person authorized by the Government shall be subject, mutatis mutandis, to the conditions set forth in Sections 95 to 97 and 100 to 102. (Sec. 41, R.A. No. 165a)

25. DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by the patent, due account shall be taken of elements which are equivalent to the elements expressed in the claims, so that a claim shall be considered to cover not only all the elements as expressed therein, but also equivalents. (Section 75.2)

26. CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT

SECTION 76. CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT.

76.1. The making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing a patented product or a product obtained directly or indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented process without the authorization of the patentee constitutes patent infringement.
76.2. Any patentee, or anyone possessing any right, title or interest in and to the patented invention, whose rights have been infringed, may bring a civil action before a court of competent jurisdiction, to recover from the infringer such damages sustained thereby, plus attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation, and to secure an injunction for the protection of his rights.
76.3. If the damages are inadequate or cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty, the court may award by way of damages a sum equivalent to reasonable royalty.
76.4. The court may, according to the circumstances of the case, award damages in a sum above the amount found as actual damages sustained: Provided, That the award does not exceed three (3) times the amount of such actual damages.
76.5. The court may, in its discretion, order that the infringing goods, materials and implements predominantly used in the infringement be disposed of outside the channels of commerce or destroyed, without compensation.
76.6. Anyone who actively induces the infringement of a patent or provides the infringer with a component of a patented product or of a product produced because of a patented process knowing it to be especially adopted for infringing the patented invention and not suitable for substantial non-infringing use shall be liable as a contributory infringer and shall be jointly and severally liable with the infringer. (Sec. 42, R.A. No. 165a)

27. CRIMINAL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT

Criminal Action for Repetition of Infringement. — If infringement is repeated by the infringer or by anyone in connivance with him after finality of the judgment of the court against the infringer, the offenders shall, without prejudice to the institution of a civil action for damages, be criminally liable therefor and, upon conviction, shall suffer imprisonment for the period of not less than six (6) months but not more than three (3) years and/or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000), at the discretion of the court. The criminal action herein provided shall prescribe in three (3) years from date of the commission of the crime. (Section 84)

28. NOTICE TO INFRINGER

Damages cannot be recovered for acts of infringement committed before the infringer had known, or had reasonable grounds to know of the patent. It is presumed that the infringer had known of the patent if on the patented product, or on the container or package in which the article is supplied to the public, or on the advertising material relating to the patented product or process, are placed the words "Philippine Patent" with the number of the patent. (Section 80)


Computer Privacy




Computer Privacy

Computer privacy has become a huge concern as we increasingly use portable computers and share public computers or Internet access points for personal and business purposes. Work away from the office policies have allowed employees to take their portable computers out of the office. This computer portability along with the availability of public computers and Internet access points are increasing the risks of computer privacy which we will discuss.

As computer portability made life convenient, it also presented certain privacy risks. Students, entrepreneurs and others like me who perform best when they are not alone excitedly took their computers to public places like the coffee shops or libraries to work on their projects and then came the Internet which made computer privacy even worse. With portable devices, we had to first worry about people around us being able to see our information as we worked on our projects, and now stolen laptops and data storage devices are also being publicized as companies store millions of customer and employee numbers on their portable devices causing computer privacy concerns.

As the Internet gained global acceptance to connect us all while we slowly come to understand and accept the computer privacy risks, more businesses concerned with profit margins feel the need to cut rent and office costs allowing their employees to telecommute or forcing them to share office space with their colleagues raising additional computer and desk privacy concerns. Both telecommuting and office sharing increase the risk of privacy disclosure especially when telecommuting is from internet enabled coffee shops and other public places to access company systems and information. Let's not forget the fact that some employees access their corporate information using non-company devices especially public computers in airports and other public places which is even worse because of the complete lack of knowledge about the security controls of the computers used. In such cases, the privacy of our credentials to access the business systems is also at risk potentially leading to unauthorized disclosure and access to company information.

