DOCSLIB.ORG

Limitations in the Field of Designs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Limitations in the Field of Designs IIC (2018) 49:41–62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0660-4 ARTICLE Limitations in the Field of Designs Natalia Kapyrina Published online: 21 December 2017 Ó Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017 Abstract Considering the weight given to exceptions and limitations in current intellectual property research, this paper endeavours to explore sui generis design rights from the standpoint of limitations to their scope of protection. This paper focuses on the current EU framework with insights from its travaux pre´paratoires, comparing it to several other legislations and international instruments. A primary assessment shows that these limitations have a reduced interference with the scope of protection, and stem from a copyright or patent approach to the hybrid subject matter of designs. This paper further explores situations where the interaction between the scope of design protection and its limitations to design rights triggers conflicts. It examines in particular the recent autonomous interpretation by the ECJ of the limitation authorising reproduction for the purpose of citation. Keywords Design Á EU law Á Limitations Á Exceptions Á Scope of protection This research was partially undertaken during the author’s stay at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI), with a generous scholarship granted by the MPI. The author expresses gratitude to Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Annette Kur and Professor Dr. Christophe Geiger for enlightening discussions. This paper was completed within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’. N. Kapyrina (&) Associated researcher at ILITIP, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] N. Kapyrina Doctoral candidate at CEIPI, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France 123 42 N. Kapyrina 1 Introduction One of the main aspirations of current scholarship on exceptions and limitations is to endorse acceptability of various IP rights and to review how all the elements of such rights form a balanced legal tool for promoting innovation and creativity.1 Those concerns are very much appropriate to the field of designs, considering that they are one of the diverse options of product shape protection,2 tending to protect visual differentiation capacity and to consolidate lead-time acquired by a mixture of technological and non-technological innovation processes.3 They are frequently used in highly competitive industries (e.g. ICT)4 and therefore their regulation should be balanced enough not to hinder innovation, while staying secure and affordable for its users. As designs also originate in creativity and enrich the universe of visual forms, the necessity to provide sufficient room for creative dialogue is inevitable. Further forms of expression, which are necessary in a democratic society, such as news reporting, critique or parody should also be allowed. A children’s metaphor has been widely used in the field of design protection to show the propensity of its subject matter to repel or attract various intellectual property rights (IPRs).5 The saying, often used to hint at the inappropriate behaviour of a child’s acquaintances, ‘‘show me your friends, and I’ll tell you who you are’’, may be considered. Depending on each ‘‘approach’’ to designs, be it ‘‘copyright’’-like, ‘‘patent’’-like, or ‘‘trademark’’-like, authors seldom agree on the relevant criteria, conditions and scope of protection, having consequently various techniques for defences that accompany them. We start from the observation that sui generis design legislation draws rather often elements from other IPRs, including limitations. Consequently, the choice of such limitations may say a lot about one’s conception of a design right. While better-shaped or better-interpreted limitations may endorse the acceptability of IP rights, one of the troubles with sui generis design law’s allure and acceptance in a given society is arguably the ambivalence of its relationships with other IP rights, as a sign of lack of emancipation, hinting at a lack of autonomous justification. The adoption of a ‘‘design’’approach to sui generis legislation in this field has been a major achievement of the EU framework.6 While the ECJ strives to burnish 1 Geiger (2009); Dreier (2010); Geiger et al. (2015). 2 Levin (1984); Eichmann and Kur (2016). 3 Recently, several economic studies have focused on the impact of design on innovation: Galindo-Rueda and Millot (2015); Europe Economics (2015). 4 The 2016 Hague Yearly Review states: ‘‘For the first time, designs relating to recording and communication equipment (Class 14) accounted for the largest share (10.8%) of total registrations in 2015. This was followed by designs relating to clocks and watches (Class 10), and means of transport (Class 12), with shares of 9.0 and 7.4%, respectively’’ (p. 5). 5 See for example, Kur (2008a), p. 613. 6 Kur (1993). 7 Directive 98/71/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, OJEC 28.10.1998, L 289/28-33; and Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, OJEC, 5.1.2002 L 3/1-24. These two documents will be referred to hereinafter as Dir. and Reg. 123 Limitations in the Field of Designs 43 the tools provided by Directive 98/71/EC and Regulation 6/2002,7 the geographical expansion of the Hague Agreement permits interconnection and comparison on a more legitimate basis of this community design right with various design rights around the world.8 Such a formality-based equivalence of different regimes endorses dialogue, giving way to original forms of convergence,9 while design rights and other options for protecting designs continue to be quite diverse across jurisdictions. Exceptions and limitations are known to be the other side of the coin, allowing fair game in an environment where granting exclusive rights in immaterial assets has been chosen by lawmakers over various freedoms: freedoms of competition, trade and industry, imitation, movement, expression, etc.10 Obviously all the elements of an IP regime try to fulfil this balancing function: a limited duration; exclusions from agreed subject