Source: http://book.wolterskluwer.pl/x_C_I__PT_40110400__LL_0__PZTA_0E__UPT_40304575.html
Timestamp: 2020-06-01 00:27:12+00:00
Document Index: 54219731

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 47', 'Art. 47', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 29', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 102', 'Art. 102']

2014: | Zeszyt 123 | Zeszyt 124 | Zeszyt 125 | Zeszyt 126
2015: | Zeszyt 127 | Zeszyt 128 | Zeszyt 129 | Zeszyt 130
2016: | Zeszyt 131 | Zeszyt 132 | Zeszyt 133 | Zeszyt 134
2017: | Zeszyt 135 | Zeszyt 136 | Zeszyt 137 | Zeszyt 138
2018: | Zeszyt 139
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej - Zeszyt 123
Kod: KAM-6003:2014123 Ilość w paczce: 100
Twoja cena brutto już od: 89,00 zł.
Przepisy określające zasady tworzenia "reklamy dziecięcej"
Dopuszczalność posługiwania się cudzymi utworami w twórczości satyrycznej
Wspólność patentowa a udzielenie licencji
Sprawozdanie o stanie techniki z art. 47 p.w.p. - charakter i funkcja
Magdalena Danek
The general framework for analysis of exclusionary conduct of a dominant undertaking in the Commission's 2009 Guidance - the economic thinking behind the revisited approach and its legal rules
Przedsiębiorcy planujący kampanie reklamowe z oczywistych względów uwzględniają okoliczność, że dzieci stanowią znaczącą grupę nabywców różnego rodzaju produktów, wywierają także wpływ na wybory rynkowe dorosłych. Wiedzę o rynku i jego ofercie czerpią przede wszystkim z reklam. Docierają one do dzieci z wielu źródeł, do niedawna głównie z przekazów telewizyjnych, obecnie także z ekranów komputerów. Jeżeli zważyć, że reklama stanowi ważny instrument kreowania potrzeb, wskazuje sposoby ich zaspokajania, wyznacza styl życia, buduje wzorce osobowościowe, to trudno nie dostrzec jej znaczenia dla kształtowania osobowości młodego człowieka. Z tego względu tak ważne są odpowiednie ograniczenia i zakazy, kształtujące prawne warunki prowadzenia "reklamy dziecięcej".
Twórcy szeroko rozumianych utworów satyrycznych bardzo często posługują się cudzym dorobkiem. Niekiedy sam w sobie jest on obiektem satyry, niekiedy jest jedynie środkiem do krytyki związanych z nim wartości, w innych zaś przypadkach wyłącznie "tworzywem", mającym na celu zwrócenie uwagi i przyciągnięcie odbiorców. W każdej z tych sytuacji konieczne będzie dokonanie prawnej kwalifikacji możliwości posłużenia się cudzym utworem w satyrze. Czy zawsze stanowi ona naruszenie majątkowych lub osobistych praw autorskich? Czy satyra, co do zasady, jest opracowaniem, czy może "jedynie" utworem inspirowanym? Jakie są granice dopuszczalnego posługiwania się cudzymi utworami w twórczości satyrycznej? Niniejszy artykuł stanowi próbę odpowiedzi na powyższe pytania, z uwzględnieniem rozwiązań przyjętych w innych państwach Unii Europejskiej, a także w wybranych krajach systemu common law.
Prawa wyłączne mogą przysługiwać wspólnie kilku podmiotom. Wspólność patentowa coraz częściej stanowi wynik współpracy naukowo-finansowej pomiędzy uniwersytetami, instytutami badawczo-rozwojowymi oraz niezależnymi spółkami. Rosnące znaczenie współpracy, w szczególności w innowacyjnych sektorach gospodarki, uzasadnia odniesienie się do zagadnień teoretycznych związanych z wykonywaniem wspólnego patentu, w tym zasad kreacji prawa na rzecz osób trzecich. Wycinkiem tej problematyki jest udzielenie licencji na korzystanie z wynalazku. Powstaje pytanie, czy i w jakim zakresie udzielenie licencji wymaga współdziałania wszystkich współuprawnionych. Zagadnienie to, pozostające w literaturze na uboczu głównych dociekań związanych ze wspólnością patentową, obecnie zyskuje coraz większą doniosłość praktyczną. Rozważania zawarte w artykule zmierzają do ustalenia reguł udzielania licencji oraz pozycji prawnej podmiotów działających we wspólności.
