Telaah Normatif Terhadap Lisensi Program Komputer Menurut Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2002 Tentang Hak Cipta

The Computer program is a part of knowledge creation that needs law protection. The various forms and types of licence which is used on computer program in fact did not ensure that the creator and/or the owner of software or computer/program free from abuse or break on licence agreement. The Law Number 12/2002 on The Intellectual Property Right, in principle, assure the protection of computer program. There are various licence of computer program. The problem is how the Law of the Intellectual property rights regulate about computer program licence, whether the regulation can accomodate the intrest and/or law protecting to the licence owner. Every computer program have their own licence system. The law of intellectual property rights in Indonesia did not yet regulate limitatively about the licence of computer program like patent did. The abuse of licence computer program is thus potential

Assessing the Application of Intellectual Property Law for Software Development in Relation to International Law and The Industry Response

Software has been continually developed to comply with new technologies around the world by programmers or software engineers. In doing so, they have intended to create tools facilitating people in many activities, such as working, communication, and learning through either online or offline channels. For industry, software is an important system applied in the processing of hardware. As can be seen, software has been developed every day, such as for knowledge, processing, prototypes, and alogism. Nonetheless, there is an absence of legal mechanisms used to protect programmers’ or software engineers’ rights. Hence, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are the crucial mechanism in protecting such rights in the software industry. In some aspects, software products are able to be processed through registrable and non-registrable schemes. However, the legal mechanisms for IPRs protection are still problematic. Consequently, this article will explore such concepts under the laws of the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom

Néhány gondolat a szoftverek szabadalmazhatóságáról

I’m presenting in my study the Hungarian software’s legal system. The Hungarian law system is protecting the software in the copyright law, like a literary property. This resolution given more latitude for the author, but it has many problems of the evidence, because not registred the property – like the patent – cause the author’s being can prove difficultly. In the patent law has not problem with the evidence thanks for the state register, but the legal process longer and costly more money. Primarily the Hungarian patent law is protecting the industrial, technical property. The software not an exclusively industrial, technical produce, there is closer the literary property about the author’s intellectual work. The protection of the Hungarian copyright is cheaper and faster than the protection in the area of patent law, and it covers more contract liberty for the partners. The Hungarian civil law is based upon the monist conception in the field of intellectual property. This means that pecuniary and personality rights are indivisible. In spite of this competition on the market prefers contracts that ensure exclusive, unambiguous rights. This area of law claims contracts suit to these conditions. The personal rights in the Hungarian copyright are remaining for the author, also the pecuniary rights. But - thanks for the successful software’s lobby - in this question the regulation diverged: the pecuniary rights may be transferring for the users, costumers. This regulation is better (cheaper, an easier) for the buyers under the Hungarian regulations of patent law. In Hungary a lot of software contract was established under the British legal system. The Hungarian legal culture accepted and using these contract forms. The Hungarian regulation concerning to the software questions is dualist like the British one. The pecuniary rights can be transferred free, just the personality rights belong to the author. The users can buy the rights need for using and it gives enough defense as a shield. The author’s interests are not sweating because of the personality rights stay under his domain. In my opinion the question is whether the Hungarian legal defense equally serves the author’s and the users’ interests. The process in patent law is longer, needs more money for supporting the protection and there are some conceptual problems between the software and the patent ideas. The new regulation is not reasonable.I’m presenting in my study the Hungarian software’s legal system. The Hungarian law system is protecting the software in the copyright law, like a literary property. This resolution given more latitude for the author, but it has many problems of the evidence, because not registred the property – like the patent – cause the author’s being can prove difficultly. In the patent law has not problem with the evidence thanks for the state register, but the legal process longer and costly more money. Primarily the Hungarian patent law is protecting the industrial, technical property. The software not an exclusively industrial, technical produce, there is closer the literary property about the author’s intellectual work. The protection of the Hungarian copyright is cheaper and faster than the protection in the area of patent law, and it covers more contract liberty for the partners. The Hungarian civil law is based upon the monist conception in the field of intellectual property. This means that pecuniary and personality rights are indivisible. In spite of this competition on the market prefers contracts that ensure exclusive, unambiguous rights. This area of law claims contracts suit to these conditions. The personal rights in the Hungarian copyright are remaining for the author, also the pecuniary rights. But - thanks for the successful software’s lobby - in this question the regulation diverged: the pecuniary rights may be transferring for the users, costumers. This regulation is better (cheaper, an easier) for the buyers under the Hungarian regulations of patent law. In Hungary a lot of software contract was established under the British legal system. The Hungarian legal culture accepted and using these contract forms. The Hungarian regulation concerning to the software questions is dualist like the British one. The pecuniary rights can be transferred free, just the personality rights belong to the author. The users can buy the rights need for using and it gives enough defense as a shield. The author’s interests are not sweating because of the personality rights stay under his domain. In my opinion the question is whether the Hungarian legal defense equally serves the author’s and the users’ interests. The process in patent law is longer, needs more money for supporting the protection and there are some conceptual problems between the software and the patent ideas. The new regulation is not reasonable

