Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights A.O.

Aliyu and Adedayo Stephen Energy Commission of Nigeria, Abuja. Nigeria

Abstract Intellectual property IP protection is a way producing encouragements to create. According to Lemley (2005), Intellectual property rights are an exception to that norm, and they are granted only when and only to the extent that they are necessary to encourage invention (Lemley, 2005). Free competition is normal. IP rights has been limited in time, scope, and granted only to authors and inventors who met certain least requirements. As stated by (Moringiello & Fleming, 2008), there are many IP cases on trademark, patent, and copyright law. Various approaches to intellectual property protection rights are copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. Keywords: intellectual property, protection rights, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets

Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of different types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized and the corresponding fields of law (Raysman, Pisacreta, Adler, & Ostrow, 1999). The intellectual property law grants owner special rights to a variety of assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Examples of common intellectual property are copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions. Copyright This is a right given to authors of original works, such as books, articles, movies, and computer programs. It gives the exclusive permission to reproduce the work, make copied works, or to present the work freely and also protect the form or expression of ideas (Kinsella, 2001). International copyright law does not provide satisfactory resolution for international IP cases since copyright law application is nationally limited (Frohlich, 2009). A copyright may not be registered to obtain legal advantages but it comes automatically the moment the work is produce in a physical medium of expression, and lasts for the life of the author or for a total of ninety-five years in cases in which the employer owns the copyright (Kinsella, 2001). Patent

A new or improved computer game is an example of a type of device which may be patented. Patent is a property right in origination, that is, in devices or processes that perform a useful function. It is permits the inventor a limited control on the manufacture, use, or sale of the invention. It only grants to the patentee the right to prevent others from practicing the patented invention. In most cases, not every innovation or discovery is patentable. Kinsella (2001) stated that the U.S. Supreme Court has, for example, identified three categories of subject matter that are not patentable, namely laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights Trade Secret This entails any private recipe, device, or piece of information which gives its holder an

economical advantage so long as it remains secret (Kinsella, 2001). Trade secret laws are used to check misuses of the trade secret. It is gotten by stating that the details of subject that is secret. Trade secret theoretically may last indefinitely, although disclosure or independent discovery may destroy it. Its major disadvantage is that a competitor who independently invents the subject of anothers trade secret can obtain a patent on the device or process and actually prevent the original inventor from using the invention (Kinsella, 2001). Trademark The word, phrase, symbol, or design is used to identify the basis of goods or services sold, and to differentiate them from other goods or services. According to Kinsella (2001), trademark law prevents others from infringing upon the trademark by using confusingly or similar marks to identify their own goods and services. Distinct from copyrights and patents, trademark rights is permanent as long as the owner continues to use the mark. Common ethical problem reported at second Life are intellectual property and trademark infringements (Moringiello & Fleming, 2008, p. 9). Schleimers (2001) Approaches to IP Protection There are many copyright infringements crimes committed all over the internet through file sharing system among strangers, the peer-to-peer file exchanges are the virus agents for computer systems. As a result, electronic countermeasures are necessary to jam, inhibit, block, investigate, and document online copyright infringement. (Schleimer, 2001). Release of viruses on the file-sharing systems is a way of preventing infringement but innocent internet users would be negatively affected. And such a malicious computer virus release to the Internet is a crime under both state and federal law so this method cannot be effectively used (The computer fraud

Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights and abuse act , n.d). Cease and Desist Programs

The purpose of a cease-and-desist software package is just to convey an electronic message to virtual copyright offenders as a warning. According to Schleimer (2001), These files would be posted on the peer-to-peer indices masquerading as desirable content, such as a current hit song. The file contains an authoritarian voice that accuses the downloader of criminal and civil copyright infringement and demands that he or she immediately cease and desist. Snitch Programs A snitch program also could be distributed as a decoy file. Once inside the downloaders system, it would gather personal details, such as the infringers name and address, a list of infringed material found on the local hard drive, and the IP addresses of recipients of infringing uploads (Schleimer, 2001). The snitched information could be retrieved each time the infringer logs onto a file-sharing system and thereby posts the decoy file back onto the system (Schleimer, 2001). Electronic Tags It is possible for copyright owners to publish decoy files which contain unique a tag. If a tag is in the file it proves that it had, at some point, been copied from an illegal file-sharing system. The owner of a copyright has a statutory privilege to insert identification information in digital copies to monitor infringement. (Schleimer, 2001) Mass Decoy Postings Web sites with high tendency of copyright infringement could be loaded with decoy files. When decoys are posted, a long series effect of the file-sharing system would replicate and the decoys could ultimately bury the real files. The infringers are being constantly bombarded with

Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights

annoying cease and desist messages and drive infringers away from the illegal sites (Schleimer, 2001). Handshake Programs Another good countermeasure would be to identify specific infringing files posted on a filesharing system, initiate an upload of those particular files, and during the handshake that is when the publishers computer is introducing itself. A program is insert into the publishers computer so that blocks copying of the infringing file, deletes it, or replaces it with a cease-and-desist or decoy program. The technological feasibility of such an offensive measure depends on the existence of vulnerabilities in the receiving system (Schleimer, 2001). Frohlichs (2009) Approaches
Frohlish considered IP protection from the International copyright law and conflicts of law approaches. According to Frohlich (2009), The exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner can only be exercised within the borders of a given country. This national limitation of copyrights is in pronounced contrast to the universal validity of other rights. This national limitation of copyrights is in pronounced contrast to the universal validity of other rights (Frohlich, 2009, p. 853). Since the main pillar of intellectual property law is territorially limited it applies to the application of copyright law it does not provide enough and satisfactory resolution to international IP case

(Frohlich, 2009). Choice-of-law Rules Various laws apply to internet copyright infringement cases, these are; lex fori, lex loci delicti, and lex protectionis rule. The lex fori rule assumes application of the law of the country where the court deciding the violation case is located. In contrast, the lex loci delicti rule postulates application of the law of the country where the infringing conduct has occurred. The lex protectionis rule applies the law of the country for which IP protection is sought (Frohlich, 2009)

Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights Moringiello and Flemings (2008) Approaches.

As businesses continue to move to and grow in the electronic environment over the years, courts are now adapting the common law and the existing statutes to the new Internet and electronic communications transactions. New laws are passed on electronic transactions and cyberspace to regulate the new ways of doing business and the courts, legislators, and regulators are finding the electronic payment systems issues interesting (Moringiello & Fleming, 2008). Most commonly apply Cyberspace laws to protect the online intellectual property are the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Contract law is an area in which courts are applying the common law to new challenges in the electronic and online contracts (Moringiello & Fleming, 2008).

Conclusion Intellectual property is a wide theory that covers several types of legally accepted rights arising from some type of intellectual creativity, or that are otherwise related to ideas. Frohlich
(2009) considered IP protection from the International copyright law and conflicts of law approaches that

is from the legal view. Similar, Moringiello and Fleming (2008) approaches is from the electronic communication and cyberspace legal view. In contrast Schleimer (2001) considered IP using electronic countermeasure technology to protect IP. There is therefore an urgent need to pay more attention to the international and cyberspace Intellectual Property protection to encourage and protect global innovations.

Online Intellectual Property Protection Rights References Botterbusch, H. R., & Talab, R. S. (2008). Copyright and you: Ethical issues in Second Life. TechTrends, 53 (1) 9-12. . Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/pqdweb?did=1680515621&sid=4&Fmt=6&clien tId=52110&RQT=309&VName=PQD Frohlich, A. (2009). Copyright infringement in the Internet age primetime for harmonized conflict of laws rules. Berkley Technology Law Journal, 24 (2) 851-896. Retrieved from http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/24-2-d-Frohlich.pdf Kinsella, N. S. (2001). Against intellectual property. Retrieved from http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf Lemley, M. A. (2005). Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding. . Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/83/83Lemley.pdf Moringiello, J. M., & Fleming, M. F. (2008). More electronic communication, more challenges: Introduction to the 2008 survey of the law of cyberspace. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/pqdweb?did=1623361341&sid=5&Fmt=3&clien tId=52110&RQT=309&VName=PQD The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as amended 1994 and 1996). (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act.html Raysman, R., Pisacreta, E. A., Adler, K. A., & Ostrow, S. H. (1999). Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis. New York: Law Journal Press. Schleimer, J. D. (2001). Electronic countermeasures to copyright infringement on the Internet: Law & technology. Journal of Internet Law, 5 (5) 1-5. Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= buh&AN=9472848&site=ehost-live