In dealing with laptop privacy, awareness is very important which means that we have to assume that although most people are trustworthy and would never look at a stranger’s computer screen, some people might actually be targeting our information. In fact, I always try my best to avoid accessing my bank account and other sensitive personal accounts from non-personal computers because I’m worried about spyware that might collect my personal information. On the other hand, even if I’m just working on projects or accessing less sensitive accounts such as my email accounts using my own computer, I’m still worried about someone noticing my ID and password as I type them on my computer screen. A couple of solutions for such cases is to sit at a location where no one can seat behind us and use a device privacy screen filter. A computer privacy filter actually prevents someone from looking at the information on your computer screen while you type or view them unless they are sitting exactly where you are, in front of the computer in order to see what you see. Screen privacy filters have additional benefits such as glare reduction and computer screen protection against scratches and fingerprints.

In summary, if you work out of coffee shops, try to secure the most private spot which does not allow others to sit right behind you. Always use trusted computers and Internet access points as much as possible,and, use a computer screen privacy filter to prevent side views. It's not always possible to use fully trusted computers for variety of reasons, but, we can always assess the risk level of the devices and locations we use to selectively access confidential information. And last but not least, avoid placing huge files containing personal information on your portable devices to reduce the risk of theft or loss, unless, you protect the computer and its data through encryption and other means.

By Henry Bagdasarian





Computers Challenge Freedom of Information Act


With the Government's continuing shift to storing information in computers, the public faces new obstacles when seeking access to Federal documents, a growing number of legal scholars and lawyers say.

These experts and some public interest groups say the creation of vast storehouses of electronic data is undermining the original intent of the Freedom of Information Act, which does not mention computer records. Their main argument is that a lack of adequate guidelines about computerized information allows Government officials too much latitude in responding to requests for information.

Computerization has even raised disputes about what constitutes a Federal record. That is an issue in a lawsuit three public interest groups brought under the Freedom of Information Act in January. The groups obtained a temporary restraining order that prevented the Bush White House from erasing the Reagan Administration's electronic messages on the computerized mail system used by the White House and the National Security Council. Government lawyers argued that those messages ''do not rise'' to the level of being Government records. 'No Man's Land' of Information

Alan Westin, a computer expert at Columbia University, says the problem is that the Government's expanded use of computers in the last two decades has leapfrogged laws intended for a world in which all Federal records were on paper. Now with data bases, electronically stored information can be instantaneously sorted and retrieved, or even destroyed, with just a few strokes on a computer keyboard.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/18/us/computers-challenge-freedom-of-information-act.html


In brief



The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides public access to information held by public authorities.
It does this in two ways:
  • public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities; and
  • members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities.
The Act covers any recorded information that is held by a public authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. Information held by Scottish public authorities is covered by Scotland’s own Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Public authorities include government departments, local authorities, the NHS, state schools and police forces. However, the Act does not necessarily cover every organisation that receives public money. For example, it does not cover some charities that receive grants and certain private sector organisations that perform public functions.
Recorded information includes printed documents, computer files, letters, emails, photographs, and sound or video recordings.
The Act does not give people access to their own personal data (information about themselves) such as their health records or credit reference file. If a member of the public wants to see information that a public authority holds about them, they should make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998.
http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/act



Computer Communications and Freedom of Expression





Freedom of information, speech and the press is firmly rooted in the structures of modern western democratic thought.  With limited restrictions, every capitalist democracy has legal provisions protecting these rights.  Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the general assembly in 1948 declares "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (although as Article 19, it comes after the right to hold property, be married and hold a nationality, among others).  As such, western ethics heavily favor the nearly unfettered rights to speech, press and information.  Such rights might be tailored to protect state security from a Lockesian social contract perspective, but a Kantian categorical outlook surely provides for a society in which everyone can speak freely is better to one in which no one can speak freely.

Communism, as a primarily economic system, is much quieter on the issue of individual human rights. Two conflicting positions on these freedoms arise with analysis of communist theory.  The first is an argument against individual freedoms.  In a communist society, the individual's best interests are indistinguishable from the society's best interest.  Thus, the idea of an individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology.  The only reason to hold individual speech and information rights would be to better the society, a condition which would likely be met only in certain instances rather than across time, making the default a lack of freedom.

