JIPITEC – Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Not a member yet
417 research outputs found
Sort by
Hard Court Heroes
Get PDFBundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice)
Case I ZR 60/09, Judgement of 28 October 2010 (“Hartplatzhelden”
Stig Strömholm, Copyright and the Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Survey
Get PDFHeymanns Verlag 2010, 88 p., ISBN 978-3-452-27300-
Regulations on E-Commerce Consumer Protection Rules in China and Europe Compared – Same Same but Different?
Get PDFThis article provides a comprehensive overview of the regulations on e-commerce protection rules in China and the European Union. It starts by giving a general
overview of different approaches towards consumer protection in e-commerce. This article then scrutinizes the current legal system in China by mainly
focusing on SAIC’s “Interim Measures for the Administration of Online Commodity Trading and Relevant Service Activities”. The subsequent
chapter covers the supervision of consumer protection in e-commerce in China, which covers both the regulatory objects of online commodity trading and the applied regulatory
mechanisms. While the regulatory objects include operating agents, operating objects, operating behavior, electronic contracts, intellectual property and consumer protection, the regulatory mechanisms for e-commerce in China combines market mechanism and industry self-discipline under the government’s administrative regulation.
Further, this article examines the current European legal system in online commodity trading. It outlines the aim and the scope of EU legislation in the respective field. Subsequently, the paper describes the European approach towards the supervision of consumer protection in e-commerce. As there is no central EU agency for consumer protection in e-commerce transactions, the EU stipulates a framework for Member States’ institutions, thereby creating a European supervisory network of Member States’ institutions and empowers private consumer organisations to supervise the market on their
behalf. Moreover, the EU encourages the industry to self- or co-regulate e-commerce by providing incentives. Consequently, this article concludes that consumer protection may be achieved by different means and different systems. However, even though at first glance the Chinese and the European system appear to differ substantially, a closer look reveals
tendencies of convergence between the two systems
Open Source und Kartellrecht
Get PDF„Open source and European antitrust laws: An analysis of copyleft and the prohibition of
software license fees on the basis of art. 101 TFEU and the block exemptions“
Open source software and open source licenses (like the GNU GPL) are not only relevant for computer
nerds or activists – they are already business. They are for example the fundament of LINUX, the only
real rival of MICROSOFT’s WINDOWS-line in the field of operating systems for IBM PC compatibles.
Art. 101 TFEU (like the identical predecessor art. 81 TEC) as part of the EU antitrust laws prohibits
contract terms like price fixing and some forms of technology control. Are copyleft – the „viral effect“, the
„cancer“ – and the interdiction of software license fees in the cross hairs of this legal rule? On the other
side the European Union has since 2004 a new Technology Transfer Block Exemption with software
license agreements for the first time in its scope: a safe harbour and a dry place under a umbrella for
open source software?
After the introduction (A) with a description of open source software the following text analyses the
system of the European Unions competition law respectivley antitrust law and the requirements of the
block exemptions (B). Starting point of antitrust analysis are undertakings – but who are the untertakings
(C) in the field of widespread, independent developers as part of the „bazar organization“? To see how
much open source has to fear from the law of the European Union, at the end the anti competitive and
pro competitive effects of open source are totalized within the legal framework (D). The conclusion (E)
shows: not nothing, but not much
Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe
Get PDFGPL enforcement is successful in Europe. In several court decisions and out of court
settlements the license conditions of the GPL have been successfully enforced. In particular, embedded
systems are the main focus of such compliance activities. The article describes the practice of
enforcement activities and the legal prerequisites under the application of German law
Limitations: The Centerpiece of Copyright in Distress
Get PDFAfter the exclusive rights in copyright have been consolidated in a century-long historical development, limitations and exceptions have become the main instrument to determine the exact scope of copyright. Limitations and exceptions do not merely fine-tune copyright protection. Rather,
they balance the interests of authors, rightholders, competitors and end-users in a quadrupolar copyright system. Understanding this is of particular importance in the digital and networked information society, where copyrighted information is not only created and consumed, but constantly extracted, regrouped, repackaged, recombined, abstracted and interpreted.
However, serious doubts exist whether the present, historically grown system of limitations adequately balances the interests involved in the information society. Both the closed list of limitations allowed under Art. 5 of the EU Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC and a narrowly interpreted three-step test contained in Arts. 13 TRIPS and 5 (5) of the Information Society Directive appear as obstacles in the way of achieving the appropriate balance needed.
This brief article outlines the issues involved which were discussed at the International Conference on
“Commons, Users, Service Providers – Internet (Self-) Regulation and Copyright” which took place in Hannover, Germany, on 17/18 March 2010 on the occasion of the launch of JIPITEC
Creative Commons International The International License Porting Project
Get PDFWhen Creative Commons (CC) was founded in 2001, the core Creative Commons licenses
were drafted according to United States Copyright Law. Since their first introduction in December 2002,
Creative Commons licenses have been enthusiastically adopted by many creators, authors, and other
content producers – not only in the United States, but in many other jurisdictions as well.
Global interest in the CC licenses prompted a discussion about the need for national versions of the
CC licenses. To best address this need, the international license porting project (“Creative Commons
International” – formerly known as “International Commons”) was launched in 2003. Creative Commons
International works to port the core Creative Commons licenses to different copyright legislations around
the world. The porting process includes both linguistically translating the licenses and legally adapting
the licenses to a particular jurisdiction such that they are comprehensible in the local jurisdiction and
legally enforceable but concurrently retain the same key elements.
Since its inception, Creative Commons International has found many supporters all over the world.
With Finland, Brazil, and Japan as the first completed jurisdiction projects, experts around the globe
have followed their lead and joined the international collaboration with Creative Commons to adapt the
licenses to their local copyright. This article aims to present an overview of the international porting
process, explain and clarify the international license architecture, its legal and promotional aspects, as
well as its most recent challenges
Stieper, Rechtfertigung, Rechtsnatur und Disponibilität der Schranken des Urheberrechts, 2010
No full textStieper, Malte: Rechtfertigung, Rechtsnatur und Disponibilität der Schranken des Urheberrechts, 2010
Mohr Siebeck 2009 (Jus Privatum 144), 584 p.,
ISBN 978-3-16-150177-