Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By:
1
(year of report submission) Universiti Telekom Sdn. Bhd. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.
2
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this work has been done by myself and no portion of
the work contained in this report has been submitted in support of any
application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other
university or institute of learning.
I also declare that pursuant to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1987, I
have not engaged in any unauthorised act of copying or reproducing or
attempt to copy / reproduce or cause to copy / reproduce or permit the
copying / reproducing or the sharing and / or downloading of any
copyrighted material or an attempt to do so whether by use of the
Universitys facilities or outside networks / facilities whether in hard copy
or soft copy format, of any material protected under the provisions of
sections 3 and 7 of the Act whether for payment or otherwise save as
specifically provided for therein. This shall include but not be limited to any
lecture notes, course packs, thesis, text books, exam questions, any works of
authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression whether provided by
the University or otherwise.
Signature: __________________________
Name:
Student ID:
Date:
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
4
Some of our furniture, art and music album are actually an intellectual
property of their respective artist, designer or inventor. Intellectual Property
is basically an invention that is the result of creativity where one can apply
their right for it.[1] For the intellectual property owner to obtain recognition
and financial benefits, they need a body of both federal and state law to
protect what they have invented or created. [2] Altogether this body of law is
termed as the intellectual property (IP) law that functions to protect
creative property in the form of copyright, trademark, and patent laws with
its own set of technical rules. [3] The relative statute is Copyright Act 1987,
Copyright Amendment Act 1997, Trade Marks Act 1976 and Patent
Act1983.
Trademarks are brand names, logos, slogans, and others devices that
determines and distinguish products and services from others. They are
protected under federal and state trademark laws with different degrees of
protection. This depends on a number of variables, for instance consumer
awareness, type of service and product, geographic area. [2]
Right of Publicity is for the image and name of a person. They are
protected under a patchwork of state laws against the unauthorized use of a
persons name or image for commercial purposes.
5
the business an edge over competitors, is kept secret, and not known by
competitors.
When a party has breached the intellectual statures, and violates the
intellectual property rights, he/she is said to have committed an
Infringement of a patents, copyright, or trademarks, or a
misappropriation of trade secrets. Based on the intellectual property,
jurisdictions and the infringement nature, this may be considered as a breach
of civil or criminal law. Section 36(1) of the Copyright Act 1987 infer that
direct infringement occurs wherever any party does or cause any other party
to do in the absent of the owner copyright license while Section36(2) infer
indirect infringement as the imports of an article for business purpose by
any party who is without the copyright owner license or consent.
6
To strengthen the existing copyright system, the ACTA trade agreement is
signed. Through this agreement, parties that infringe copyright are liable to
criminal penalties, incarceration and fines. [6] Exceptions to copyrights are
the fair use and fair dealing doctrine which does not constitute infringement.
7
2.0: CASES SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
List of case:
8
Case 2.1.1:
Analysis:
9
Case 2.1.2:
Figure 1:Oklahoma State sues New Mexico State over 'confusingly similar'
Pistol Pete logo- [8]
Analysis: Section 3 defines the owner of the patent (patentee) as the person
for the time being recorded in the Register as the grantee of a patent.[9]
The patentee has the legal rights to stop others producing the
patented goods or applying the patented process by suing for infringement -
for up to twenty years from the date of filing of application. [9]
10
To protect Oklahomas trademark and still offer the classic logo to
NMSU alumni, the schools reached a licensing agreement. [10] New Mexico
State will pay $10 per year for rights to sell items with the classic logo. The
agreement restricts such sale to the schools bookstore or online retail
space. Additionally, NMSU can only distribute up to 3,000 items
containing the classic logo per year. [10]
11
Case 2.1.3:
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v The Random House Grp ltd
This Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v The Random House Grp
ltd copyright case happened in Court of Appeal, United Kingdom on 28 Mar
2007. The plaintiff for this case is Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh and
defendant is The Da Vinci Code.[10]
The case against the publishers of The Da Vinci Code was brought
by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of a non-fiction work,
The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, which was first published in 1982.
