103 research outputs found
Chicago IP Colloquium - Patrick Goold, Professor J. Janewa OseiTutu
No full textPatrick Goold, an IP Fellow at Chicago Kent, introduces Professor J. Janewa OseiTutu at the April Chicago IP Colloquium event.https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/events_2015/1051/thumbnail.jp
The Philosophical Foundations of Investment-Driven IP: On Reason, Faith, and Pluralism
No full textIt seems, once again, that intellectual property law is shifting beneath our feet. As Robert Merges put it a decade ago, if IP were a city, then the old city centre is today ‘surrounded by new buildings and new neighbourhoods, knots of urban growth, budding in every direction, far off into the distance’.1 That old city centre was built during the nineteenth-century age of possessive individualism.2 Ideologies of the romantic author and sole inventor helped erect the city’s foundational principle that one deserves ownership in the products of mental labour.3 Yet, in the early twentieth century, US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis could still write that ‘the general rule of law is, that the noblest of human production – knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas – become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use’.4 A century later, that general rule rings less true.5 Investment-driven rights, and investment-driven extensions to old rights, have helped expand the city’s boundaries. What started out as a small cadre of related rights, sui generis rights, and quasi-IP rights now contribute to an urban sprawl of new neighbourhoods spreading as far as the eye can see. New denizens – the trivially creative and insignificantly innovative goods explored in this volume – now are protected inside the city’s walls. What was the city of Intellectual Property has become the city of Investment Property
Recommended from our members
IP accidents ::negligence liability in intellectual property /
No full textIn the twenty-first century, it has become easy to break IP law accidentally. The challenges presented by orphan works, independent invention or IP trolls are merely examples of a much more fundamental problem: IP accidents. This book argues that IP law ought to govern accidental infringement much like tort law governs other types of accidents. In particular, the accidental infringer ought to be liable in IP law only when their conduct was negligent. The current strict liability approach to IP infringement was appropriate in the nineteenth century, when IP accidents were far less frequent. But in the Information Age, where accidents are increasingly common, efficiency, equity, and fairness support the reform of IP to a negligence regime. Patrick R. Goold provides the most coherent explanation of how property and tort interact within the field of IP, contributing to a clearer understanding of property and tort law and private law generally
IP Accidents: Negligence Liability in Intellectual Property
No full textIn the twenty-first century, it has become easy to break IP law accidentally. The challenges presented by orphan works, independent invention or IP trolls are merely examples of a much more fundamental problem: IP accidents. This book argues that IP law ought to govern accidental infringement much like tort law governs other types of accidents. In particular, the accidental infringer ought to be liable in IP law only when their conduct was negligent. The current strict liability approach to IP infringement was appropriate in the nineteenth century, when IP accidents were far less frequent. But in the Information Age, where accidents are increasingly common, efficiency, equity, and fairness support the reform of IP to a negligence regime. Patrick R. Goold provides the most coherent explanation of how property and tort interact within the field of IP, contributing to a clearer understanding of property and tort law and private law generally
Recommended from our members
Copyright Owners\u27 Putative Interests in Privacy, Reputation, and Control: A Reply to Goold - Draft - 05-15-2017
No full textPatrick Goold’s interesting new article, Unbundling the “Tort” of Copyright Infringement (“Unbundling”) centers on a key lack of clarity that Professor Goold perceives in the cause of action for copyright infringement. The lack of clarity, he argues, afflicts threshold definitions of what constitutes actionable copying
A Gothic vision: the architectural patronage of Bishop James Goold in colonial Victoria
No full text© 2020 Paola ColleoniDuring his almost 40 years long episcopacy, James Alipius Goold (1812-1886), the first Roman Catholic bishop of Melbourne, laid strong foundations for the Catholic church in Victoria. The diocese of Melbourne counted only two churches and two chapels when he arrived in 1848, but, during his lifetime, clergymen claimed he laid as many foundations stones as Saint Patrick himself.
