1,720,999 research outputs found
The future of printcrime: Intellectual property, innovation law, and 3D printing
No full textIn a 2006 short story, ‘Printcrime’, Cory Doctorow imagined a dystopian future of contraband 3D printers. In the work, police try to shut down a bootleg operation, which engaged in the 3D printing of intellectual property. In his 2009 novel Makers, Cory Doctorow explored the rise of the maker community, and its do-it-yourself ethic. In an interview about the novel, the author reflected:\ud
\ud
<i>"There has never been a better time to be a maker because finding the people who know how to fix the thing that's broken has never been easier. Finding someone else who has done 80% of what you want to do, and sharing the things you have done with other people, has never been easier. A maker is someone who is of and in the 21st century." </i>\ud
\ud
Rather prophetically, he discussed the prospect of intellectual property conflicts around 3D printing (particularly around copyright infringement and trademark infringement), and future controversies over 3D printing guns. In his 2015 short story, ‘The Man Who Sold the Moon’, Cory Doctorow imagined 3D printing in space. This body of creative work has been an important inspiration for the Maker Movement – but it has also shown a critical engagement with the law, ethics, and public policy associated with 3D printing and additive manufacturing.\ud
\ud
Inspired by such science fiction, there have since been a number of optimistic, utopian manifestos published on the topic of 3D printing and the rise of the Maker Movement. There has been high hopes that the emerging, disruptive technology will be part of a new industrial revolution. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, situates 3D printing within the framework of a fourth industrial revolution. He predicted: ‘As current size, cost and speed constraints are progressively overcome, 3D printing will become more pervasive to include integrated electronic components such as circuit boards and even human cells and organs.’ Schwab anticipated that there would be a ‘new generation of self-altering products capable of responding to environmental changes such as heat and humidity.’ Moreover, he expected that ‘this technology could be used in clothing or footwear, as well as in health-related products such as implants designed to adapt to the human body.’ Schwab placed 3D printing alongside autonomous vehicles, advanced robotics, and new material as physical manifestations of larger technological megatrends.\ud
\ud
In this context, this collection provides a sober, critical evaluation of the legal, ethical, and public policy issues in respect of intellectual property, innovation law, and 3D printing. Building upon Mark Lemley’s chapter, ‘IP in a World Without Scarcity,’ it considers the legal opportunities and challenges of the Maker Revolution. It provides both theoretical and empirical insights in respect of 3D printing, intellectual property, innovation, and regulation
Makers empire: Australian copyright law, 3D printing, and the 'ideas boom'
No full textIn Australia, there has been an interest in integrating 3D printing into government policies in respect of education, innovation, and manufacturing. There has been an increasing concern about the need to boost Australia’s national and science technology policy and performance. Of particular concern has been the decline in Australia’s manufacturing industries. Much like the United States, there has been a hope in Australia that 3D printing will revive Australia’s advanced manufacturing capacities. As Guy Rundle observed, there has been much interest in the manufacturing hubs of 3D printing in the United States. The ‘America Makes’ program has involved the creation of advanced manufacturing hubs to stimulate innovation – particularly in regions of the United States, which have suffered from economic depression. There has been an interest in emulating this innovation model in Australia. There has also been a deep problem in terms of the commercialisation of technology in Australia – with many inventions languishing in the so-called ‘Valley of Death’. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has promoted an innovation agenda as leader of the Conservative coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party. He has highlighted the role of 3D printing. For instance, Turnbull promoted the work of Stephen Brinks from 3D Brink at Western Sydney University. The education, innovation, and manufacturing initiatives in the United States have certainly attracted interest and attention in Australia. \ud
\ud
...\ud
\ud
This Chapter considers a number of developments in respect of Australian copyright law, 3D Printing, and the Maker Movement. Part 1 focuses upon copyright subsistence about 3D printing. 3D printing raises questions about the nature and scope of the intellectual property commons. There have been issues associated with the protection of art, craft, and designs associated with intellectual property. Part 2 examines concerns about copyright infringement, and 3D printing. It focuses upon questions surrounding the authorisation of copyright infringement. It also looks at the regime of intermediary liability, as well as matters of technological protection measures. There is also consideration of Australia’s new copyright site-blocking laws. Part 3 focuses upon the debate over copyright exceptions in Australia, in light of the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and the Productivity Commission. In particular, there is a discussion of the merits of Australia adopting an open-ended, defence of fair use – like the United States. Such an exception would be particularly helpful for 3D printing, the Maker Movement, and crowdfunding
3D printing and beyond: Intellectual property and regulation
No full text<b>Overview</b>\ud
\ud
Along with experts from around the world, Mendis, Lemley and Rimmer consider the legal and intellectual property implications relating to 3D printing and emerging technologies in the UK, USA, and Australia.\ud
\ud
This edited book will consider the legal and intellectual property (IP) implications relating to 3D printing and emerging technologies from the perspective of UK, USA and Australia.\ud
\ud
The book aims to provide an in-depth consideration of the intellectual property implications of 3D printing, before moving on to a consideration of the legal and intellectual property challenges posed by future and emerging technologies. As such, the book will set out some of the most pressing challenges for intellectual property in the present times, as a result of 3D printing before moving on to a consideration of the future by discussing not only intellectual property, but also other legal challenges (i.e., contractual, privacy, ethical issues) as a result of emerging technologies with the focus kept firmly on the three chosen jurisdictions.\ud
