美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法-第2版-英文版

內(nèi)容概要

　　《英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）：美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法（第2版）》是對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)法學(xué)院國家重點(diǎn)學(xué)科建設(shè)項(xiàng)目英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）中的一輯，選錄了美國版權(quán)法、專利法、商標(biāo)法三個(gè)領(lǐng)域中的一些經(jīng)典案例，旨在通過研究原汁原味的案例，介紹美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法框架體系中的一些基本原則。由于篇幅所限，《英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）：美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法（第2版）》難以對三大部門法中的相關(guān)經(jīng)典案例作一個(gè)非常全面的介紹，因此，《英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）：美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法（第2版）》的重點(diǎn)主要是在版權(quán)法上。讀者在閱讀案例時(shí)，可以跟隨美國法官的思路，理解其如何在綜合考慮多方因素的基礎(chǔ)上，盡量維護(hù)多種利益的平衡，并得出最終的判決。案例后面附有思考題，以幫助讀者更快地理解每個(gè)案件的焦點(diǎn)問題。

書籍目錄

第一編美國版權(quán)法 第一章版權(quán)保護(hù)的條件 第一節(jié)表達(dá)和思想觀念 案例1 Baker v.Selden 案例2 Nichols v.Universal Pictures Corporation 案例3 Morrissey v.Procter&Gamble 第二節(jié)作品的原創(chuàng)性 案例4 Feist v.Rural 案例5 Gracen v.Bradford Exchange 第三節(jié)作品的固定 案例6 White Smith Music Pub Co.v.Appollo Co. 案例7 National Football League v.McBee&Bruno's， Inc. 第四節(jié)版權(quán)標(biāo)記 案例8 Hasbro Bradley， Inc.v.Sparkle Toys，Inc. 第五節(jié)版權(quán)保護(hù)的消極條件 案例9 Mitchell Bros.v.Cinema Adult Theater 第二章作品的類型 第一節(jié)一般形式 案例10 Andrew Leicester v.Warner Brothers 第二節(jié)特殊形式 案例11 G.Ricordi & Co.v.Paramount Pictures，Inc. 案例12 New York Times Co.v.Tasini 第三章版權(quán)的保護(hù)期限 案例13 Eric Eldred v.John D.Ashcroft 第四章版權(quán)的內(nèi)容 第一節(jié)作者的權(quán)利 案例14 Columbia Pictures Industries v.Redd Horne 案例15 Quality King Distributors，Inc.v.L'Anza ResearchInt'l，Inc. 第二節(jié)合理使用 案例16 Harper & Row Publishers v.Nation Enterprises 案例17 Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music Inc. 第五章版權(quán)的侵權(quán)和救濟(jì) 第一節(jié)侵權(quán) 案例18 Sony Co.v.Universal City Studios， Inc. 案例19 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.v. Grokster.Ltd. 第二節(jié)救濟(jì) 案例20 Feltner v.Columbia Pictures Television， Inc. 案例21 Boisson V.Banian Inc. 第六章版權(quán)法和其他知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的關(guān)聯(lián) 第一節(jié)版權(quán)和專利 案例22 MaZer v.Stein 第二節(jié)版權(quán)和商標(biāo) 案例23 Dastar Corp.v.Twentieth Century Foxfilm Corp. 第七章和計(jì)算機(jī)軟件有關(guān)的版權(quán)問題 第一節(jié)保護(hù)的范圍 案例24 Computer Associates International，Inc.，v. Altai.Inc. 第二節(jié)保護(hù)的限制 案例25 Sega Enterprises Ltd.v.Assolade，Inc. 第八章版權(quán)濫用及其規(guī)則 案例26 Lasercomb America v.Reynolds 案例27 Practice Management Information Corp.v.AMA 第二編美國專利法 第九章專利保護(hù)的對象 案例28 Diamond v.Chakrabarty 第十章獲得專利權(quán)的條件 案例29 Graham v.John Deere Co. of Kansas City 案例30 Bremner v.Manson 案例31TP Laboratories， Inc.v.Professional Positioners， Inc. 第十一章專利權(quán)的內(nèi)容 案例32 Paper Converting Machine Company，Appellee，v. Magna-Graphics Corporation， Appellant 第十二章侵權(quán) 案例33 Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku KogyokabushikiCo. 第十三章專利濫用 案例34 Morton Salt Co.V.G.S. Suppiger Co. 第三編美國商標(biāo)法 第十四章保護(hù)的條件 案例35 In Re Sun Oil Co. 案例36 In Re Budge Manufacturing Co.，Inc. 案例37 In Re N.A.D. INC.， also trading as North American Drager 第十五章商標(biāo)種類 案例38 In Re Advertising & Marketing Development 案例39 Midwest Plastic Fabricators，Inc.v.Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

章節(jié)摘錄

版權(quán)頁：   Leicester further maintains that the streetwall towers are a sculptural work which is "conceptually separate" from the building and thus independently entitled to copyright protection. Again， the district court found otherwise and we cannot say its finding lacks support. The streetwall towers were designed to extend the building visually， which they do along both Figueroa and Eighth. The Eighth Street smoke towers are equally integrated and serve the same purpose on Eighth as the Figueroa Street smoke towers do on Figueroa. This is powerful evidence that they （together with the additional two lantern towers on Figueroa） are part of the functional and architectural vocabulary of the building. Because the streetwall towers are part of the architectural work， 120（a） applies. It allows the public the right to photograph public buildings including， in this case， the streetwall smoke and lantern towers unless， as Leicester contends， the 1990 amendments specifically provide for the continued separate protection of sculptural works attached to buildings. Leicester's position is that the Berne Convention did not require taking away copyright protection for PGS works， and Congress did not do so when it passed the AWPCA implementing the Convention. He relies in particular upon passages in the legislative history indicating that certain works of authorship which may separately qualify for protection as PGS works may be permanently embodied in architectural works， and that in such cases the author （if the same for both works） may elect whether to seek a remedy under102（a）（5） or 102（a）（8）. Whether or not Leicester may have some other claim for a different infringement of his copyright in the Zanja Madre towers as a sculptural work， we believe he has none for a pictorial representation of the 801Tower and its streetwall embodying a protected architectural work. Otherwise， 120（a）'s exemption for pictorial representations of buildings would make no sense. When copyright owners in architectural works were given protection for the first time in 1990， the right was limited by120（a） so that publicly visible buildings could freely be photographed. This reflected a shift from the prior regime of relying on "ad hoc determinations" of fair use. Having done this， it would be counterintuitive to suppose that Congress meant to restrict pictorial copying to some， but not all of， a unitary architectural work.

編輯推薦

《美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法(第2版?英文版)》是英美法案例精選叢書之一。

圖書封面

評論、評分、閱讀與下載

---

    美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法-第2版-英文版 PDF格式下載

---