Messrs. Baigent and Leigh claimed that The Da Vinci Code was an
infringement of their copyright in their book. [10]
In their book, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh argue that the
Holy Roman Church and its successors had sought to suppress this
bloodline, but that a powerful secret sect, the Priory of Sion, was formed to
protect this "grail." Baigent and Leigh used six known indisputable
historical facts, or supposed facts, though their conclusion was the result of
historical conjecture based on those facts. This quasi-historical approach
was also the basis of various other published hypotheses as to the merging
of Christs bloodline with the Merovingian bloodline. [11]
Dan Brown is a popular fiction writer, and his book, The Da Vinci
Code, has been the number one best-selling novel in Europe and U.S. for
months. The Da Vinci Code is a murder mystery. It opens with the death - in
Paris Louvre museum - of the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, Jacques
Sauniere. Seeking to solve his murder, the heroes of the story are led on a
Grail quest, in which they must unravel a series of puzzles based on the
history of the Priory of Sion and on the secret behind Christs bloodline. [11]
12
There was no doubt that Dan Brown had drawn on The Holy Blood
and The Holy Grail. Indeed, there was a clear and explicit reference to the
book in The Da Vinci Code, and the name of one of the characters, Sir Leigh
Teabing, was based on an anagram of the names of the two authors.
The court held that, while the evidence was clear that Dan Brown and his
primary researcher had drawn on The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail to a
greater extent than Brown had acknowledged, this did not mean that they
had infringed copyright in the book. The judge had found some copying, but
not so much that a substantial part had been copied. Rather, they had used
The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, and other books, to provide general
background material for the writing of The Da Vinci Code. [11]
13
Case 2.2.1:
Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 U.S. 605 (1950)
Summary:
Analysis:
The trial court found that even though Lindes patent did not claim for
Manganese , it was close enough that it hit the requirements of non-textual
infringement which was known as the Doctrine of Equivalents.
14
would be Lindes fault for messing up their claims.The was nothing
stopping them from claiming Manganese.
15
Case 2.2.2 :
Egbert v Lippmann
The case happened in United Stated where the husband of the plaintiff ,
Barnes heard his wife, Egbert and her friends kept complaining that their
corsets kept breaking. Hence, he invented a new kind of doo-dad that would
make the corsets sturdy. The wife had used the doo-dad which was given by
his husband for over 10 years. Besides, Barnes also shown his friends how
the doo-dad worked back then. After eleven years, Barnes had applied for a
patent on the originally making the doo-dad . The corsets became so much
popular after then.
After Barnes past away,the plaintiff inherited the patent and later the
defendant , Lippmann began manufacturing the corsets which was similar
with the doo-dad. The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringement of patent.
The defendants testified that Barnes told him about the invention in 1863,
that Barnes asked his wife to remove her closet and used a pair of scissors to
remove the steels and explained how the corset was made and functioned.
Defendant argued that this evidence confirmed that the steels were "in
public use" long before a patent application was made which ultimately
voided the issued patent.
Analysis:
The U.S Supreme Court found the patent to be invalid as when the Court
looked into the patent law , which is now the 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The
current standard of law stated that : A disclosure made 1 year or less before
the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the
claimed invention. . Back then it was 2 years instead of 1 year.
It was mentioned by the Court that one cannot patent something that
was in public use , with the consent and allowance of the inventor , for more
than 2 years prior to his application.The Court noted it would be a public
use since there is no confidential agreement on this.
In a dissent, it was argued that this was not a public use. Considering
that this invention had no limitation was imposed to its use in public . It
might be imagined that was a prohibition to wear the corsets to a party
against exposing her use of the steel spring to public observation which
would be a piece of irony. An objection that the invention was not capable
16
for public use . The dissent argued that confidentially was implied by the
nature of the patent.