Na podstawie obecnie obowiązującej ustawy z 30.06.2000 r. - Prawo własności przemysłowej powinnością Urzędu Patentowego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (dalej jako UP RP) jest sporządzenie i doręczenie osobie zgłaszającej do ochrony wynalazek lub wzór użytkowy dokumentu określanego w ustawie jako "sprawozdanie o stanie techniki". Dokument ten, opatrywany w różnych wypowiedziach epitetami umniejszającymi jego znaczenie ("wstępny", "orientacyjny"), jest - wbrew temu, co można by na tej podstawie sądzić - dokumentem o dużym znaczeniu praktycznym, a w ostatnim okresie jego znaczenie zdaje się wzrastać. Niniejszy artykuł stanowi krytyczne spojrzenie na charakter i funkcję tego dokumentu, a przy okazji na pewne ogólniejszej natury zagadnienia związane z postępowaniami patentowymi toczącymi się przed UP RP.
The Commission's 2009 Guidance on enforcement priorities in applying Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has been widely perceived as an instrument of reform of the approach to exclusionary abuses in EU competition law. It is vital to assess the developments within the set-out modernised framework of assessment with a view to determine the underlying economic thinking and the legal method of embracement of the economic assumptions the Commission would rely on. This article has been devised to hint at the essential problems associated with the framework for analysis in the 2009 Guidance.
Provisions determining the rules of creating 'children's advertising'
Permissibility of using other authors' works in satirical creation
Joint ownership of patents and granting licenses
Report on the state of the art under Art. 47 of the Industrial Property Law - character and function
The advertising of products targeting children has been giving rise to many controversies for years. While noticing the danger inherent in such messages, leading mainly to strengthening the pro-consumerist attitude of the youngest market participants, which is conducive to building social differences, the division into those who have the advertised product and those who have not, which division destroys children's psyche, the legislator, both at national and EU level tries to prevent these undesirable results. In this area there is no single conception, so the relevant prohibitions and restrictions are built and included both in legal instruments of general importance for the market (e.g. in the provisions combating the manifestations of unfair competition) and in more detailed regulations (e.g. in the field of pharmaceutical law). As it seems, regardless of the assessment of efficiency of the existing solutions, one of the fundamental problems is a clear determination of the adequate age brackets for 'children'. It does not seem appropriate that the same principles be applied to persons aged e.g. 3-7 and 14-17. The issue of children participating in advertising addressed both to peers and to adults is completely neglected, even though the relevant prohibitions and restrictions would be of key importance. As it seems, the numerous solutions referred to in this text may sufficiently protect children, but provided that they are adequately observed.
Satirical creation eludes the categories of copyright law. Despite broadly from other authors' work in whole or in fragments drawing - with changes or in an unchanged form - it does not usually infringe authors' economic rights. Depending on the level of the satirist's creative input and the degree of creative interference with the borrowed elements, satire will either be an inspired work (Art. 2(4) of the Polish Copyright Law), or a work with quotes (Art. 29(1) of the Copyright Law) - in both cases being a different work than the original one.
Also on the plane of author's moral rights, there can hardly be any mention of the 'tort of satire', because neither the right of authorship nor the right to reliable use of the work will be impaired. Infringement of the former right will involve mainly a seeming satirical creation (simple reproduction) or at most one will be able to refer to unlawful use of someone's name or pseudonym (Art. 23 of the Civil Code) to designate one's own satirical work. In turn, recognisability of the critique of the used original work is a sign that the work is not used unreliably.
The permissibility of using other authors' works in satirical creation was also approved in the majority of European Union Member States, where - mainly under the influence of the Information Society Directive - the issues related to parody are gaining popularity. The majority of legal systems of European states introduce indirectly or directly the principle of limited freedom of satirical creation, identifying it - according to Art. 5(3)(k) of the Information Society Directive - with parody, caricature and pastiche as the typical methods of humorous critique. Considering the particularities of creations of this kind, where references to other persons' works are frequent, or even the works are borrowed in fragments or in full, specific conditions are set for such creations. The most popular conditions for the so-called exception for parody include: firstly, its creative, independent and autonomous character, manifested mainly in the added value compared to the original work; secondly, a critical purpose, which limits the scope of parody exclusively to the work being used (with the related limitation of freedom of satirical creation in principle to the three aforementioned forms); thirdly, the humorous overtone of a parody; fourthly, narrowing down the possibility of borrowing other persons' works only to the fragments which are necessary for achieving the purpose of a parody.
Likewise, satirists' ability to use other authors' works was recognized in the US. The courts, while accepting the standard of 'commenting on the original', upheld the 'technical' differentiation between parody and satire introduced by Federal Supreme Court judgment in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. case, accepting only the former as lawful, due to the fact that it targets precisely the work being used. What is significant is that US court refuse to accord protection to satirical works in the strict sense, assuming that the author is more willing to grant authorization (license) for his/her work being used in satire, because as such it does not target his/her work and thus there is no need to guarantee its legal 'facilitations'.
Regardless of the legal system, the lawfulness of satire is far from meeting the requirement of the postulate of legal certainty. As there is no express statutory regulation in the Polish law, it is based mainly on interpretation which on many occasions verges on - whatever name we might use - custom, tradition or common sense. Bearing in mind the considerable practical importance of these issues, as well as their potential for generating conflicts, it seems reasonable to return to the idea of expressly adding the exception for satire to the Copyright Law.
