代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

Copyright and patents

2019-08-13 来源: 51Due教员组 类别: 更多范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Copyright and patents,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了版权和专利。版权的基本特征是它只保护表达,而不保护思想、程序或概念。关于软件,版权禁止作者复制他人的软件。然而,它并不妨碍别人出于同样的目的复制他人软件中的思想或概念。如果您所编写的软件只有版权,并且是公开发布的,您不能禁止其他人使用您软件中的思想或概念开发新的软件形式。在这种情况下,您的软件将失去其商业价值。与版权不同,软件专利为软件所有者提供了一个专利单体。未经同意或法律上的例外,任何人不得使用软件中的概念或想法。因此,根据著作权法和专利法,软件的作者在表达方式和思想方面受到更好的保护。

Copyright, patent,assignment代写,paper代写,美国作业代写

Nature is not patentable because of lack of human intervention and innovation. Section 18(3) of Patents Act 1990 provides that plants and animals as well as the biological processes generating plants and animals are not patentable inventions. This provision excludes nature from the subject matter of patenting. However, a microbiological process or product of such a process may be patentable (section 18(4) of Patents Act 1990). Although nature by itself is not patentable, the inventions using natural biological processes may be patentable. In Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 U.S. 303, the Supreme Court held that microorganisms produced by genetic engineering were not precluded from patent protection. In this case, plasmids were added to a bacterium and were used to break down components of crude oil. Although bacterium is natural, the modification of it was a product of human ingenuity. The modified product is not completely natural and markedly different from that found in nature. The modified bacteria were hence patentable. In this case, the court argued that whether an invention embraces living matter has no bearings with its patentability and established a test for the patentability of natural living matter. If the living matter is the result of human intervention, namely the result of human ingenuity, invention and research, and markedly different from what is found in nature, it is patentable.

The fundamental feature of copyright is that it only protects express other than ideas, procedures or concepts. With regard to software, copyright prohibits a writer from copying others’ software. However, it does not prevent a writer from copying the ideas or concepts in others’ software for the same purpose. If the software you write only has copyright and been published publicly, you cannot prohibit others from developing new form of software by using the ideas or concepts in your software. In this circumstance, your software will lose its commercial value. Different from copyright, software patents provide a patent monoploy to the owner of the software. The patentee obtains an exclusive rights of the patent to exploit or authorise others to exploit the invention (section 13(1) of Patents Act 1990). Anyone else is not allowed to use the concepts or ideas in the software without the consent or legal exceptions. The writer of the software is hence better protected with regard to expressions and ideas respectively under copyright and patent law.

With regard to confidential information, trade secrets of a business and general knowledge and skills obtained by employees are distinguished in law. Trade secrets such as formulae and client names are confidential information protected under the law and no disclosure is allowed. Employee “know-how” is usually not protectable unless otherwise stipulated in express confidentiality provisions in employment contract. Regarding former employees’ obligation of confidentiality, in Blyth Chemicals Ltd v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66, Gowan J argued that former employees have obligation of confidentiality to trade secrets and client names and other confidential information obtained in the employer’s business other than special skills or common knowledge acquired in the course of employment.

A difficulty arises when an employee possesses information both partly public and partly private. In this circumstance, only material in the public domain can be used and confidential information cannot be misused (Terrapin Ltd v Builders Supply Company (Hayes) Ltd (1960) RPC 128). Anyway, no breach of confidence exists where information has been made public (Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062). The question is to differentiate private information from public information. An employee can only use information in the public domain.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供美国作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。

上一篇:The impact of environmental go 下一篇:The body