The Public Use Exception is important because the US has a "first to invent"
patent system. If the exception didn't exist, then a person could invent
something, sell it all over the place, and then only apply for a patent once a
competitor started copying it. Since no competitors would copy the product
knowing that the inventor could patent it at any time, the inventor's
monopoly would be indefinitely extended.[15]
17
Case 2.2.3
Acumen Marketing Sdn Bhd & Anor v Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd &
Ors
Summary of case:
1st plaintiff (Acumen Marketing Sdn Bhd) initiate an action for losses for
[of industrial design no. MY 01-00304], to the streetlamps design of
Nyonya & Baba from the 1st defendant and IC(infringement of copyright)
Diamond Optic lighting program. [20]
2nd plaintiff (W. DW) developed the Diamond Optic R.S (reflector
system) and assigned the 1st plaintiff to solely provide the Diamond Optic
R.S lanterns to intall into the Malaysia Street Lamps system. The
involvement of the 2nd plaintiff in the Nyonya and Baba streetlight design
is not acknowledged to the first defendant. [21]
In the 1st defendant defence, the express terms of which contract they
agreed with 1st plaintiff, the whole IPs (drawings, designs and products)
applied in the program comprising of Nyonya & Baba streetlamps is
owned as a whole by the 1st defendant. It contradicted with the 1st plaintiff
held the property ownership over the industrial designs on trust for the 1st
defendant and hence for a instruction for an order that the 1st plaintiff must
present the assignment by absolutely to it all the rights. [20]
Analysis:
According to the clauses in the contract pre-planned, the High Court draw to
no other conclusion than that all the IPs (drawings designs) developed by
the 1st plaintiff falls to the ownership of the 1st defendant.
Evidence clarified that 1st plaintiff had proposed a higher price due to time
and effort consumed in creating the proposal and source file for the project.
Further consideration in the rights for intellectual design had been included
into the contract. It is obvious from the shown evidence that the 1st plaintiff
had designed the idea specially for the 1st defendant only and by Section
10(2) Industrial Designs Act 1997, the 1st defendant hold the ownership of
the ICs of the Nyonya & Baba streetlights. (1st defendant who
18
commissioned the work would be the original owner of the industrial design
and not the 1st plaintiff).[21]
19
Case 2.3.1:
Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Allied Pacific Motor (M) Sdn
Bhd & Anor
Case summary:
Honda Motor Company which is based in Japan and is one of the largest two-wheeler
producing companies in world, filed for an interim injunction in 2005 for design
infringement of their motorcycle- HONDA WAVE 125 model.[17]
The company claimed that a Malaysian company had infringed the designs of
the motorcycle HONDA WAVE 125 model registered by Honda Motors in Malaysia,
which included the rear combination lamp, leg shields and handle cover equipped with
lights of a motor scooter.
Analysis:
The Court held that the registration of a design had to be presumed to be valid, once the
design had been published in the gazette declaring it to be a registered design, until
proved otherwise. This was based on the fact that the Registrar while carrying out the
registration process would not only scrutinize the documents required and procedures
complied for the registration process, but also would ascertain if the law allowed a
particular design to be registered. The Court rejected the plea of the defendants that
Hondas design was not novel, since the company had launched the same model in
Thailand earlier. The Court said that the novelty aspect of any design is limited to the
territory, where the registration is sought. Under the Malaysian Designs Act, a design is
not considered new only if it is disclosed to the public anywhere in Malaysia, or is the
subject matter of another application with an earlier priority date. Though the Court
found that the defendants product had substantially imitated the plaintiffs registered
design, it did not grant an interim injunction. The Court did not grant the injunction
owing to balance of inconvenience because of the fact that Honda Motor Company
had never launched the product in Malaysia, while the defendant had already started
marketing their product. Therefore if the interim injunction were to be granted there
would be serious ramifications including financial and social consequences, for the
defendant.[18]
20
Case 2.3.2:
A petition was filed by M/s Brighto Auto Industries, a partnership firm, engaged in
manufacture of various articles, including rear view mirrors. The petition by M/s
Brighto Auto Industries sought the cancellation of the design of rear view mirrors
(Registration Number 139585) registered under class I of the Designs Act, 1911.The
plaintiff claimed that the registered design was neither new nor original.The issue
before the court was to identify:
The plaintiff substantiated his contention with evidences that the rear view mirror with
the registered design had been available in market since long. However, the defendant
claimed that he had invented the design and the design was novel. The defendant
however did not support his claim with any evidence.