The topic of this article is the issue of granting licenses by patent co-owners to use an invention. In the article, the writer poses the following theses concerning the statutory rules of granting licenses in case of joint ownership of patents. Firstly, the patent co-owners are entitled to exercise the rights in full.
What restricts the independence of co-holders of patent rights within the internal relationship is the essence of a patent as an exclusive right and the interests of the remaining co-owners. Secondly, granting a license requires consent of all the co-holders of patent rights, regardless of the kind of licence. Due to the fact that granting both an exclusive license and a non-exclusive one may affect the actual possibility to use the invention and derive benefits from the patent, any proposals for differentiation of rules of granting exclusive and non-exclusive licenses do not merit recognition. Thirdly, we should distinguish between granting licenses for third parties to use an invention and authorizing third parties only to manufacture specific products. The latter should be covered by the scope of using the invention for one's own purposes. Thus it should not require cooperation of patent co-owners, which means that each of the co-holders of rights can do so independently. Fourthly, in case of granting a license in contravention of the duty to cooperate, the legal sanction is the relative invalidity of an act in law. Granting a license without the consent of all co-holders of rights is a defective act in law. Fifthly, the duty of all co-holders of patent rights to cooperate in the grant of a license to use an invention is not absolute in nature. If one co-holder of rights or a minority of them raise an objection, the remaining co-holders of patent rights might request a court to settle the dispute. The court's analysis is based on an objective criterion, which is used to assess the expediency of expressing consent for the grant of a license from the point of view of the construction of joint ownership of patent: formal equality in deriving benefits from a jointly owned patent.
Under the currently effective Act of 30 June 2000 - Industrial Property Law, the duty of the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (Polish abbreviation: UPRP) is to prepare and deliver to the person applying for protection of an invention or utility design a document referred to in the Act as report on the state of the art. The document, provided in various statements with adjectives reducing its importance ('preliminary', 'indicative'), is - contrary to what one might conclude on this basis - a document of high practical importance. The contents of the report help the person who applies for protection of an invention to assess from the right point of view the chances of the invention being accorded patent protection and decide on the further course of the application proceedings, which, on the one hand, serves the interests of said person and, on the other, improves the functioning of the patent protection system as a whole. Recently, an increase in the document's importance could be observed, which to some extent is a sign of crisis of the patent protection system: due to the length of application proceedings measured in years, such a preliminary, non-final UPRP declaration as to the likelihood of granting a patent will for a long time shape the image of the invention for the applicant and persons having to do with the invention, thus creating better or worse prospects of market success for the invention - as is subsequently revealed rightly or not. This article is a critical look at the character and function of this document and at the same time at certain more general issues relating to patent proceedings pending before UP RP.
The European Commission 2009 Guidance on the priorities which the Commission will use in applying Art. 102 TFEU to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings are perceived as a document introducing a more economic approach and one more oriented on the effects of market practices to assessing abuses of dominant position. It is the first instrument of the European Commission related exclusively to the application of Art. 102 TFEU. The 2009 Guidance brought many changes and explanations important for modifying the existing approach to exclusionary practices. The essence of the more economic orientation is examining the influence of market practices on competition and consumers' well-being on the basis of an economic analysis of individual cases instead of using inference on the basis of formalistic legal rules in order to ascertain abuse. The paper discussed in detail the changes that the 2009 Guidance makes in the overall approach to assessment of the potentially abusive exclusionary practices. It presents the overall revisited approach to determining the existence of dominant position, taking into account the additions in the definition of dominant position. There is a detailed presentation of the general legal framework and economic grounds for ascertaining abuse of dominant position, including in particular a discussion of the two-tier test of anti-competitive exclusion from the market and the (newly introduced) 'equally efficient competitor' test, relating to price-related exclusionary practices. The writer discusses the issue of defence against the charge of abuse on the basis of 'objective need' and efficiency. At every level of the analysis, the paper points out to the economic conditions behind the reasoning and the scope of introduced changes compared to the classical model of overall approach to assessing exclusionary practices of dominant undertakings. There is an indication of inconsistencies or those elements of economic and legal model of assessment of one-sided exclusionary practices presented in the Guidance which are difficult to interpret or apply. The paper presents broad-ranging reflections and conclusions concerning the extent to which the revisited approach takes into account the principles of more economic analysis, oriented on effects and consumer well-being. Then it discusses and defines in detail to what extent the new approach requires departure from a formalistic analysis of cases, based on legal assumptions, to detailed analysis of cases taking into account the economic conditions of influence on competitors and economic well-being.
ISSN: 1689-7080 , Format: B5 , 140
Rodzaj: , Medium: czasopismo (WKP)
Kod: KAM-6003:2014123 Miejsce wydania: Warszawa