Ethics And Intellectual Property Of Intellectual Properties

Intellectual property needs to be protected. However, it is possible to go too far in protecting it. There is also the question of ethics. For example, the patenting of higher life forms, to lots of people, is not ethical. A recent case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics raises the question of taking a patent too far and whether or not it is ethical to do so.

After spending hours, days, months, even years on a piece of art one thing artist wish to secure is their claim on the piece. If you pour you're heart and soul into your art and then someone comes and takes it for their own personal gain without giving you recognition it can feel as if your world is crumbling. This issue saw the formation of laws that protected the creators right to their ideas. However these laws although protecting the ownership of ones own invention can at the same time hinder an others. As Thomas Edison had formed a monopoly of his technologies through "trusts". Many film makers felt stifled by the monopoly, not everyone could afford to buy a licence. Although Edison had his right to the technologies acknowledged he was

Genetic research has furthered our understanding of the human genetic makeup and has created the potential to transform medicine. This potential is not just limited to medicine, but the potential to further research and monetize the human genetic makeup. Through gene patenting, the monetization of genetic material can provide for a financial incentive for researchers and institutions to further innovation. The developments in the ability to patent genes and the laws surrounding gene patents has raised concerns of the ethical and medical issues as highlighted in authors, Michael Crichton’s article “Patenting Life” and John E. Calfee’s article “Decoding The Use of Gene Patents.” Both authors (1) share similar views on the ethical concerns and research results. (2) Calfee differs by explaining further that

Intellectual property (IP) is the meant to protect the creations of the mind, such as inventions for trademarks (sign, design or expression), patents (mechanics, pharmaceuticals, and chemistry), and copyrights (books) used in commerce. By definition it is an intangible property, the product of human ingenuity, protected by law (Johnson & Lau, 2011). Intellectual property needs to be protected for the consumer and for the industries competitiveness. The government and the federal laws can protect intellectual property. The regulations for intellectual property may be far fetching, but they are there for valid reasons. There needs to be a proper balance between content producers and the public good. Those

In your own words, identify the basic legal questions at issue in this case, and the arguments supporting each side. Do you think the Circuit Court decided correctly? Explain your reasoning.

To achieve this goal, the paper has been organized into four sections. The first section discusses what gene patenting is and some of the events that took place prior to gene patenting. The second section includes some of the benefits of having a gene patent and how it can help people with some diseases. The third section explains the risks of having a gene patent. Some of the companies that hold patents and do nothing will impact people who need help. In the last section discusses what could be done to improve gene patenting and how it will help humanity. Before staring the paper a historical context is provided so one can understand how it all started.

The lawyer Gregory T. Victoroff said “At its best, sampling benefits society by creating a valuable new contribution to modern music literature. At its worst, sampling is vandalism and stealing”. Half-way between creativity and plagiarism, sampling is a controversial issue in the music industry and the infringement of copyright. In this assignment I’m going to be discussing copyright and intellectual property rights in relation to the music industry.

to think about better ways to get their kids in how their lives will be changed by divorce. This would encourage the parents and the children to make the transition a bit easier in the divorce for the entire family.

In week3, we are looking into the case of Excello Telecommunications, and study their behavior base on the knowledge of legality and ethicality in financial reporting.

“There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” This quote by Jonas Salk, the researcher who invented the polio vaccine in the height of the polio scare, demonstrates the natural resistance people have to patents on biological agents. If society can grant individuals or small groups of individuals the exclusive rights to the production and use of biological agents in the form of a patent, the morality of such patents must be taken into consideration. David Resnik’s adaption of Marx’s theories of economic exploitation to a biomedical setting can be used to determine whether biological patents are moral. According to Resnik, “A exploits B if and only if 1) A takes advantage of B and 2)

Patenting gene sequences has been a topic that has been debated and problematic for quite a while. One main issue that is discussed is human dignity. Thinking about patenting human genes can give the idea of owning the gene sequence. In fact a response from a lawyer would be that patenting is not exactly ownership. This statement is true but doesn’t change the way people think about dignity. Many people still think that human genes are commodities.

There are many topics that interest a person, but, the topic I’m most interested in is entitled intellectual property, by the way, one thing one has to know is US is based on freedom of ownership of property, and also in America, real estate, personally property and intellectual property right has value of business in America and benefits for individuals. The importance of intellectual property was outlined in a Paris convention for the protection of industrial property in 1789, and also in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). Both treaties are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, this was an organization that look to protect industrial company of their property and benefits. Intellectual property can be related to items of information or knowledge, which is incorporated in tangible objects at the same time in an uncountable number of copies at different locations anywhere in the world. The property is not found in those Understanding Industrial Property copies but in the information or knowledge that explains them. Intellectual property rights are also set up by certain limitations, such as limited duration in the many case of copyright and patents. I believe intellectual property show’s one how to go about thing to protect things that are yours or made by you, and it take a lot of understanding mostly law to protect ones item.

The purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society and protect the creator’s interests. In applying copyright laws to any creation, three basic guidelines apply. First is the fair return for a creator’s labor, second is “Fair Use” of the creator’s labor and finally the Progress of Science and useful Arts to further the public good. The application of these three guidelines in litigation for A&M Records, Inc. vs. Napster, found that the rights of reproduction, and distribution had been violated, in effect upholding the copyrights’ of nineteen different music companies represented under A&M Records name, this ruling had protected the music industries interests. However it would seem that the publishing industry would not be so lucky, litigation in Authors’ Guild vs. Google ruled that Google’s actions constituted fair use. Under these two scenarios’ the copyright laws’ have, effectively, protected the rights of music artists’, protected the public’s right to “fair use” and sparked new opportunities for creative growth. However, lawmakers continue to struggle to define copyright boundaries between the public’s right of use and the creator’s right to profit from their efforts.

Coming up with the “Big Idea”, something very few of us can do. There are a lot of people in the world that believe they have the best idea and will make millions from it. The simple fact is, there are very few people that their “Big Idea” actually comes to fruition. However, there are even fewer people that their “Big Idea” actually makes millions. Now imagen you are one of those innovative individuals. The idea you have is absolutely amazing, maybe your idea is a new encryption algorithm that is impossible to brake for the foreseeable century. This would new encryption will make data extremely secure and impossible to steel. You develop the algorithm yourself on your own time, but one day you perform a test of your encryption algorithm on your work computer, after hours. Let’s just say your personal computer at your house broke and that’s why you used your work computer for the test. Who has the right to intellectual property at this point in time? This is the big dilemma and depending on the ethical view point of you or the company you work for, it could become a sticky situation. During the course of this class my answer to this question has, for the most part, has stayed the same. The issue of who has intellectual property rights in a very delicate topic and it truly depends on the situation at hand.

On one of my first web sites I had an original graphic design, done by one of my friends. The design was interesting and eye-catching, two necessary elements for my site. I kept the design on the site for over six months, before taking it down and rebuilding. Almost a year after the graphic went up on my site, the person who designed it saw it on another site. After he showed me, he expressed his disappointment. He had put his time and hard work into this and someone else had just copied the image off my site and used it for themselves. The design was my friend's work and his intellectual property.