公安机关实施知识产权刑事保护的对策思考

我国知识产权刑事保护面临国际与国内双重压力,形势严峻。公安机关作为刑事执法部门,应加大对知识产权领域犯罪的打击力度,但目前仍面临着刑事立法缺陷以及公安经侦自身条件、公安与行政执法、与国际刑事司法部门沟通协作方面的重重障碍。公安机关必须积极开展经侦基础理论研究,重塑侦查理念与侦查模式,密切与行政执法部门的协作关系,并不断拓展境内外知识产权执法合作空间。     

Grunwick and trade union recognition

This article considers the approach of law schools to the assessment of students' use of English. The QAA subject benchmark statement for law requires students to demonstrate the ability to use English proficiently but over recent years there has been anecdotal evidence that some students who lack this ability have obtained law degrees. To obtain further information on how law schools try to ensure compliance with the relevant benchmark, a short questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of 20 English law schools. This article presents the results of that research, considers some of its possible implications and concludes that the assessment methods that many law schools are currently employing do not ensure compliance with the relevant benchmark.     

所有权保留条款在英国法上的效力

英国的立法和判例都承认所有权保留的效力。为实现卖方的所有权,英国法给予卖方以追索权,卖方不仅可以追索原物,追索产品,还可以追索销售款。英国法将延伸的所有权保留条款视为一种担保,并需要进行登记。由于所有权保留条款在法律上的复杂性,该条款的应用仍然存在一些问题。     

Questioning Fundamentals: Leyland Daf and the 'Ownership' of Charged Property

Forward Links to Citing Articles

Retraction . Modern Law Review 67: 6, 1046‐1046 .
Online publication date: 1‐Oct‐2004. Although the House of Lords decision in Leyland Daf was primarily concerned with the order for distribution of assets in a winding‐up, it has several other far‐reaching ramifications and repercussions. The reasoning of their Lordships in the case alters our understanding of the very nature and operation of a charge over a company's assets. This reasoning strikes at the heart of the law of security interests, bringing into question the fundamental distinction between a charge and a mortgage. Furthermore the decision has given a whole new complexion to the concept of a floating charge which will have tremendous consequences for its application in commercial practice. This paper analyses the decision firstly on the basis of its legal principle and then on the basis of its policy considerations and concludes that its reasoning is neither sound nor justifiable on either ground.     

European Human Rights Law and the Normalisation of the ‘Closed Material Procedure’: Limit or Source?

Once a legal abnormality that was criticised on human rights grounds, the closed material procedure (CMP) has now become the main mechanism for dealing with allegedly sensitive security information in the UK. This article considers the role of European human rights law in that process. It argues that the CMP can be conceptualised as the product of human rights law, which has developed so as to legalise and normalise its use, and that this process is symptomatic of a deeper inter‐relationship between human rights law and the preservation of states' security interests, which renders the former inherently unsuitable for dealing with security phenomena.     

Global custody of endowment funds

This article explores the law relating to the global custodianship of funds, notably as managed for endowed charities such as universities and independent schools. Is global custody based on the legal concept of bailment or of trusts? Just how secure are the legal underpinnings of this financial mechanism? The conclusions are that the legal foundations to the concepts of custodianship, and especially on a global level with the appointment of sub-custodians, is surprisingly uncertain and confused in English Law, providing rather less reassurance to charity trustees concerning the security of the financial assets for which they are accountable than they might reasonably have expected.     

知识产权强制许可中的反垄断法

如何正确处理知识产权与反垄断法的关系,已经成为各国反垄断立法和执法的热点问题。2004年德国联邦法院关于Spundfass一案的判决,确立了知识产权权利人因违反反垄断法而被强制许可的两个前提条件:一是知识产权许可已经成为其他企业进入市场必不可少的条件;二是权利人的拒绝许可没有重大的合理性。知识产权的行使应当受到反垄断法的制约;解决知识产权与反垄断法冲突的方式是衡量知识产权给权利人带的经济利益和限制竞争对社会的影响。中国应尽快出台反垄断法,并尽快制定与知识产权相关的反垄断指南。     

新时代中国特色知识产权发展之路

中国特色知识产权发展历经了"从无到有"到"从有到大",现在已进入"从大到强"知识产权强国建设的战略转换阶段.新时代全面加强知识产权保护工作应当从战略高度把握习近平总书记提出的"五大关系",同时从"加强知识产权保护工作顶层设计""提高知识产权工作法治化水平""强化知识产权全链条保护""深化知识产权保护工作体制机制改革""...     