matter, e.g. the exclusion of features solely dictated by a technical function (Reg. Art. 8.1)11 or the must-match exclusion (Reg. Art. 8.2); spare-parts clauses (Reg. Art. 110); and other limits, such as the prior right defence or exhaustion. Nevertheless, our focus will primarily be on limitations, the type of limits encompassed in legislation that extract certain acts from the content of rights.12 The main reason is that limitations have a direct link to a design’s scope of protection, without interfering with its subject matter, known to be hybrid and difficult to grasp.13 Limitations to designs have received relatively minor attention, with little case law, because the first defence to a claim of infringement is an invalidity counterclaim or action.14 Nevertheless, limitations being a ‘‘horizontal’’ issue in IPRs, they deserve specific attention in the field of designs. This paper firstly analyses the current state of the EU framework on the content of rights and limitations (Part 2). Secondly, it explores the international framework and provides comparative insights (Part 3). It further identifies conflicts that arise on the basis of existing legislations (Part 4), and considers some of the possible ways to move further (Part 5). In view of the upcoming design law review at the EU level, addressing these concerns becomes more attractive.15 From a comparative point of view, it is 8 The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, 1925, as revised. Whereas the USA, Japan and the Republic of Korea have acceded to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement in 2014 and 2015, Canada, Russia and China have engaged in national reforms with this same aim. See Bisson (2015). 9 See Gurry (2016). 10 Geiger (2004); Schovsbo and Ramsey (2013). 11 On the problem of functionality in designs, see e.g. Fischman Afori (2010); see also the referral in C-395/16, Doceram GmbH v. CeramTec GmbH, and the Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 19 October 2017. 12 Those ‘‘pools of inland water within the island’’ of exclusivity in ‘‘the ocean of freedoms’’: Kur (2011), p. 211, fn 16. Very often they are referred to as ‘‘exceptions and limitations’’, the EU legislation calling these elements just ‘‘limitations’’. We shall abide with the EU legislation, the discussion on the right labelling beyond the scope of this paper. See however, Kur (2011), pp. 210–211; Geiger (2014), p. 877 and literature referred. 13 Such ‘‘hybridity’’ has been notably conceptualised by Reichman (1994). Suthersanen (2004), p. 57, refers to the ‘‘multi-faceted nature of the subject matter’’. 14 See however McCutcheon (2015); Kurz (2014); Mouron (2013); Klawitter (2012); Gerdau De Borja (2008). 15 Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe (2016). 123 44 N. Kapyrina confirmed that there are various options permitted under the TRIPS Agreement, so that each Contracting party may choose the most locally appropriate normative aim. In addition, in the absence of a ceiling norm to the scope of protection for designs, it is quite impossible to find any harmonious position regarding limitations. However, in the EU, where for the moment the importance of limitations tends to be downplayed, there is a way to improve the general picture by mixing the autonomous interpretation of existing limitations and finding inspiration in the provisions of other IPRs. 2 The Current EU Framework 2.1 Description of the Framework The EU Directive and Regulation introduce same exceptions to the protection conferred both by registered and unregistered design rights.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Integration of International and Domestic Intellectual Property Lawmaking
    Essay: The Integration of International and Domestic Intellectual Property Lawmaking by Graeme B. Dinwoodie* It is increasingly impossible to analyze intellectual property law and policy without reference to international lawmaking. That is not, however, merely because several recent domestic reforms have been prompted by international developments.1 Indeed, because of significant U.S. influence in the formation of contemporary intellectual property treaties, U.S. law has undergone less change than most in order to comply with newly-assumed international obligations. Nor is it simply because, in an era of global trade and technological advances, a state is unable effectively to regulate economic activity on its own. Rather, the need for a broader awareness flows most directly from the integration of the international and domestic lawmaking processes. Consider this historical example. As nations met in Berlin in 1908 to revise the Berne Convention, the United States received an invitation to attend with “full free- dom of action.”2 Instead, the Register of Copyrights attended only as an observer.3 The reason might now seem unduly quaint. Thorvald Solberg, the Register of Copyrights explained to the Conference that the United States found it impracticable to send a delegate authorized to commit it to actual adhesion to the Berne Convention since some of the questions to be discussed there were pending before the Congress and premature action at the Convention might embarrass the legislative branch of the Government.4 Today, in contrast, there is a conscious blending of domestic and international lawmaking. International lawmaking demands attention to Washington; and domestic lawmaking cannot be conducted without regard for what is going on in Brussels, * Associate Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; LL.B., Glasgow University, 1987; LL.M., Harvard Law School, 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Design and Design Frameworks: Investing in KBC and Economic Performance