On the other hand, the idea of perfect equality in communism argues for a right of expression and press.  Since each individual is equally important, each should have an equally valid point of view.  Indeed, Marx defended the right to a freedom of the press, arguing in 1842 that restrictions, like censorship were instituted by the bourgeois elite.  He claimed censorship is a tool of the powerful to oppress the powerless.

Indeed, many implementations of communism favored a constitutional democracy, albeit usually with only one party.  Before and at the creation of many communist countries, a desire for freedom from the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeois translated into strongly voiced support for individual freedoms for speech, dissent and information.  Chairman Mao, in encouraging his countrymen to prepare for WWII more than a decade before he came to power, proclaimed "[the people] should subject ... the party in power, to severe criticism, and press and impel it to give up its one-party, one-class dictatorship and act according to the opinions of the people....The second matter concerns freedom of speech, assembly and association for the people. Without such freedom, it will be impossible to carry out the democratic reconstruction of the political system."  In 1945, closer yet to his assumption of power, Mao proclaimed, "Two principles must be observed: (1) say all you know and say it without reserve; (2) Don't blame the speaker but take his words as a warning.  Unless the principle of 'Don't blame the speaker" is observed genuinely and not falsely, the result will not be 'Say all you know and say it without reserve."  More striking still is the fact that this latter quote is recorded in "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung," more commonly known as the Little Red Book, a veritable bible of Chinese communism considered infallible during Mao's lifetime.
Thus, on the balance, it seems communist theory is compatible with freedoms of speech, information and protest, but it is far from a fundamental right such as it is under democracy and individual-centered ethics systems like that of Kant and Locke.  Freedom of information should only be granted when communist society as a whole is likely to benefit.  In this light, it makes much more sense that communist leaders, while still a persecuted opposition philosophy, would strongly support speech rights and later reject them when communism becomes the ruling system.  At that point, access to oppositional speech and information is no longer beneficial to the communist state, and thus no longer needed in communist philosophy.

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/communism-computing-china/censorship.html


Controlling Access to the Internet:
The Role of Filtering

Controlling access to the Internet by means of filtering software has become a
growth industry in the U.S. and elsewhere. Its use has increased as the mandatory
response to the current plagues of society, namely, pornography, violence, hate, and
in general, anything seen to be unpleasant or threatening. Also of potential concern
is the possible limitation of access to Web sites that discuss drugs, without
distinguishing advocacy from scientific and informed analysis of addiction. With the
rise of an effective creationist movement dedicated to the elimination of
evolutionary theory in the curriculum, it is to be expected that attempts will be made
to limit access to sites presenting such theories, in certain jurisdictions in the U.S.
The current preferred method of choice to limit access is to filter content either by
blocking access to specific Web sites, referred to by their URLs, or by using a large
set of keywords to prevent accessing sites that contain one or more of these words.
Another more insidious scheme is to encourage or even require every Web site to
rate its content along a number of dimensions, including violence, language, sexual
explicitness, and nudity. Then individual browsers can be programmed to return
references only to those sites that fall below a pre-specified profile. The dangers for
free speech inherent in such schemes will be discussed. Efforts to produce
legislation in the U.S. to mandate the use of filtering or rating programs will be

described, as will some recent court decisions involving their use in libraries.