物权的本质

物权的本质为何,千百年来吸引许多私法学者尝试提出一家之言。然而,大陆法系多数学者执着干物权乃人与物之关系,走入歧途;普通法主流学者把物权看成一束权利,同样是打迷糊仗。本文主张物权（或本文之名词“财产权”）有三种核心效力：对世、排他、追及。任何与物有关之权利若具备三种核心效力,就是物权。财产是人与人间关于物之法律关系之组合,而非人对物之关系。此种财产关系又可分成四种典型：人对国家、人对定限物权人、人对特定人如邻居、人对所有其他人。除了人面对国家徵收高权时外,财产关系都有或强或弱的排他本质;而此关系乃自动生成,此正是对世效力之本意。追及效力虽然有时隐而未显,但在财产权移转时会当然发挥作用。此外,所有权是财产权,但非后者之同义词。所有权（而非物权）才是一束权能。     

The Structures of Monetary Nominalism in the Pre-Modern Common Law

This article considers the legal structures of the pre-modern common law which ensured that money generally passed at nominal rates in payment transactions. The English sovereign changed the monetary standard many times during the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries so that the purchasing power of the English currency changed markedly at identifiable stages. These changes seem to have left very little trace in the contemporaneous law reports. The article considers why changes in the monetary standard rarely presented a legal issue for common law judges. It argues that English law had a well-defined set of legal structures which ensured that money passed at nominal rates despite a change in the monetary standard. Given the way that payment clauses in common forms of transaction were formulated and actions in debt were pleaded, it would be difficult for a party to raise the change in the monetary standard as an issue for argument in a common law court.     

Does private copying need an update in the UK?

Legal context: Most European legal systems have limited the ‘exclusive’reproduction right of authors in their works to enable usersto copy, for private purposes and without the authorizationof the authors, legally acquired protected material. In exchange,authors receive compensation for their loss of control of theircreations. The UK Copyright Act does not generally permit privatecopying, but it does exempt a few acts from the exclusive rightsawarded to authors through copyright. Key points: The article examines the limitations to the reproduction rightprovided by IP law in the UK, such as time-shifting, in thelight of relevant case law—GEMA (1964), Sony v UniversalStudios (1984)—the European Copyright Directive and aEuropean sector inquiry. Many countries have established levieson copying-friendly media where their proceeds are distributedto authors as compensation. This article argues for the needto reform the IP law in the UK, arguing that time-shifting andother reproduction acts authorized by the statute are privatecopying in disguise. The paper only considers legal privatecopying, which should not be mistaken with piracy or file-sharingin P2P networks. Practical significance: Copying another's works in the privacy of one's home has becomeincreasingly popular on account of the fast-developing paceof technology and its supporting platform: the internet. Althoughlevies have often been imposed on physical media (CDs, CDRs),new technologies such as MP3 and MP4 players and USB flash drivesare often exempted, despite their widespread use as tools forprivate copying. The private copying trend is bringing greaterbenefits to the users than to the creators of protected workswho understandably would like to obtain a share of the overallprofits.     

Information Wants to be Property: Legal Commodification of E-commerce Assets

In the global information age, information per se is becoming one of the most valuable assets of many businesses. Because of this, the laws of many jurisdictions have started evolving to extend the protections for such information against unauthorised access, use and/or interference. These legal moves tend to have the direct or indirect effect of 'propertizing' aspects of the information in question. Recent moves in the area of copyright law in particular have shown a marked trend towards increased legal support for the commodification of commercially valuable information. Examples of this trend can be seen in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States and the Database Directive in the European Union. The following discussion examines this phenomenon and raises some questions about the desirable limits of legal commodification of information in this context.     

The Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in China: Recent Developments and Implications

This article systematically introduces and analyzes a number of aspects of the criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in China, focusing on recent trends and developments. China has been under tremendous pressure from the US to expand the criminalization of its IP infringement. The article first summarizes the substantive criminal law regarding IP offenses in China and describes the main enforcement agencies and judicial organs responsible for the investigation and processing of IP crimes. Analysis of the substantive criminal IP law and enforcement practices shows a steady pattern of rapid criminalization, not only on the books but also in action. Newly promulgated judicial interpretations and notices substantially expand criminalization of IP infringements. In addition, the enforcement rates of IP and related crimes have been rising consistently and rapidly. There have also been numerous joint meetings, information exchanges, issuance of provisions, collaborative “strike-hard” enforcement campaigns and other major efforts initiated by the police, the prosecutors, and administrative agencies to facilitate agency cooperation and strengthen the criminal enforcement of IPR. However, accompanying this rapid criminalization of IP infringement control are serious problems rooted in the Chinese criminal judicial system, including local protectionism, the lack of respect for procedural justice as well as the protection of defendants’ basic rights, and inadequate training, professional incompetence, misconduct, or corruption.     

Walking the groundless threats minefield

Legal context. It is one of the peculiarities of UK law thatthreatening litigation of IP rights can, in some circumstances,give rise to an action for "groundless threats". This has thepotential to cause great disruption to the right-holder's case.There is even the potential for professional advisors to endup in the dock where they made the threat on their client'sbehalf, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest preventingthe advisers from continuing to act. Key points. To minimise the risk of these scenarios, intellectualproperty law advisors, be they patent or trade mark attorneysor solicitors, should be aware of the provisions that governgroundless threats actions for the various IP rights, particularlyin light of the recent changes brought in by the Patents Act2004 and the further changes expected to the groundless threatsprovisions relating to designs. These alterations increasinglycomplicate what has always been a nebulous area of the law.In addition, there is considerable tension between the "talkfirst, sue later" philosophy underlying the Civil ProcedureRules and the "sue first, talk later" approach traditionallyused to circumvent threats actions. Reckitt recently confirmedthat the groundless threats provisions, while running counterto the purpose of the CPR, cannot be ignored by the Courts.This article provides an overview of the current state of thegroundless threats provisions that apply to the various IP rights,and considers how IP owners and their advisors can best navigatethe groundless threats minefield. Practical significance. Groundless threats form a complex andchanging area of IP law in the UK, which advisers need to takeinto account in virtually every dispute. Amendments made toSection 70 of the Patents Act 1977 have not provided a threatspanacea to patent holders and it remains to be seen how thesection will be interpreted by the Courts. What is clear isthat the threats provisions contained in the IP legislationwill remain in force in one form or another for the foreseeablefuture and that they remain a trap for the unwary.     

