A little K sample for the topic lecture
Cann Jr. 4, Professor Emeritus of Business Law, University of Connecticut; B.A., 1969, and J.D., 1972, University of Connecticut. (Wesley A., Fall 2004, SYMPOSIUM:CORPORATE & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RE-PRICING MEDICINES IN DEVELOPING NATIONS:ARTICLE:ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE NEED OF LESS-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES FOR ACCESS TO PHARMACEUTICALS: CREATING A LEGAL DUTY TO SUPPLY UNDER A THEORY OF PROGRESSIVE GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONALISM, 25 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 755, 781. Lexis accessed online via KU libraries)
The term "intellectual property rights" is often accepted as a given among much of the Westernized world. It is a phrase that is often authoritatively (and perhaps cavalierly) used to define a whole set of creative endeavors that deserve protection under the laws of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. Such a phrase, however, is far from innocuous. The use of the words "property" and "rights" carries substantial, ideological flavor that may or may not be shared by other nations of the world.