Free Speech, Filters, Internet, Libraries, Ethics, United States

Controlling access to the Internet by means of filtering software has become a
growth industry in the U.S. and elsewhere. Its use has increased as the mandatory
response to the current plagues of society, namely, pornography, violence, hate, andin general, anything seen to be unpleasant or threatening. On the legislative agenda
is the limitation of access to any Web sites that discuss drugs, without
distinguishing advocacy from scientific and informed analysis of addiction.
(Pending Bills, 2000) With the rise of an effective creationist movement dedicated
to the elimination of evolutionary theory in the curriculum, it is to be expected that
attempts will be made to limit access to sites presenting scientific evolutionary
theory, in certain jurisdictions in the U.S.
In this paper, the various strategies incorporated within current filtering programs
are briefly described as well as the apparent content issues on the Internet that
motivate their use both in private and public contexts. Underlying this motivation is
a mixture of political and social pressures to take action against real and perceived
problematic Internet content. This motivation has manifested itself in proposed and
enacted legislation and also a number of lawsuits. Some of these are reviewed and
serve to support the present viewpoint against the mandatory use of filtering
programs in libraries and community centers among other public places. My focus
is on the U.S. because the issues of concern are the subject of legislative actions and
are topics of widespread analysis and debate. In another paper on filtering,
(Rosenberg, 1999) the focus was placed on how librarians deal with their
professional responsibility to provide open access to information as well as their
social responsibility to the members of their community, young and old alike. The
players are many and varied - concerned individuals and families, librarians, library
and school boards, state legislators, judges, congressman, senators, religious groups,
civil liberties groups, Internet advocates, and of course the media - and their motives
are not always transparent. As with many other issues that mingle politics and
morality, the story of filtering is both new and somewhat familiar.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem facing those who wish to
regulate the World Wide Web, its current size (roughly) and its growth rate (also
roughly) should be known. Fortunately, recent statistics are available from the
OCLC (Online Computer Library Center), a research organization that aims to
“further (the public's) access to the world's information and reduce information
costs.” OCLC reported results of its June 1999 survey during September 1999 (June
1999 Web Statistics, 1999). The total number of unique Web sites was estimated as
almost 3.7 million, with almost 2.23 million being public, 389,000 private and just
over a million provisional. These numbers are estimated to vary in accuracy
between +/- 3% to +/- 10%. The public sites were estimated to contain almost 290
million pages (+/- 35%). The rate of growth of unique public sites is quite large:
179% between 1997 and 1999. The Web is very large and getting larger at a high
rate. This growth rate raises many issues of access because to be accessible by
search engines, pages must be scanned and catalogued as they come online.
There is, however, no consensus on Web statistics. In a famous paper published
in Nature, (Lawrence and Lee, 1999), the number of public Web sites, as of
February 1999, was estimated to be 2.8 million. The number of indexable pages was
estimated as 800 million, more than two and one-half times the figure given above.
The results are based on a complete examination of the first 2,500 random web
servers discovered. In addition, Lawrence and Lee manually classified the contentof these servers and reported that “about 83% of servers contain commercial content
(for example, company home pages).” The remaining 17% is made up of
scientific/education (6%), pornography (1.5%), government (1.2%), health (2.8%),
personal (2.3%), community (1.4%), religion (.8%), and societies (2%). Note that
some sites have multiple classifications. No criteria are given for these categories,
except for scientific/education. Based on this paper, there are 1.5 million
pornographic pages, although the defining terms are unknown. Depending on one's
point of view, this is a large number or a small one.
In the next section, various concerns related to the use of filtering and blocking
strategies will be described and discussed, as well as the different strategies
employed in their use. In the section on legal and legislative consideration, the
current state of the law in the U.S. is discussed and a number of pending bills in the
U.S. Congress designed to mandate filtering in public libraries and schools are
described. Finally, the position taken in this paper is summarized and supporters of
free speech and open inquiry are urged to renew their efforts to defend these
freedoms.

http://www.copacommission.org/papers/rosenberg.pdf



Anonymity on the Internet


Types of Anonymity

In this paper, the word "message" is used to designate any communication unit (e-mail, newsgroup article, web page, pamphlet, book, rumour, etc.) 
Anonymity means that the real author of a message is not shown. Anonymity can be implemented to make it impossible or very difficult to find out the real author of a message. 
A common variant of anonymity is pseudonymity, where another name than the real author is shown. The pseudonym is sometimes kept very secret, sometimes the real name behind a pseudonym is openly known, such as Marc Twain as a pseudonym for Samuel Clemens or Ed McBain as a pseudonym for Evan Hunter , whose original name wasSalvatore A. Lombino . A person can even use multiple different pseudonyms for different kinds of communication. 
An advantage with a pseudonym, compared with complete anonymity, is that it is possible to recognize that different messages are written by the same author. Sometimes, it is also possible to write a letter to a pseudonym (without knowing the real person behind it) and get replies back. It is even possible to have long discourses between two pseudonyms, none of them knowing the real name behind the other's pseudonym. A disadvantage, for a person who wants to be anonymous, is that combining information in many messages from the same person may make it easier to find out who the real person is behind the pseudonym. 
A variant of pseudonymity is deception [Donath 1996], where a person intentionally tries to give the impression of being someone else, or of having different authority or expertise. 