Néhány gondolat a szoftverek szabadalmazhatóságáról

I’m presenting in my study the Hungarian software’s legal system. The Hungarian law system is protecting the software in the copyright law, like a literary property. This resolution given more latitude for the author, but it has many problems of the evidence, because not registred the property – like the patent – cause the author’s being can prove difficultly. In the patent law has not problem with the evidence thanks for the state register, but the legal process longer and costly more money. Primarily the Hungarian patent law is protecting the industrial, technical property. The software not an exclusively industrial, technical produce, there is closer the literary property about the author’s intellectual work. The protection of the Hungarian copyright is cheaper and faster than the protection in the area of patent law, and it covers more contract liberty for the partners. The Hungarian civil law is based upon the monist conception in the field of intellectual property. This means that pecuniary and personality rights are indivisible. In spite of this competition on the market prefers contracts that ensure exclusive, unambiguous rights. This area of law claims contracts suit to these conditions. The personal rights in the Hungarian copyright are remaining for the author, also the pecuniary rights. But - thanks for the successful software’s lobby - in this question the regulation diverged: the pecuniary rights may be transferring for the users, costumers. This regulation is better (cheaper, an easier) for the buyers under the Hungarian regulations of patent law. In Hungary a lot of software contract was established under the British legal system. The Hungarian legal culture accepted and using these contract forms. The Hungarian regulation concerning to the software questions is dualist like the British one. The pecuniary rights can be transferred free, just the personality rights belong to the author. The users can buy the rights need for using and it gives enough defense as a shield. The author’s interests are not sweating because of the personality rights stay under his domain. In my opinion the question is whether the Hungarian legal defense equally serves the author’s and the users’ interests. The process in patent law is longer, needs more money for supporting the protection and there are some conceptual problems between the software and the patent ideas. The new regulation is not reasonable.I’m presenting in my study the Hungarian software’s legal system. The Hungarian law system is protecting the software in the copyright law, like a literary property. This resolution given more latitude for the author, but it has many problems of the evidence, because not registred the property – like the patent – cause the author’s being can prove difficultly. In the patent law has not problem with the evidence thanks for the state register, but the legal process longer and costly more money. Primarily the Hungarian patent law is protecting the industrial, technical property. The software not an exclusively industrial, technical produce, there is closer the literary property about the author’s intellectual work. The protection of the Hungarian copyright is cheaper and faster than the protection in the area of patent law, and it covers more contract liberty for the partners. The Hungarian civil law is based upon the monist conception in the field of intellectual property. This means that pecuniary and personality rights are indivisible. In spite of this competition on the market prefers contracts that ensure exclusive, unambiguous rights. This area of law claims contracts suit to these conditions. The personal rights in the Hungarian copyright are remaining for the author, also the pecuniary rights. But - thanks for the successful software’s lobby - in this question the regulation diverged: the pecuniary rights may be transferring for the users, costumers. This regulation is better (cheaper, an easier) for the buyers under the Hungarian regulations of patent law. In Hungary a lot of software contract was established under the British legal system. The Hungarian legal culture accepted and using these contract forms. The Hungarian regulation concerning to the software questions is dualist like the British one. The pecuniary rights can be transferred free, just the personality rights belong to the author. The users can buy the rights need for using and it gives enough defense as a shield. The author’s interests are not sweating because of the personality rights stay under his domain. In my opinion the question is whether the Hungarian legal defense equally serves the author’s and the users’ interests. The process in patent law is longer, needs more money for supporting the protection and there are some conceptual problems between the software and the patent ideas. The new regulation is not reasonable

