intellectual property rights essay competition

Robert R. Merhige Jr. Environmental Law Op-Ed CompetitionEnvironmental/Land Use LawCompetition Website: University of Richmond's Merhige Center for Environmental Studies and the Virginia State Bar's Environmental Law SectionDeadline: March 16, 2016Essay Topic: The topic must be about an environmental, energy, or natural resource issue, defined broadly. Past topics have ranged from land use and transportation to the food system and climate change. Choose a topic that is current and that will be of interest to the general public. It should be a topic that a newspaper or website would actually print now. Within these topic areas, we have found that effective op-eds focus on a relatively narrow issue, tied to something in the news, such as new legislation, a pending proposal, new technology, or an upcoming government or business decision.Prize Information: Prize: ,000Notes: For full rules and submission guidelines see the competition flyer HERE. The competition is open to any student currently enrolled in a Virginia law school. The op-ed should be written individually. No co-authored work may be submitted. You may not submit writing that has been previously published, in full or in part. However, you are free to modify your own prior work (research papers, briefs etc.) into an op-ed format. Participants should not receive writing assistance of any kind (including proofreading) from any other person prior to submitting the op-ed. You must be able to provide, upon request, a source for any fact in the op-ed. Newspapers routinely fact-check op-eds for accuracy, so keep a careful record of your sources for facts. There is no need to provide footnotes in this submittsion, however. Submissions with unverifiable facts will be disqualified. There is a 750 word limit for the op-ed. Submissions should be.
  Competition Law Association Essay Prize Jacques Lassier Prize 2015 The Jacques Lassier Prize is a prize of €1830, which is awarded for a written work or dissertation on a competition law subject (covering both anti-trust law and unfair competition law, including IP related matters). The works must have been produced or dissertations defended in the two years leading up to the date of the closure of the competition (31 May 2015). The Prize is open to young individuals (i.e. those who are under 35 on 31 April 2015) who are individual members of the International League of Competition Law (LIDC) or residents of a country where there is an affiliated national group (such as the Competition Law Association in the UK). Download full details of the Prize rules here Golding Essay Prize 2016 How should three dimensional shapes be protected under intellectual property law?           Download full details of the Prize rules here    Golding Essay Prize 2015 Are the new 'fair dealing' provisions an improvement on the previous law, and why Sabine Jacques won the Golding Essay Prize 2015  Download full details of the Prize rules here                                                      Golding Essay Prize 2014 To what extent should Courts take jurisdiction over infringement of foreign IP rights? Hazan Yilmaztekin of the University of Exeter won the Golding Essay Prize 2014.          Download full details of the Prize rules here          Golding Essay Prize 2013 Is there a role for Euro-defences following Sun v M Tech? Sara Warner, a trainee at SGH Martineau LLP, won the Golding Essay Prize 2013.          Download full details of the Prize rules here    Golding Essay Prize 2012 Should genetic information be patentable and if so, when? Katie Potter, a trainee at Charles Russell LLP, jointly won the Golding Essay Prize 2012 with Peter Dawson of the University of Surrey. Download full.
A legal system that relies on private property rights to promote economic development must consider that profits can come from two different sources. First, both competition under constant technology and innovation promote economic growth by granting many of the returns to the successful developer. Competition and innovation both increase output, whether measured by quantity or quality. Second, however, profits can come from practices that reduce output, in some cases by reducing quantity, or in others by reducing innovation.IP rights and competition policy were traditionally regarded as in conflict. IP rights create monopoly, which was thought to be inimical to competition. By contrast, competition policy values free entry and asset mobility, which IP rights limit in order to create incentives. Today our view of this relationship is more complex. First, most IP rights are insufficient to produce durable monopoly, although they do facilitate product differentiation. Second, we tend to see IP rules as creating a property rights system in which competition exists for the property rights themselves. Firms compete by innovating and appropriating whatever payoffs they are able to capture, including IPRs. Third, we define competition in terms of output or welfare rather than simple rivalry. A market structure or practice that increases output is more competitive than a lower output alternative, even though the amount of daily rivalry among firms is less. For example, output in the cellular phone market is much higher because hardware, software, and telecommunications links are all networked by cooperative agreements and standard setting.Under conventional neoclassical assumptions, both innovation and competition increase output, whether measured by the number of units or their quality.At the same time, however, excessive IP protection limits competition by reducing asset.