    323 | DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6. DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This chapter addresses the nature and the economic impact of design by looking at design-related intellectual property and how businesses protect their knowledge based capital. The chapter reviews the nature and various definitions of design and how design-related IP, specifically registered designs, relates to other formal IP mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyright. It looks at the primary areas of design activity in a subset of OECD countries and investigates the similarities and differences of the constituent design IP regimes as well as the various treaties governing international design IP regulation. The review continues with an examination of how design-related IP functions in comparison to and in conjunction with other formal and informal IP protection mechanisms and what factors motivate firms to choose and appropriate combinations of protection mechanisms. By examining historical patterns of design registrations in a variety of ways, this chapter identifies trends, at the national level, of how firms perceive the importance of design-related IP. Analysis of national origins of registrations in both the European Community and the United States provides an indicator of the activity of those countries’ businesses relative to their proximities to the markets. It explores the existence of possible alternative indicators for design activity and of industry-specific variations across the sample set. The chapter concludes with a review of input and output measures as stated in the limited set of studies that have endeavoured to establish or quantify the value and/or benefit of design and design-related IP.
    [Show full text]
  • Designwrites 2014 April Welcome to the Third Edition of Designwrites
    & DesignWrites 2014 April Welcome to the third edition of DesignWrites At Bird & Bird we’re passionate about design. DesignWrites will unravel and explore the seemingly complex world of design protection, offering practical advice by looking at recent design cases, hearing from industry experts and sharing stories from the wider design community. If you would like advice on how best to protect your designs or take action to stop copycats, please contact Ewan Grist via [email protected] for a complimentary consultation. In this edition... Armchair design found to have individual character ..........3 Q&A with designer Julia Landsiedl ....................................18 The new German Design Act: more than just a new name? ...4 Registered Community design for corkscrew invalid due to earlier design ............................................20 For the love of fashion: protecting the beauty of fashion through Community design rights .....................................6 No design right protection for heart-shaped tomatoes .......21 Benelux: online design applications now possible ..............9 Italy special report: protecting your rights at Il Salone del Mobile of Milan ........................................ 22 Court of Appeal overturns first instance decision in Trunki design case ...................................................... 10 Design Museum: Designs of the Year 2014 ........................ 24 Upcoming industry events and awards ............................ 26 Registered UK design for a beer glass infringed .................12
    [Show full text]
  • An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts
    SPRINGER BRIEFS IN LAW Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 SpringerBriefs in Law SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Typical topics might include: • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques • A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a contextual literature review • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic • A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions SpringerBriefs in Law showcase emerging theory, empirical research, and practical application in Law from a global author community. SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10164 Dana Beldiman • Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser Academic Director and Founder, Center Researcher, Center for Transnational for Transnational Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Bucerius Law School Bucerius Law School Hamburg Hamburg Germany Germany and UC Hastings College of the Law San Francisco USA ISSN 2192-855X ISSN 2192-8568 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Law ISBN 978-3-319-54059-7 ISBN 978-3-319-54060-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54060-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017934314 © The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Industrial Design in the US and in the EU – Different Concepts Or Different Labels
    Protection of industrial design in the US and in the EU - Different concepts or different labels? - Lena Schickl University of Washington, Seattle Abstract Industrial designs matter. It is undisputed that design is crucial for the success of a product. That is why companies are using intellectual property laws in an effort to protect their industrial design. This article will describe how intellectual property laws can protect design and compare the design protection regime in the US and the EU. The comparison will show that design protection is significantly different in the US and the EU. Within the EU, further harmonization is needed in order to provide for a strong coherent design protection. The paper will point out that the ubiquitous requirement of non-functionality outside the realm of utility patent law in the US is no longer appropriate in a world where the most successful designs purposefully combine functional and aesthetic elements. Keywords design protection; community design; design patent; trade dress 2 Table of Contents I. Why design protection matters II. Terminology III. Overview: Design Protection Standards in International Treaties A. The Berne Convention B. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property C. The TRIPS Agreement D. The Hague Agreement IV. Design Protection in the US A. Design Patent 1. Legislative History 2. Threshold for Protection a. Novelty and Non-Obvious Requirement b. Original and Ornamental 3. Problems related to Patent-like Approach B. Trade Dress Protection C. Copyright Protection D. Interrelationship of the Different Forms of Protection V. Design Protection in the EU A. Background 1. Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs (1998) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interdisciplinary Approach Towards Defining the Individual Character of Industrial Design “