After ten years spent as a missionary in New South Wales, Goold dedicated himself to the diocese of Melbourne. He established a firm administration, and was involved in several aspects of church building. He selected prominent locations and provided parish priests with suitable designs, he decided how to allocate Government funds and visited the building site whenever possible. His architectural patronage exemplifies the evolution of Gothic taste in Victoria. While earlier commissions encompassed Gothick churches, in the wake of the gold rush Goold had the resources to commission archaeologically correct Gothic Revival churches from the English architects Joseph and Charles Hansom. Over the years Goold developed a network including leading manufacturers in Europe and Australia to provide glass, furnishings and metalwork of the finest quality for the Gothic churches he was building. He gifted items to the parishes to dignify also the humble temporary buildings used for Sunday mass. In 1858, the English Catholic-convert architect William Wardell relocated to Melbourne. He had worked on about 30 church commissions in England, almost all of them in the Gothic Revival style faithful to AWN Pugin’s principles. Wardell was the man Goold needed to pursue his Gothic vision in Victoria. In the following decade, the bishop commissioned him to provide plans for at least a dozen parish churches ranging in size and refinement for city parishes and rural districts alike. His ambitious patronage culminated with the realisation of St Patrick’s Cathedral to Wardell’s grand design, a building rooted in French and English mediaeval tradition matching the size of European cathedrals. Bishop Goold played a remarkable role in shaping the built environment of the colony. His championing of the Gothic Revival style ascribes his name among the group of patrons who translated European culture to colonial Australia
Dangerous Intellectual Property
No full textRviewing IP Accidents: Negligence Liability in Intellectual Property, by Patrick R. Goold, Cambridge University Press, 2022
Corrective Justice and Copyright Infringement
No full textThis article demonstrates that one crucially important function of copyright infringement cases is corrective justice. However, because scholars and lawmakers often conceive of copyright in solely economic terms, this goal is often overlooked and demonstrable unfairness occurs as a result.
The article uses tort law theory to make three points. Firstly, the economic theory of copyright is incomplete. This theory states that copyright is a tool for providing authors with incentives to create new works. However, this goal does not explain the legal relationship between the author and the infringer. If all we want to do is give authors incentives, then all we need to do is reward creation. Government subsidies and prizes are examples of methods for incentivizing creation without requiring the author to sue the infringer.
Secondly, corrective justice is a function of copyright infringement cases. This explains the author-infringer relationship. Corrective justice maintains equality between people. People are equally entitled to their rights. When someone does not respect the rights of others they cause an inequality. The wrongdoer gains something and the victim loses something. By making the wrongdoer compensate the victim, the law removes the gain and loss and restores the antecedent equality. This is one basic function of copyright infringement cases. Copyright is provided for a mix of reasons (some economic, some based on natural rights). Thereafter, when someone infringes copyright, they cause an inequality to arise: the infringer gains the ability to copy without paying a license fee, while the author loses the work’s market value. Making the infringer compensate the author removes the gains and losses and restores the equality between the parties.
Finally, this important goal it is often overlooked. The article will demonstrate three cases where the law does not adequately restore the equality between author and infringer, and which are accordingly unfair. The examples are: statutory damages for wilful infringement, litigation fees, and mass copyright infringement suits
Copyright in Works Created by Artificial Intelligence: Between Creativity and Investments
No full textConsiders whether and to what extent modern intellectual property rights should reward entrepreneurial investments over human creativity and ingenuity in the context of AI-generated works. Explores the rationale behind key provisions such as s. 9(3) CDPA and considers various alternatives to protecting AI output
Design right: from investment to creativity for “industrial copyright”
No full textThe origins of design right are closely tied to industrial copyright and the protection of functional articles. When Parliament created the new intellectual property right it did so using the language of investment rather than creativity. Yet as design right evolved it became more like its creative sibling copyright, but in a crowded field of rights protecting designs it retains its value by remaining the only design right which can protect the functional. This is the story of design right and how it became creative
- …