Home Statutes Executives Membership Activities Essays Publications Contact The ATRIP Essay Contest is endorsed by FICPI Fèdération Internationale des Conseils en Propriéte Intellectuelle International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys | Essay Competition 2015 ATRIP essay competition for young researchers in intellectual property. The closing date for entries is 30 November 2015. Information | [.pdf] | Essay Competition 2014 Annoncement of winners. Mathilde Pavis | Is there any-body on stage? A legal (mis)understanding of performances Christina Angelopoulos | Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Third Party Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe Arpan Banerjee | Forum Shopping in Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Cases in India | Essay Competition 2013 Annoncement of winners. Barbara Lauriat | Revisiting the Royal Commission on Copyright Jessica Lai | Māori Traditional Knowledge and New Zealand Patent Law: The 2013 Act and the Dawn of a New Era? Alexandre Quiquerez | IP holding companies: perfect match or liaisons dangereuses between tax law and IP law? | Essay Competition 2012 Annoncement of winners. Begoña Otero | Compelling to disclose software interoperable information: A risk for innovation or a balanced solution? Lena Schickl | Protection of industrial design in the US and in the EU - Different concepts or different labels? Katarzyna Gracz | Bridging the gaps between the social and legal norms concerning protection of intellectual and artistic creations | Essay Competition 2012 ATRIP's Executive Committee is proud to launch its yearly essay competition for young researchers in Intellectual Property Law. Essay | Competition | Essay Competition 2011 Annoncement of winners. Carl Mair | OPENNESS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STANDARDIZATION IN THE EUROPEAN.
OUTLINE OF RESEARCH Intellectual property rights are those exclusive rights granted to the owners there in to behave in a particular manner with a view to economically exploiting the result of their intellectual labour. They include patents, designs, registered as well as unregistered, copy rights, including computer software, trademarks, secret and substantial know how and other analogous rights. Competition law, in common parlance, seeks to take away monopolistic rights with a view to protect competition and maximise consumer welfare. It is therefore no surprise that historically, these two areas of law have regarded each other with mutual suspicion and there has existed tacit unrest. However, the development of case law and policy over the decades shows that this view is overly naive and probably wrong. It becomes important to understand that even though intellectual property rights confer exclusive use, it is not the same as an economic monopoly. It is merely a film of immunity from competing undertakings. The real issue for consideration is whether intellectual property and competition law are fundamentally contradictory to one another or whether, in practice, they are just different means to achieve the same goals? In the 20th century, the courts seemed to hold the opinion that intellectual property sought to take away what competition law strived to achieve, in that they were mutually incompatible. Today, it is an accepted school of thought that intellectual property and competition law strive to achieve common goals � promoting interests of the consumers, effective allocation of resources and most importantly, promoting innovation. In my analysis of the trend in the relationship between intellectual property and competition law, I will also draw reference to various Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents which showcase a.
The Jan Jancin Competition includes two separate awards offered to law students nominated by their schools who have excelled in the study of intellectual property law. The first award is the Jan Jancin Award, which includes a cash award of ,000. The second award has been established by the Past Presidents of the American Intellectual Property Law Association and awards up to a maximum of a ,500 cash award. Details of these awards are listed below. How To Enter for 2016 The American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation (AIPLEF), the Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association (ABA-IPL), and AIPLA invite institutions to nominate a law student who has excelled in the study of intellectual property law. The 2016 Jan Jancin Competition is offering two awards, as follows: The first award is the prestigious Jan Jancin Award, named after Mr. Jancin, who served not only as President of AIPLA and Chair of the ABA-IPL Section, but served with distinction in other leadership roles in other intellectual property law associations, nationally and internationally. Students of IP law and growth in quality IP law education were keen interests of Mr. Jancin. Additionally, he was a persistent and perceptive observer of the legislative process as it related to all aspects of IP law, and regularly reported to several IP law associations on those activities. The winner of the Jan Jancin Award will receive a ,000 cash award, and reasonable travel expenses to receive the award during the 2016 ABA Meeting in Chicago, IL. The recipient must be able to attend in person to receive the award. The second award, The AIPLA Past Presidents Award for 2016, provides the recipient with up to a maximum cash award of ,500, and an invitation to attend the 2016 AIPLA Annual Meeting. If unable to attend, the award will be mailed to the winner. The recipients of the.