    EXPOSE INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION AT THE COURSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW „ AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TOWARDS DEFINING THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN “ Author: SAŠA KRAJNC, University Graduate in Laws MENTOR: Univ. Prof. Dr. WALTER DILLENZ Ptuj, Slovenia, 16.3.2012 INDEX: 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter................................................................................. 2 2. Main Topics, Issues and Questions................................................................................. 2 3. Aims and Implications of the Dissertation..................................................................... 4 4. Boundaries, Problems and Challenges........................................................................... 5 5. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6 6. Time-line and Study Stages ............................................................................................. 7 7. Structural Outline ............................................................................................................ 8 8. Literature and Sources .................................................................................................... 9 1 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter Since the European Council regulation on Community Designs (EC 6/2002, dated 12.12.2001) came into force in 2002 it pretty much unified the legislative systematic of design as an intellectual property right across all
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art Invalidity Defenses to E-Patent Infringement *
    PRIOR ART INVALIDITY DEFENSES TO E-PATENT INFRINGEMENT * Harold C. Wegner ** Detailed Table of Contents ..................................................................................2 I. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 4 II. E-COMMERCE PRIOR ART — THE STATUTORY GROUNDS ................................... 5 III. WEBSITE AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ............................................................ 7 IV. E-MAIL AS A "PRINTED PUBLICATION"............................................................... 14 V. USE AND KNOWLEDGE OF AN E-INVENTION ...................................................... 15 VI. THE DOMESTIC "ON SALE" BAR ......................................................................... 23 VII. DERIVATION ..................................................................................................... 27 VIII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 27 _____________________ * Paper prepared for SOFTIC 2001 Symposium, November 20-21, 2001, Tokyo Prince Hotel, Tokyo, Japan, Joint Direct Infringement, Indirect Infringement, Session C-1, 9:00 AM, November 21, 2001. ** Former Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program and Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. Foley & Lardner. contact: halwegner @ hotmail.com Wegner, Prior Art Invalidity Defenses to E-Patent Infringement Detailed Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • 264 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU Legislation on D
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.11.2020 SWD(2020) 264 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU legislation on design protection {SWD(2020) 265 final} EN EN Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................................. 5 2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................... 5 2.2. BASELINE AND POINTS OF COMPARISON .................................................................................. 6 3. IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 9 3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION ............................................................................ 9 3.2. USE OF THE DESIGN PROTECTION SYSTEM ............................................................................ 10 3.3. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND AWARENESS OF DESIGN PROTECTION ........... 16 4. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 18 4.2. LIMITATIONS AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS ..................................................................... 18 5. ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • World Intellectual Property Indicators 2018
    Additional information 213 Data description Spanish at www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/data_collection/ questionnaire. In 2016, WIPO initiated a pilot survey to collect data on Data sources GIs in force. In 2017, for the first time, WIPO published statistics on GIs in force covering data for 54 jurisdic- Intellectual property (IP) data are taken from the WIPO tions. Data were collected from national and regional IP Statistics Database and are based primarily on WIPO’s offices and other competent authorities through three annual IP statistics survey (see below) and on data questionnaires. For the 2018 survey, WIPO reduced compiled by WIPO in processing international appli- the number of GI questionnaires from three to one and cations/registrations through the Patent Cooperation invited national/regional authorities to share their 2017 Treaty (PCT) and the Madrid and Hague Systems. data on GIs in force with WIPO. In total, 82 authorities responded, which is a considerable improvement on Data are available from WIPO’s Statistics Data Center the 54 responses that WIPO received in 2016. at www.wipo.int/ipstats. In 2017, in collaboration with the International Publishers Patent family and technology data are extracted Association (IPA), WIPO launched a new survey of the from the WIPO Statistics Database and from the global publishing industry. A total of 35 national pub- 2018 spring edition of the European Patent Office’s lishers’ associations and copyright authorities shared PATSTAT database. their 2016 data with the IPA and WIPO. The survey only includes published materials (i.e., books, journals, etc.) Gross domestic product and population data that have an International Standard Book Number (ISBN), are from the World Bank’s World Development International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or Digital Indicators database.