\ud
<b>Introduction</b>\ud
\ud
From the Maker Movement to the 3D Printing Era: Opportunities and Challenges - Dinusha Mendis, Mark Lemley and Matthew Rimmer\ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 1: </b>\ud
\ud
IP in a world without scarcity – Mark Lemley \ud
\ud
<b>PART ONE</b>\ud
<b>UNITED KINGDOM</b>\ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 2: </b>\ud
‘Mind the gap’: From engravings to 3D designs and 3D scans – re-evaluating copyright law in a 3D printing world – Dinusha Mendis \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 3: </b> \ud
Design rights and 3D printing in the UK: Balancing innovation and creativity in a (dis)harmonised and fragmented legal framework – Thomas Margoni \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 4: </b>\ud
Digital trade mark infringement and 3D printing implications: What does the future hold? – Dukki Hong and Simon Bradshaw \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 5: </b>\ud
3D printing and patent law – apt and ready? – Marc Mimler \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 6: </b>\ud
Transformative technologies and responsive legal scholarship – Roger Brownsword \ud
\ud
<b>PART TWO</b>\ud
<b>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</b>\ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 7: </b>\ud
3D printing and US copyright law: implications for software, enforcement and looking ahead to business strategies – Peter Menell and Ryan Vacca \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 8: </b>\ud
Integrating a classic tool for a modern US challenge: US design patents \ud
implications for 3D printing – Elizabeth Ferrill, Robert MacKichan, Christopher \ud
McKinley and Kelly Horn \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 9: </b>\ud
How 3D printing disrupts trade dress protection and resurrects the need for source and quality assurance – Deven Desai \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 10: </b>\ud
Remedies for digital patent infringement: A perspective from USA – Timothy Holbrook \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 11: </b>\ud
How democratized production challenges society’s ability to regulate – Deven Desai \ud
\ud
<b>PART THREE</b>\ud
<b>AUSTRALIA</b>\ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 12: </b> \ud
Makers Empire: Australian copyright law, 3D printing and the ‘Ideas Boom’ – Matthew Rimmer \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 13: </b> \ud
‘Substantial similarity’ under Australian design law: application to 3D printing – Tyrone Berger \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 14: </b>\ud
Trade mark controversies in 3D printing: An Australian perspective – Amanda Scardamaglia\ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 15: </b>\ud
The reform challenge: Australian patent law and the emergence of 3D printing – Jane Nielsen and Dianne Nicol \ud
\ud
<b>Chapter 16: </b>\ud
Don’t believe the hype? Recent 3D printing developments for law and society – Angela Daly \ud
\ud
<b>Conclusion: </b>\ud
The future of printcrime: intellectual property, innovation law and 3D printing – Dinusha Mendis, Mark Lemley and Matthew Rimme
“3D Printing and patent law: apt and ready?”
Full text linkThe impact of 3D printing on business models that are based on protection by design rights and copyright has been widely acknowledged. Since the technology is rapidly developing, its effects may also be felt within industries that rely on patent protection. This chapter traces how the law of patent infringement in the United Kingdom applies to 3D printing scenarios. It analyses the different stages of 3D printing and whether these may lead to direct and indirect infringement. It also sheds light on how exceptions to patent infringement currently apply to 3D printing. The chapter concludes that the law of patents in the UK is currently better equipped to deal with impact of 3D printing technology than other intellectual property right but argues for interpretive clarifications by the courts as well as possible legislative action in the near future
The 3D Printing Revolution and its Implications for IPRs: New Opportunities and New Challenges for SMEs.
Full text linkThis report also considers the IP issues surrounding the protection and infringement of creative content in a 3D printing world and makes policy recommendations for SMEs
In Pursuit of Clarity: The Conundrum of CAD Software and Copyright – Seeking Direction Through Case Law
Full text linkThrough the application of selected statutes and case law drawn from the United Kingdom (UK), this paper will explore the copyright status of three-dimensional design files and will particularly question whether they can be protected as literary and / or artistic works. In responding to this question, the paper highlighting gaps and challenges inherent in the law and adopts a ‘coherentist’ and ‘regulatory instrumentalist’ analysis in responding to the challenges and providing recommendations for the future
An Analysis of Directive 2014 / 26 / EU on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Use in the Internal Market
Full text linkIn analysing the CRM Directive, this chapter explores and discusses the coming into being of the Directive, its provisions, impact and implications for CMOs, rights holders and users in relation to the management and licensing of musical works for online use
Collaborative intellectual property learning: law and design-engineering students bring IP law to life
Full text linkCopyright and NFTs: new wine in old bottles?
Full text linkNon-fungible tokens—also known as NFTs or “nyfties”—are digital assets on the secure blockchain. They are mainly used to sell exclusive, digital items online and since a digital artwork tokenised as a NFT sold for $69 million at Christies in March 2021, it has expanded into various other industries, ranging from sport, fashion, music, films, entertainment to many more. However, whether it is a piece of digital artwork, a cute digital penguin or a bored ape, they are essentially traceable JPEGs or GIFs, which are represented as NFT tokens. If so, what is someone actually buying when they purchase a NFT and do they have ownership of it, from a legal perspective? This article considers the meaning of NFTs, their historical development, authorship, ownership, infringement issues from a copyright perspective and questions the liability of NFT marketplaces which strive for decentralisation, in a regulated world
- …