Analysis:
The Delhi High Court looked into the distinction between new and original, while
giving the judgment and referred to the judgement in,Dover Ld. v. Nurnberger
Celluloidwaran Fabrik Gebnider Wolff (27 R.P.C. 498). According to the judgment
passed in the above case, new referred to a case where the shape or pattern was
wholly new in itself and on the other hand original to the case where, it was old but
new in its application to the particular subject matter. The word original, contemplates
that the person has originated something, that by the exercise of intellectual activity he
has started an idea which had not occurred to anyone before, that a particular pattern or
shape or ornament may be rendered applicable to the particular article to which he
suggests that it shall be applied.
In this case, the defendant accepted that rear view mirrors were available in the
market, which were rectangular in shape with rounded edges, width sides curved or
sloping and the lower length side also sloping .The novelty incorporated by the
defendant was a further curve in the sloping upper length side. The rear view mirrors
previously sold in the market did not carry this type of curvature on the upper side.
The Court concluded that the innovation which the defendants claimed was
insufficient to consider the design as new. The Court identified the design in question
21
as just a simple variation of the earlier available product in the market and ordered the
design to be cancelled.[19]
Case 2.3.3:
Summary:
The issue involved the alleged illegal copying of a design by the respondent of Pick-
N-Carry Hydraulic Self Mobile Cranes manufactured by the plaintiff. Though the case
did not directly fall under the purview of the Designs Act, the Court examined whether
the said design was capable of registration under the Designs Act. After examining the
definition of a design under the Act, the Court held that the design in question was
incapable of registration. According to the Court the definition made it amply clear that
the primary objective of the Act was to protect the shape and not the function, or
functional shape.
Analysis:
The Court said that the parts of the crane being claimed for design protection were not
made to appeal to the eye but solely to make the crane work or function. The Court
stated that The expression design does not include a method or principle of
construction or features or shape or configuration which are dictated solely by the
function which the article to be made in that shape or configuration has to perform.
The novelty for industrial designs is local, and thereby the publication or use of
the design outside the country prior to registration will not render the design
invalid.
All industrial designs are valid unless proven otherwise.
The design has to be new and novel for claiming registration. The innovation
claimed should not be petty.
Design registration cannot be claimed for functional aspects of any product.[17]
22
Case2.4.1:
Summary :
The Restoran Oversea Holdings Sdn Bhd (plaintiff) and Overseas Seafood
Restaurant Sdn Bhd (defendant) have been involving in the seafood
business. The plaintiff had carried out legal action to claim damages from
defendant due to the usage of plaintiffs two trade marks.
The plaintiff has 2 registered trademarks where the first trade marks
is consisted of 3 Chinese characters , where the first two characters meant
overseas and the third character meant sky . The second trademark is a
circular image in red color and the same three chinese characters on top
rolling waves combined with the words Restoran Oversea.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been promoting its
restaurant by using business name which is identical to plaintiffs two trade
marks in the form of distributing business cards and advertisement.The
plaintiff believed that defendants business will cause confusion and
deception in mind to the customers.
23
Analysis :
The High Court looked into the definition of aggrieved person in Section
3 of Act, which must be read together with Section 56 of the Act. From
these Sections, the definition does not apply to a usage of name.
High Court had approved the plaintiffs strike out application as the
defendant was not a a person aggrieved within Section 45 , Trade Marks
Act 1976.Hence, no legal standing for the counterclaim under the said
provision.