Copyright and Electronic Information

The maic objectives of copyright law arc promoting the access and the use of information md protecting the works from the infringement for encouraging the authors in pursuit of knowledge. The technological dcvelopmcnts, the increasing number of electronic publications and digital libraries pose challenges to the right holders as well as law enforcing agencies. This paper briefly discusses thc Indian Copyright Law. I957 and its amendments. The nature oi electronic information including computer software is also discussed. The authors mention about some of the worldwide projects to protect copyright of electronic information. The authors conclude that the library professronals should negotiate few electrocopying privileges for legitimale non-commercial usage of electronic information similar to the kind of fair dealing arrangement as in the case of printed books. Intellectual Property Rights 'Intellectual property rights' (IPR) is a general term which covers copyright, patents. registered designs and trade marks. It also covers layout designs of integrated circuits, geographical indicators and anti-competitive policies in contractual licenses (Intellectual Property Rights, 1995). As a lot of money is involved in R&D work, &y research, innovation or invention leading to a product, process, design, method, literary and artistic work etc which may, in the view of authors or creators, result in financial gains are registered under one or the other of the various heads of IPR. Developing countries have evolved and setup benchmarks of IPR. The developing countries are slowly catching up as the value of PR is increasingly felt. Copyright Copyright stands for the legal rights exclusively given for a definite period of time to the originators (authors or creators) of intellectual work such as a publication, or an artistic or a literary work for sale or any othe

Copyright wars and learning objects

Learning object developers need to understand that presently there are powerful organizations of “intellectual property” owners, and vendors of music, videos, books and software that are making a concerted attack on copyright, attempting to convert it from a law to promote knowledge and the useful arts into a mechanism to protect and serve their special interests. This paper represents an attempt to overturn the misconception that copyright is simply about protecting the rights of authors and re-introduce an understanding of the original foundational role of copyright in “promoting science and the useful arts” and inform U.S. and international readers of the concerted assault on our “fair use” copy rights as educators in the digital environment. The paper argues for the need to put an end to the “quasi-copyright” laws that have severely curtailed the traditional rights of educational institutions and passed on responsibilities that previously were the purview of the copyright owners. It calls for a restoration of the balance returning copyright to its original educational focus

Assertive modesty: an economics of intangibles

At the center of our Symposium stand two papers: A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (Manifesto) and Legal Hybrids: Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms (Legal Hybrids). Both are stimulating. Both are lengthy. As a result, my primary role is that of a guide: this Comment will summarize the authors\u27 proposals, analyze certain aspects in greater detail, and outline their explicit and implicit methodologies. Part I of the Comment describes the papers\u27 positions and methodologies. Part II highlights some of the papers\u27 many contributions to the literature, and offers some other evaluative observations

Perceptions of Intellectual Property:A Review

In “The right to good ideas: patents and the poor”, The Economist depicts two driving forces in the contemporary discourse on IP and globalization. The one is interested in advancing the knowledge economy, an approach based on the belief that knowledge is the driving factor behind economic growth. The other resides on a belief that IP is a major means to advance the process of globalization. While the former is strongly motivated by new economic growth theory, as for example advanced by Stanford professor Paul Romer, the latter is based on typical anti-globalization arguments, such as for example the position that the IP system helps multinational companies to build up monopolies to the detriment of the poor, drives small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and local business in developing countries out of business and increases prices for consumer products, be they pharmaceuticals or software. The purpose of this review is to help understand the current discourse on intellectual property, to grasp underlying themes, assumptions and connotations associated with the term “IP”, so as to identify paths leading to a more comprehensive understanding of IP and the opportunities and pitfalls it may provide

Cultural Environmentalism and the Constructed Commons

Van Houweling explores both the benefits and failings of conservation easements on land on the one hand and the licensing commons on the other. Conservation easement The tools of cultural environmentalism in the lights of objections to conservation easements and more general concerns with complicated and fragmented property rights are also considered. Among other things, she provides clear theoretical differences between the public domain, where freedom is based on the absence of property rights, and the licensing commons, where freedom is based on the absence on the preemptive exercise of the property rights by the rights holder in order to grant use privileges to users of the commons, and sometimes binds to those future users to add their own improvements back to the common pool