Anonymity before the Internet

Anonymity is not something which was invented with the Internet. Anonymity and pseudonymity has occurred throughout history. For example, William Shakespeare is probably a pseudonym, and the real name of this famous author is not known and will probably never be known. 
Anonymity has been used for many purposes. 
A well-known person may use a pseudonym to write messages, where the person does not want people's preconception of the real author color their perception of the message.
Also other people may want to hide certain information about themselves in order to achieve a more unbiased evaluation of their messages. For example, in history it has been common that women used male pseudonyms, and for Jews to use pseudonyms in societies where their religion was persecuted. 
Anonymity is often used to protect the privacy of people, for example when reporting results of a scientific study, when describing individual cases. 
Many countries even have laws which protect anonymity in certain circumstances. Examples: 
A person may, in many countries, consult a priest, doctor or lawyer and reveal personal information which is protected. In some cases, for example confession in catholic churches, the confession booth is specially designed to allow people to consult a priest, without seeing him face to face. 
The anonymity in confessional situations is however not always 100 %. If a person tells a lawyer that he plans a serious crime, some countries allow or even require that the lawyer tell the police. The decision to do so is not easy, since people who tell a priest or a psychologist that they plan a serious crime, may often do this to express their feeling more than their real intention. 
Many countries have laws protecting the anonymity of tip-offs to newspapers. It is regarded as important that people can give tips to newspapers about abuse, even though they are dependent on the organization they are criticizing and do not dare reveal their real name. 
Advertisement in personal sections in newspapers are almost always signed by a pseudonym for obvious reasons. 


Is Anonymity Good or Bad?

In summary, anonymity and pseudonymity can be used for good and bad purposes. And anonymity can in may cases be desirable for one person and not desirable for another person. A company may, for example, not like an employee to divulge information about improper practices within the company, but society as a whole may find it important that such improper practices are publicly exposed. 
Good purposes of anonymity and pseudonymity: 
+ People dependent on an organization, or afraid of revenge, may divulge serious misuse, which should be revealed. Anonymous tips can be used as an information source by newspapers, as well as by police departments, soliciting tips aimed at catching criminals. Everyone will not regard such anonymous communication as good. For example, message boards established outside companies, but for employees of such companies to vent their opinions on their employer, have sometimes been used in ways that at least the companies themselves were not happy about [Abelson 2001]. Police use of anonymity is a complex issue, since the police often will want to know the identity of the tipper in order to get more information, evaluate the reliability or get the tipper as a witness. Is it ethical for police to identify the tipper if it has opened up an anonymous tipping hotline? 
+ People in a country with a repressive political regime may use anonymity (for example Internet-based anonymity servers in other countries) to avoid persecution for their political opinions. Note that even in democratic countries, some people claim, rightly or wrongly, that certain political opinions are persecuted. [Wallace 1999] gives an overview of uses of anonymity to protect political speech. Every country has a limit on which political opinions are allowed, and there are always people who want to express forbidden opinions, like racial agitation in most democratic countries. 
+ People may openly discuss personal stuff which would be embarrassing to tell many people about, such as sexual problems. Research shows that anonymous participants disclose significantly more information about themselves [Joinson 2001]. 
+ People may get more objective evaluation of their messages, by not showing their real name. 
+ People are more equal in anonymous discussions, factors like status, gender, etc., will not influence the evaluation of what they say. 
+ Pseudonymity can be used to experiment with role playing, for example a man posing as a woman in order to understand the feelings of people of different gender. 
+ Pseudonymity can be a tool for timid people to dare establish contacts which can be of value for them and others, e.g. through contact advertisements. 
There has always, however, also been a dark side of anonymity: 
 Anonymity can be used to protect a criminal performing many different crimes, for example slander, distribution of child pornography, illegal threats, racial agitation, fraud, intentional damage such as distribution of computer viruses, etc. The exact set of illegal acts varies from country to country, but most countries have many laws forbidding certain "informational" acts, everything from high treason to instigation of rebellion, etc., to swindling. 
 Anonymity can be used to seek contacts for performing illegal acts, like a pedophile searching for children to abuse or a swindler searching for people to rip off. 
 Even when the act is not illegal, anonymity can be used for offensive or disruptive communication. For example, some people use anonymity in order to say nasty things about other people. 
The border between illegal and legal but offensive use is not very sharp, and varies depending on the law in each country. 