The High Court had based on its finding on that the defendant was
not using a mark but simply a name- business name and decided that
the Plaintiff has no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. The
Defendant was not using the Plaintiffs trade marks, but just the business
name that was related to the Defendants nature of business and hence there
was no case for trade mark infringement. The words overseas, restaurant
and seafood are common, thus the Plaintiff does not have any claim. The
Plaintiffs claim was struck out under the virtue of Order 92 Rule 4 of the
Rules of Court 2012.With such decisions, both parties are now even without
any clear victory to either party.[13]
24
Figure 3 : Figure 4:
Restoran Oversea Oversea Holdings
Holdings Seafood Restaurant Sdn Bhd .
Restaurant Sdn Bhd .
25
Case 2.4.2
Summary
On the merits of the case, having regard to the 'tests' set out in The
Pianotist Co Ltd, the High Court was correct in concluding that it was not
likely that ordinary purchasers would be deceived into regarding the
respondent's product to be the product of the appellant, that the appellant's
rights in respect of its trade mark had not been infringed and consequently
the appellant was not entitled to the order under s 16 of the Act. [23]
Analysis
With regard to the merits of the case, the principal issue before the
judge was whether the trade mark of the appellant had been infringed by the
intervener. Under s 35 of the Trade Marks Act 1976 the registered
26
proprietor of a trade mark in respect of any goods has the exclusive right to
the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods. [23]
The two words MISTER and SISTER are not look like same to
cause the confusion and deception. These two words are not alike. The only
similarity is the second syllable for both the word but for the whole word
are not similar enough to cause the misunderstanding or confusion. In
addition, both of the background are different for the interveners product
the get-up is green background colour with the picture of a lady meanwhile
the get-up of the applicants product is white-blue-grey background colour
with the picture of a lady and a man. [22]
27
Case 2.4.3:
Chanel, Inc. v. Smith, 151 U.S.P.Q. 685 (United States ,8 January 1976)
Summary
Analysis
In this case the principal question presented on this record is whether one
who has copied an unpatented product sold under a trademark may use the
trademark in his advertising to identify the product he has copied. We hold
that he may, and that such advertising may not be enjoined under either the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) (1964), or the common law of unfair
competition, so long as it does not contain misrepresentations or create a
reasonable likelihood that purchasers will be confused as to the source,
identity, or sponsorship of the advertiser's product. [25]
28
Under the Lanham Act a use of the mark which is likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers as to the source of origin of
such goods or services. Registration bestows upon the owner of the mark the
limited right to protect his good will from possible harm by those uses of
another as may engender a belief in the mind of the public that the product
identified by the infringing mark is made or sponsored by the owner of the
mark. The Lanham Act does not prohibit a commercial rival's truthfully
denominating his goods a copy of a design in the public domain, though he
uses the name of the designer to do so. [24]
The real intent of the plaintiff's bill, it seems to us, is to extend the
monopoly of such trademark or tradename as she may have to a monopoly
of her type of bitter water, by preventing manufacturers from telling the
public in a way that will be understood, what they are copying and trying to
sell. But the plaintiff has no patent for the water, and the defendants have a
right to reproduce it as nearly as they can. They have a right to tell the
public what they are doing, and to get whatever share they can in the
popularity of the water by advertising that they are trying to make the same
article, and think that they succeed. If they do not convey, but, on the
contrary, exclude, the notion that they are selling the plaintiff's goods, it is a
strong proposition that when the article has a well-known name they have
not the right to explain by that name what they imitate. By doing so, they
are not trying to get the good will of the name, but the good will of the
goods. [25]
29
3.0: Findings
In most of the cases (12 cases), only two parties are involved in which is the
plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is the acclaimed victim who sues
against the defendant in the court, while the defendant is the accused party
in the court. There are a total of 13 cases of intellectual property: 4
copyright infringements, 3 trademarks infringements, 3 industrial design
infringement, 3 patent infringements together with 1 co-related trade secret
misappropriation. In some cases, tests were carried out to determine the
components of the article are copyrightable or infringeable.
