Search the archive.

the set of decisions that a government makes relating to things that directly affect the people in its own country:

There's a focus on domestic policy, dealing with issues such as health care and education.

Domestic policy means a government’s policy decisions, programs, and actions that principally deal with internal matters, as opposed to relations with other nation-states. Domestic policy covers areas such as tax, social security, and welfare programs, environmental laws, and regulations on businesses and their practices.

Existing, occurring, or produced inside a particular region or country; not foreign or international.

[A]s the EEZ is outside of the territorial United States, and Congress has limited the reach of U.S. patent law to the United States and its territories, infringing activity would not be actionable under U.S. patent law. Even though U.S. jurisdiction has been extended to the EEZ for some, but not all activities, this begs the question of whether it takes U.S. patent law—which territorially limited—along with it. Congress could extend the reach of U.S. patent law to encompass marine scientific research occurring in the EEZ, as countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom have done.97

Specifically, the three major issues in intellectual property rights protection between the Philippines and the U.S. are:

1. Adequate and sufficient legal protection of intellectual property rights;

1.15 "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION" shall mean the application, prosecution (including, without limitation, all interference actions, term extensions and disclaimers, reexaminations, reissues, and divisions), maintenance, defense and enforcement of U.S. and foreign patent applications and patents arising therefrom, and establishment and protection of trade secrets and other forms of intellectual property rights.

There is, however, a perceived lack of enforcement of these laws and the administrative and judicial processes are not speedy enough to be considered adequate. The strong resolve to enforce existing IPR laws and a speedier settlement of IPR cases have to be proven convincingly to the U.S. negotiators

With respect to the proposed RP-US FTA negotiations, the three areas of consideration are: adequacy of IPR protection; enforcement and administrative/judicial dispute settlement of IPR cases; and improved market access for persons relying on intellectual property. In this connection, answers to the following questions are discussed:

Different national intellectual property legislation coexists within a common market, conferring privileges that restrict competition within the single market. The protection of intellectual property rights in a free trade market is essential to allow the free circulation of goods among member nations. In order to create a free trade market, member states must harmonize different intellectual property regimes and base the integrated system upon common rules of protection and enforcement. This is a difficult process due to divergences between national intellectual property regimes within a free trade agreement's member countries.

The focus of this article is on the convergence of national intellectual property norms into an international framework for the protection of intellectual property rights. Part I of this article examines the old system of international protection of intellectual property and its paradigms: the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, and the World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO). Part II studies the modern system of international protection of intellectual property rights consolidated in the World Trade Organization's Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the North American Free Trade Agreement regional trading block (NAFTA), and the emerging regional trading block of MERCOSUR, as well as the ongoing process of harmonization of intellectual property norms within its member countries: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

the act of keeping someone or something safe from injury, damage, or loss, or the state of being protected in this way:

Intellectual property is a valuable asset for an entrepreneur. It consists of inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, images, names, designs used in commerce and original expressions of creative individuals.

The key forms of intellectual property protection are patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Because intellectual property shares many of the characteristics of real and personal property, associated rights permit intellectual property to be treated as an asset that can be bought, sold, licensed or given away. Intellectual property laws enable owners, inventors and creators to protect their property from unauthorized use.

Intellectual property deals with creative ability. It refers to innovations, creations, or inventions from the mind. IP covers a wide range of artistic and literary works, such as images, designs, symbols, books, and so on.

The four types of intellectual property protection are as follows:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a general trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States that imposes general requirements for both the domestic and international treatment and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

NAFTA significantly advances protection of intellectual property in Mexico. However, it also requires that the United States and Canada make certain changes. The agreement recognizes the need, at a minimum, to accede and give effect to the main international conventions relating to intellectual property, i.e., the Paris Convention (intellectual property), the Berne Convention (copyrights), the Geneva Convention (protects phonograms or audio works), and the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).

As noted, intellectual property is protected on a national basis. Thus the specific scope of protection and the requirements for obtaining protection will vary from country to country. There are, however, similarities among national legal arrangements. Moreover, the current worldwide trend is toward harmonizing the national laws. The following discussion of the requirements and obstacles in obtaining protection will therefore speak in generalities. The case studies in this paper will highlight the laws of certain individual regions or countries.

Given the robust amount of trade between the United States and European Union, those practicing law or engaged in international business in the United States and Europe should have a working knowledge of the differences between the two legal regimes on the point of compulsory licensing. One general guideline to help the practitioner operating within both legal regimes is that the tension between the assertion of intellectual property rights and the prevention of the abuse of those rights is more noteworthy in Europe than in the United States. 254 One comment states that the Microsoft Corp. decision itself is a terrific example of the schism between legal approaches found in the European Union and the United States. 255 The European Union has titled the balance toward a more short-term consumer benefit and a lesser level of intellectual property right protection whereas the United States takes a much stronger intellectual property protection approach that sacrifices some short-term consumer welfare. 256 This is despite the fact that the qualifications for gaining intellectual property rights are similar across the United States and the Member-States of the European Union. 257 However, there is commentary that this divergence in jurisprudence between the United States and Europe is recent. 258 This divergence has also recently separated the United States from Canada, its leading trading partner, as Canada has taken an approach to compulsory licensing as a remedy more akin to that of the European Union. 259

The word it’s is always short for ‘it is’ (as in it's raining), or in informal speech, for ‘it has’ (as in it's got six legs).

The word its means ‘belonging to it’ (as in hold its head still while I jump on its back). It is a possessive pronoun like his.

: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

The Court inadvertently used the word "his" when the Court intended to use the word "its." The possessive pronoun was intended to refer to the party preceding its use--AGF. Indeed, that reference is consistent with the undisputed facts in this case, which indicate that Cassin completed an application for the insurance policy and submitted it to his agent, Theodore Tunick & Company ("Tunick"). Tunick, in turn, submitted the application to AGF's underwriting agent, TL Dallas. (See Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 5.)

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including title III of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–403) (15 U.S.C. 8111–8116) (the "PRO IP Act"), and in order to strengthen the efforts of the Federal Government to encourage innovation through the effective and efficient enforcement of laws protecting copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other forms of intellectual property, both in the United States and abroad, including matters relating to combating infringement, and thereby support efforts to reinvigorate the Nation's global competitiveness, accelerate export growth, promote job creation, and reduce threats posed to national security and to public health and safety, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Senior Intellectual Property Enforcement Advisory Committee.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act is designed to completely overhaul the law around patent eligibility by eliminating judicial exceptions to Title 35 of the U.S. Code, Section 101. [1]

The bill asserts that these judicial exceptions have rendered an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection, and that patent practitioners and courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have for years requested greater clarity on Section 101 patent eligibility.