    [Show full text]
  • Ways to Creative Funding Workshop
    Ways to Creative Funding Workshop Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangar- Malaysia 10.01.2017 ADVANSE Capacity Building – Trainings for Trainers Different ways of funding 28.06.2019 Seite 2 We keep in mind… … 10% of what we read. … 20% of what we hear. … 30% of what we see. … 50% of what we see and hear. … 70% of what we say. … and 90% of what we do. 28.06.2019 Seite 3 World Café creativity CAROUSEL OF IDEAS ways IDEAS possibilities Utopia new thinking team work 28.06.2019 Seite 4 Services Facilities Teaching What for? Research Properties 28.06.2019 Seite 5 Guests Students Stuff Researchers Target Private persons group? Alumni Alumni Teachers Business/companies/industry 28.06.2019 Seite 6 Examples Leuphana University, Germany Graduate ceremony together with companies Mannheim University, Germany Renovation of the libary with donations (10 Mio €) Zeppelin University, Germany Crowdfunding of seating 28.06.2019 Seite 7 THREE GROUPS - THREE TABLES - THREE Rounds Round 1 • Creating ideas Round 2 • Rating the ideas • Work out ideas 1-3 Round 3 • Rating the ideas • Launch a campaign for idea 1 28.06.2019 Seite 8 What is the difference between fundraising and beggary? What has the Uni- versity to offer/to sell? Why do some people give and others don`t? A person who gave already is more likely to give again. What are the benefits forthosewhohavetopayfees? An alumni starts with the enrollement of the student. 28.06.2019 Seite 9 Presentation of the campaigns • What is your goal? • What is your target group? • What are your methods and instruments? • What are your ressources? • Who are your partners? • What is your time frame? How do you convince? 28.06.2019 Seite 10 Thank you very much for your cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, Article 8
    COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ EC No L 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 1) amended by Council Regulation No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006 amending Regulations (EC) No 6/2002 and (EC) No 40/94 to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (OJ EC No L 386 of 29.12.2006, p. 14) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee3, Whereas: (1) A unified system for obtaining a Community design to which uniform protection is given with uniform effect throughout the entire territory of the Community would further the objectives of the Community as laid down in the Treaty. (2) Only the Benelux countries have introduced a uniform design protection law. In all the other Member States the protection of designs is a matter for the relevant national law and is confined to the territory of the Member State concerned. Identical designs may be therefore protected differently in different Member States and for the benefit of different owners. This inevitably leads to conflicts in the course of trade between Member States. (3) The substantial differences between Member States' design laws prevent and distort Community-wide competition. In comparison with domestic trade in, and competition between, products incorporating a design, trade and competition within the Community are prevented and distorted by the large number of applications, offices, procedures, laws, nationally circumscribed exclusive rights and the combined administrative expense with correspondingly high costs and fees for the applicant.
    [Show full text]
  • Is US Law Ready for a New Model High Tech?
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 20 | Issue 2 Article 10 January 2004 Protecting the Form but Not the Function: Is U.S. Law Ready for a New Model High Tech? Dana Beldiman Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dana Beldiman, Protecting the Form but Not the Function: Is U.S. Law Ready for a New Model High Tech?, 20 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 529 (2003). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol20/iss2/10 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Form andfunction should be one, joined in a spiritualunion" FrankLloyd Wright PROTECTING THE FORM BUT NOT THE FUNCTION: IS U.S. LAW READY FOR A NEW MODEL? Dana Beldiman Introduction As our society develops, it produces new and different kinds of intangible goods. However, many of the mechanisms available to protect such goods date back hundreds of years and are inadequate and in desperate need of an overhaul in order to adapt to the new realities of our world. Overly rapid doctrinal expansion can result in negative collateral effects, such as lack of precisely defined standards and blurring of boundaries between doctrines. Such side-effects risk disturbing the delicate balance between free competition and protection that underlies the structure of our intellectual property laws.
    [Show full text]