In three out of the four the copyright cases, the main reason for filing
is associated with the defendant article were duplicate or closely similar to
the plaintiff registered article. In fact, some of the articles are not
copyrightable for instance perfume and fragrance. Three of the four cases
judge decisions were to dismiss plaintiff action for matters that are subtle
and was not obvious to the public, making them variables that were targeted
for exploitation of infringement. Three of the court cases were settled in
high court while the other one was settled in appeal court. After the judge
decisions were given, the dismissed plaintiff has either withdraw their cases
with or without cost. The statures used were Copyright Act, Industrial
Designs Act and Lanham Act.
On the patents cases, the reasons for legal action are largely varied.
Patent time constraint and public uses were applied. The registered design
should be new or original and its feature is dictated solely on its function
and not any insubstantial substitution of material. Two of the cases were
held under supreme court in which one is appealed from trial court while the
other one is held under court of justice whose jurisdiction are in the same
league as the supreme court. After the judge decisions were given, all
plaintiff action is allowed. The patents were all found to have infringed,
30
hence is held not valid anymore. The statures used were 35 U.S.C. 102
Patent Law and Registered Designs Act.
1. Copyrights
2. Trademarks
3. Patents
31
related field, is an insubstantial change of the other patent.
- One cannot patent something that is in public use, with the consent and allowance of
the inventor , for more than 2 years prior to his application.
- The disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of the invention
shall not be its evidence
- A design cannot be registered before the date of the application for
registration of the same design
4. Industrial Design
- The design should be new in shape or pattern wholly and have sufficient novelty
incorporated
- Novelty of design is limited to territory; a design is considered new if it have not
disclosed to the public in that territory
- Design registration cannot be claimed for functional aspects of any product, but rather
the design shape
- All industrial designs are valid unless proven otherwise.
32
3.1:Recommendations
The foundation stone of Intellectual property was first set in the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1883. Then Berne
Convention was held in 1886 for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
Works and today, we have Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights to protect our intellectual property rights as a creator or owner of an
article on our own work or investment. [26] We are seeing the importance of
Intellectual Property Law more imperatively than before as its works to
protect the expression of ideas and creativity that has been massively
amount to the technological advancement and this benefit the society in
every field insurmountably. We would not have the drug for cancer if were
not for the medical researchers continuous handworks in developing more
efficient medication. However it is here where the intellectual property law
prohibits the drug from being misused for recreational or destructive
purpose. These will surely benefits the society as the patient will have more
chance to recover, the health of the communities on the other hand would
improve while the researches are credited for his effort in making the world
a better place.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, who lead
the world task force to combat infringement of intellectual property has
listed down the resolutions that are to be installed for the current IP system
to improve. The first is by advocating an universal intellectual property
rights (IPR ) policy that guide domestic IPR issues to reduce the backlog of
cases. USPTO will also provide advices on IPR and trade related issues, as
well as perform technical assistance and capacity-building programs for
foreign government who want to develop their IPR regulatory and
enforcement system.[28] They are also willing to provide assistance in
drafting, reviewing and implementation of IP obligations in treaties and
trade agreements for instances the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which our
country participated. One of USPTO main mission is to foster long-term
direct working relationships with foreign government agencies and the
private sector. Through the collaboration of all trade parties, we can cover
all fields of the trades and as a result to leave no stone of infringement
unturned. Stronger legal framework for IPR protection and enforcement
must also be pushed from time to time to catch up with rising of number of
infringement escape-rope, which may already in or will be in our nation IP
system. As a global effort, this will catch the eyes of the public which
indirectly enhanced public awareness and support for IPR. [28]
33
goods. In spite of that, we should also implement the following initiatives
which are necessary to provide grounds for the IPR protection to take place.
3. Two-day Patent Quality Summit for the public to discuss and suggest
improvement for IPR issues.