Anonymity on the Internet

Even though anonymity and pseudonymity is not something new with the Internet, the net has increased the ease for a person to distribute anonymous and pseudonymous messages. Anonymity on the Internet is almost never 100 %, there is always a possibility to find the perpetrator, especially if the same person uses the same way to gain anonymity multiple times. 
In the simplest case, a person sends an e-mail or writes a Usenet news article using a falsified name. Most mail and news software allows the users to specify whichever name they prefer, and makes no check of the correct identity. Using web-based mail systems like Hotmail, it is even possible to receive replies and conduct discussions using a pseudonym. 
The security for the anonymous user is not very high in this case. The IP number (physical address) of the computer used is usually logged, often also the host name (logical name). Many people connect to the Internet using a temporary IP number assigned to them for a single session. But also such numbers are logged by the ISP (Internet Service Provider) and it is possible to find out who used a certain IP number at a certain time, provided that the ISP assists in the identification. There are also other well-known methods for breaking anonymity, for example elements can be included on a web page, which communicates information without knowledge of the person watching the web page. Some ISPs have a policy of always assisting such searches for the anonymous users. In this way they avoid tricky decisions on when to assist and not assist such searches. 


Computer Crime Identity Theft Laws

Identity theft is the crime of obtaining the personal or financial information of another person or a small business for the purpose of assuming that person's or business' name or identity to make transactions or purchases, according to Investopedia. Identity theft occurs in many ways through the use of a computer and is among the fastest growing crimes in the United States, according to the Department of Justice.

Types of Identity Theft

Identity theft occurs in different forms, including but not limited to computer phishing, 419 scams (named after the Nigerian penal code), Internet auction fraud, magnetic strip skimming and credit card fraud. All identity theft is an attempt to steal personal information to access accounts or to open new accounts fraudulently, regardless of the approach.

Electronic Records Laws

It is a federal crime in the United States to access electronic records of another individual without express consent of the owner or executor of those accounts. This includes medical records, work-place personnel file records, mortgage or lease records, credit history, tax records, credit card and bank accounts. Most states offer further protections. In Texas, for example, it is a crime to knowingly access a computer, computer network or computer system without the owner’s consent, according to the Victims Initiative for Counseling, Advocacy and Restoration of the Southwest.

Forgery

Forgery is the act of using another person's signature to obtain a benefit. Forgery can occur electronically with use of a computer. Identity thieves use another individual's personal information to open new accounts electronically. When identity thieves open new accounts, they commit forgery by electronically signing the acceptance and usage agreement.

Phishing

Phishing is the use of legitimate-looking but fraudulent email messages to entice an individual to access an account online. The account holder is asked to click a link to access her account online. When she inputs her username and password, the information is transmitted to the identity thief. Most states have laws against phishing scams, and some come with stiff penalties. For instance, a criminal convicted of committing a phishing scam can be fined up to $100,000 per offense in Texas.


Summary

In the industrialized world computers are changing
everything: from education to health, from voting to
making friends or making war.
Developing countries can also fully participate in
cyberspace and make use of opportunities offered by
global networks.
We are living a technological and informational
revolution.
It is therefore important for policy makers, leaders,
teachers, computer professionals and all social
thinkers to get involved in the social and ethical
impacts of this communication technology.