3D Printing and Its Implication to Patent Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
3D printing and cloud computing are good examples to explore technological changesand patent law. Some commentators and 3D enthusiasts argue that 3D printing is one of the new general purpose technologies that would be pervasive in terms of its applicability, improve and lower costs over time and would incite new inventive potential. Both of these technologies are further instances of computer programming technology, where industry is currently defining its own field, and where the copying of the expression merge with the exploitation of ideas. If technologies need to prosper without hindrance of the law, policy makers should carefully consider how the exclusive right of patent may apply to these new technologies. This paper explores to what extent and manner should the future patent norm take the principle of neutrality of protection into consideration, considering these new emerging technologies and explore if these technologies merit exceptional treatments topreserve a freedom to tinker.
Abstract
3D printing and cloud computing are good examples to explore technological changesand patent law. Some commentators and 3D enthusiasts argue that 3D printing is one of the new general purpose technologies that would be pervasive in terms of its applicability, improve and lower costs over time and would incite new inventive potential. Both of these technologies are further instances of computer programming technology, where industry is currently defining its own field, and where the copying of the expression merge with the exploitation of ideas. If technologies need to prosper without hindrance of the law, policy makers should carefully consider how the exclusive right of patent may apply to these new technologies. This paper explores to what extent and manner should the future patent norm take the principle of neutrality of protection into consideration, considering these new emerging technologies and explore if these technologies merit exceptional treatments topreserve a freedom to tinker.
참고문헌 (28)
- "Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (US Supreme Court 2014 Pending), Bilski v. Kappos On (US Supreme Court 2010)(08-964), EPO G03", 08, 2014
- "Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 12-398", ~ (2013)
- The 'One-Size Fits All' European Patent System Challenges in the Software Context, "Ballardini, RM", Publications of the Faculty of Law at the University of Turku, 327~350, pp.The private law series no. 132 (2013)
- "Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, US", ~ (2010)
- Daniel Harris Brean, "Asserting Patents To Combat Infringement Via 3D Printing: It’s No Use", Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J, 23, pp.771~ (2013)
- Davis Doherty, "Downloading Infringement: Patent Law as a Roadblock to the 3D Prinring Revolution", HARV. J.L. & TECH, 26, pp.353~ (2012)
- Desai, Deven R., "Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing and the Digitization of Things", Georgetown Law Journal (2013)
- "EPO Opinion of the enlarged board of Appeal of 12 May 2010, G 0003", 08
- Geertrui, Van Overwalle, "Policy Levers Tailoring Patent Law to Biotechnology: Comparing U.S. and European Approaches", UC Irvine Law Review, 1, pp.2~ (2009)
- H. Ullrich, "The Importance of Industrial Property Law and Other Legal Measures in the Promotion of Technological Innovation", Industrial Property, pp.102~103 (1989)
- Harry Surden, "Technological Cost As Law In Intellectual Property", Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 27, pp.135~ (2013)
- "Factory @ Home: The Emerging Economy of Personal Manufacturing" (2010)[URL]
- "Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. 572 U. S", ~ (2014)
- Lyria Bennett Moses, "Recurring Dilemmas", Journal Of Law, Technology & Policy, 2, pp.240~ (2007)
- Mark Lemley, "Policy Levers in Patent Law", Virginia Law Review, 89, pp.1575~ (2003)
- Mendis, D, "‘The Clone Wars’ - Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and its Implications for Intellectual Property Law - Learning Lessons from the Past?", European Intellectual Property Review, 35(3), pp.155~169 (2013)
- "MPI DECLARATION ON PATENT PROTECTION Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS"[URL]
- Nari Lee, "Fragmented Infringement of Computer Program Patents in the Global Economy", IDEA, 48, pp.345~ (2007)
- "Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV. CJEU Case C-34", 10, 2011 I-09821
- Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Pharmaceutical Innovation, Competition, and Patent Law - A Trilateral Perspective" (2013), Edward Elgar Publishing
- S Bradshaw, "The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing", SCRIPTed, 7(1), pp.5~ (2010)
- "US patent No 5597589, Apparatus for producing parts by selective sintering, expired on 28.1.2014", ~ (2014)
- "WTO TRIPs agreement", ~
- "Startrek"[URL]
- "Arstechnica"[URL]
- "Stratasys"[URL]
- "Shapesways"[URL]
- "Thingiverse"[URL]