34
benefits. [30] To improve the IP system, the following feature has to be
added in:
Patent Law
Copyright
Trademark
35
After analysing the legal aspect of the cases in depth, ethical issues
must always be considered as legal things are not always ethical and vice-
versa. These days, it is common to see people downloading files through
methods that are not only illegal but also unethical. Internet users,
especially students commit this crime for it is free, easily done and low risk
crime. Most of us are unaware of the terrible consequences in the industrial
and society as a whole but instead believe that it is a common thing that
everybody else do. By illegally downloading, we are not giving credits and
rewards to the authors who have tirelessly spent their precious energy, time
and resources to create something that benefits to the society. In copyright
law, illegal downloading is as serious as theft of creation or infringements
and somewhat was treated as a form of slavery where they have work for us,
but we do not reward them in return. As we know, intellectual property has
been bringing in profits and job employments in millions to both developed
and developing nation. So to imagine that we deprive our country of
intellectual property through taking advantage of other peoples effort and
creativity, we would only bring downfall to our economy and ultimately dug
our own grave as we have to compensate more on our daily necessities in an
economy crisis. We must always keep in mind that anything that comes in
will comes out. By paying authors for their work, we are actually culturing
the chain of invention and providing resources they needed to improve and
create. However, many people believe in the stereotype of famous artists
being rich and luxurious that they do not need the money. This is when we
have overlooked on the employee in the industry whose salary and career
are solely dependent on sales. Infringement would only bring down sales of
the product and decline the industry profits. Consequently, these people in
the industry would lose their job and the societys welfare would suffers for
the sake of certain people gaining other people labour without paying the
cost. Piracy in intellectual property has an even evil form where some
people deliberately exploit other peoples work and then sell them off in the
market place at a lower price. This immoral and unethical exploitation of
other people work and creativity without compensating them financially but
instead making illegal money from it is a very heavy wrong doing.
Unbeknown to us, selling infringed products is a stealing from not the
owner himself but also the government as they did not have to pay taxes. [31]
36
accreditation does not have to be necessary in form of money. Some only
ask for recognition and acknowledgement so they can be share out more
widely as a free but controlled material. This way we can enjoy the works of
some artist in a right way that respect them and their labour.
37
4: Conclusions
38
5:References
[6] Irina D. Manta Spring 2011 The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for
Intellectual Property Infringement Harvard Journal of Law &
Technology 24(2):469-518, source:
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v24/24HarvJLTech469.pdf
[8] Oklahoma State sues New Mexico State over 'confusingly similar'
Pistol Pete logo
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/10/22/7039593/oklahoma-
state-sues-new-mexico-state-pistol-pete-logo
39
[10]Osu sues NMSU over Pistol Pete mascot
http://krqe.com/2014/10/21/osu-sues-nmsu-over-pistol-pete-mascot/
[12] B A I G E N T A N D A N O T H E R V T H E R A N D O M H O U S E
GROUP LTD ( THE DA VINC I CODE); CHD 7 APR 2006
http://swarb.co.uk/baigent-and-another-v-the-random-house-group-ltd-
the-da-vinci-code-chd-7-apr-2006/
[13] Malaysia : the fight over oversea, June 27th 2016
http://www.adipven.com/malaysia-the-fight-over-overseas
[16] Escorts Const. Equipment Ltd. & ... vs Action Const. Equipment P.
Ltd. & ... on 16 October, 1998
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1315312/
[17] Injuctive Relief In Industrial Design and 3d copyright in Malaysia, 3rd Nov
2006
https://www.scribd.com/doc/49456805/INDUSTRIAL-DESIGN-CASE-
STUDY
[20]
http://www.abstract.xlibx.info/as-psychology/2924376-6-section-
intellectual-property-court-section-anti-counterfeiting-se.php
[21]
http://www.apaaonline.org/pdf/APAA_58th_council_meeting_Korea/1-
RecognisedGroups-RG/MalaysiaRecognisedGroupReport2010.pdf
40
[23] CLJ_2008_2_121
https://www.scribd.com/document/91474968/CLJ-2008-2-121
[29] How to Improve the Intellectual Property System, Hillary Schaub and
Darrell M. WestMonday, February 2, 2015, source:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/02/02/how-to-improve-the-
intellectual-property-system
41