The Application of Human Rights Law to Everyday Civilian Life Under Rebel Control

This article draws upon social science literature to offer a new assessment of the normative value of human rights law vis-à-vis international humanitarian law in territory under armed groups’ control. In particular, the article considers how the two bodies of law can be applied in a complementary manner to regulate the everyday life of civilians who are not involved in hostilities. The article demonstrates that while it might be tempting to imagine that concerns relating to rights such as the freedom of movement, the right to work or protection from common crime are completely displaced by considerations of physical security and survival in times of armed conflict, in reality this is often not the case.

     

与技术标准相关的知识产权强制许可

在知识经济时代,知识产权在市场竞争中起着非常重要的作用,从而它的行使与竞争法包括反垄断法有着密切的关系。本文以技术标准为视角,以德国的Spundfass和美国的N-date两个案件为例,说明作为技术标准的知识产权有可能被强制许可的情况。本文指出,知识产权的行使须受竞争法的制约,解决知识产权与竞争法二者冲突的方法是衡量限制竞争的影响。我国反垄断法第55条对滥用知识产权限制竞争的行为作出了禁止性规定。为了使这个规定具有可操作性,我国应在这方面尽快制定相关的实施细则或者指南。     

专利权担保融资的法定限度与合约扩充

专利权担保融资是知识产权价值的一种表现形式.专利权的交换价值是其担保功能的法理基础.专利权担保的性质在法律上被界定为质押,专利权担保的效力以登记为要件.目前理论认为,专利权担保为介于抵押与质押的中间形态或接近抵押,其效力以担保合同生效为要件.由于专利权担保融资属于间接、非证券无形资产融资,因此受到三个方面的基本规则约束,即专利规则、担保规则和贷款规则.在不违反法律强制性规定和公共利益的前提下,专利权人与贷款人之间可以根据设定担保的实际需要依据合同自由原则补充法律规定之不足.     

The English protoindustrial family: old and new perspectives

English research on protoindustrial communities in general and the protoindustrial family in particular has fallen somewhat behind that in many continental countries. Constrained by inadequate sources and a historiographical literature that has constantly placed the small and simple nuclear unit at the heart of English residential arrangements, English historians have often seen the protoindustrial family as little different in form and function from those to be observed in rural areas or market towns. This article uses sources generated by the English poor law to offer different perspectives. Focusing on Lancashire, as the protoindustrial phase of its development began to truly break down in the early 19th century, the article suggests that the English protoindustrial family was volatile in form and size and that the nature of underlying protoindustrial demography and the communal welfare system provided a powerful impetus to a process that saw the constant redistribution of kin between related households. It concludes that in Lancashire the expectation among protoindustrial families must have been volatility and that complex families rather than simple nuclear families have long held the English imagination.     

Public‐Private Arbitration and the Public Interest under English Law

Together with the increase in the number of public‐private contracts, recent years have seen a marked proliferation in public‐private arbitrations. This article explores the public interest implications which may arise in such arbitrations and examines how public‐private arbitration is treated under English law. We argue that, due to the lack of a developed administrative law sphere in England and the historical development of arbitration as an exclusively private mode of dispute resolution, the current legal framework of arbitration in England has developed around the private law paradigm of a commercial dispute involving private actors. This private law paradigm results in a conceptual and legal void in respect of how public interest is accounted for, and protected, in arbitrations involving public bodies under English law. Therefore, we suggest that English arbitration law needs to be amended to adequately protect the private interest in public‐private arbitration.     

Warranties and indemnities in contracts: protecting and exploiting IP

Legal context: Warranties and indemnities are present in most contracts butare particularly relevant in contracts involving intellectualproperty(IP), where the contract subject matter is intangibleand less open to verification. Warranties and indemnities areoften the most heavily negotiated parts of such contracts. Key points: This note discusses warranties and indemnities often found incontracts dealing with IP rights and deals with some of thekey practical areas that should be considered when draftingand negotiating such provisions. Practical significance: Warranties and indemnities offer important protection to licenseesand assignees of IP rights. However, it is important to understandtheir limitations. Firstly, warranties and indemnities are onlyever as good as the entity that gives them. Secondly, indemnitiesonly provide financial protection in respect of civil liability.As certain types of IP rights infringement are criminal offencesunder English law, indemnities should not replace the need forappropriate due diligence.