[正版二手] 英美法案例精選叢書(英文版)：美國知識産權法(第2版) 下載 mobi epub pdf 電子書 2024

☆☆☆☆☆
簡體網頁||繁體網頁

陳劍玲著

下載链接在页面底部

點擊這裡下載

想要找書就要到圖書大百科

book.teaonline.club

立刻按 ctrl+D收藏本頁

你會得到大驚喜!!

發表於2024-12-23

類似圖書點擊查看全場最低價

facebook linkedin mastodon messenger pinterest reddit telegram twitter viber vkontakte whatsapp 複製鏈接

圖書介紹

店鋪：獨峰書院圖書專營店

齣版社：對外經濟貿易大學齣版社

ISBN：9787566304582

商品編碼：20335448948

包裝：平裝

齣版時間：2012-09-01

圖書描述

（W）友情提示：本店齣售二手圖書均為正版，請放心選購！一般當日下單，次日發貨（發貨時間周一至周六，如遇法定假日，發貨時間順延至假期後的個工作日），有特彆著急的客戶請您謹慎下單。此訂單從北京發貨，一般同城次日達，外阜3-5日達。關於二手圖書的品相問題：本店一般默認八成新以上的二手圖書纔會齣庫發貨，如有個彆書達不到標準，我們會在發貨前與您聯係。如圖書標明含有光盤及學習卡之類的附件，請您下單之前聯係客服詢問是否完整（二手圖書品相每個人的標準有差異，所以請追求完美的客戶謹慎下單）。如需幫助請給我們留言，我們會在上班後統一迴復，並根據您的下單時間安排發貨。營業時間：周一至周六，早9點到晚6點。

基本信息

書名：英美法案例精選叢書(英文版)：美國知識産權法(第2版)

定價：38.00元

作者：陳劍玲

齣版社：對外經濟貿易大學齣版社

齣版日期：2012-09-01

ISBN：9787566304582

字數：

頁碼：317

版次：2

裝幀：平裝

開本：32開

商品重量：0.4kg

編輯推薦

內容提要

《英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）：美國知識産權法（第2版）》是對外經濟貿易大學法學院國傢重點學科建設項目英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）中的一輯，選錄瞭美國版權法、法、商標法三個領域中的一些經典案例，旨在通過研究原汁原味的案例，介紹美國知識産權法框架體係中的一些基本原則。由於篇幅所限，《英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）：美國知識産權法（第2版）》難以對三大部門法中的相關經典案例作一個非常全麵的介紹，因此，《英美法案例精選叢書（英文版）：美國知識産權法（第2版）》的重點主要是在版權法上。讀者在閱讀案例時，可以跟隨美國法官的思路，理解其如何在綜閤考慮多方因素的基礎上，盡量維護多種利益的平衡，並得齣終的判決。案例後麵附有思考題，以幫助讀者更快地理解每個案件的焦點問題。

編美國版權法
章版權保護的條件
節錶達和思想觀念
案例1 Baker V.Selden
案例2 Nichols V.Universal Pictures Corporation
案例3 Morrissey V.Procter&Gamlble;
第二節作品的原創性
案例4 Feist V.Rural
案例5 GraceV.Bradford Exchange.
第三節作品的固定
案例6 White Smith Music Pub Co.v.Appollo Co
案例7 National Football League v.McBee & Bruno's,Inc
第四節版權標記
案例8 Hasbro Bradley,Inc.V.Sparkle Toys,Inc
第五節版權保護的消極條件
案例9 Mitchell Bros.v.Cinema Adult Theater
第二章作品的類型
節一般形式
案例10 Andrew Leicester V.Warner Brothers
第二節特殊形式
案例11 GRicordi&Co.v.Paramount; Pictures,Inc
案例12 New York Times Co.v.Tasini
第三章版權的保護期限
案例13 Eric Eldred v.JohD.Ashcroft
第四章版權的內容
節作者的權利
案例14 Columbia Pictures Industries v. Redd Horne
案例15 Quality Kmg Distributors,lnc.v. L'Anza Research Int'l,Inc
第二節閤理使用
案例16 Harper&Row; Publishers V.NatioEnterprises
案例17 Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music Inc
第五章版權的侵權和救濟
節侵權
案例18 Sony Co.v.Universal City Studios, Inc
案例19 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.v.Grokster,Ltd
第二節救濟
案例20 Feltner v.Columbia Pictures Television,Inc
案例21 Boissov.BaniliaInc
第六章版權法和其他知識産權法的關聯
節版權和
案例22 MaZer v.Stein
第二節版權和商標
案例23 Dastar Corp.v.Twentieth Century Foxfilm Corp
第七章和計算機軟件有關的版權問題
節保護的範圍
案例24 ComputerAssociates International,lnc.,V.Altai,Inc.
第二節保護的限製
案例25 Sega Enterprises Ltd.v.Assolade,lnc.
第八章版權濫用及其規則
案例26 Laserb America v.Reynolds
案例27 Practice ManagementlnformatioCorp.v.AMA

第二編美國法
第三編美國商標法

作者介紹

文摘

2） Substantial Similarity Test for Computer Program Structure： Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison
We think that Whelan's approach to separating idea from expressioiputer programs relies too heavily ometaphysical distinctions and does not place enough emphasis opractical considerations. Cf. Apple Computer，714 F.2d at 1253 （rejecting certaimercial constraints oprogramming as a helpful means of distinguishing idea from expressiobecause they did 'not enter into the somewhat metaphysical issue of whether particular ideas and expressions have merged'）. As the cases that we shall discuss demonstrate， a satisfactory answer to this problem cannot be reached by resorting， a priori， to philosophical first principals.
As discussed herein， we think that district courts would be well-advised to undertake a three-step procedure， based othe abstractions test utilized by the district court， iorder to determine whether the non-literal elements-of two or more puter programs are substantially similar. This approach breaks no new ground; rather， it draws osuch familiar copyright doctrines as merger， scenes a faire， and public domain. Itaking this approach， however， we are cognizant that puter technology is a dynamic field which caquickly outpace judicial decisiomaking. Thus， icases where the technology inquest odoes not allow for a literal applicatioof the procedure we outline below， our opinioshould not be read to foreclose the district courts of our circuit from utilizing a modified version，
Iascertaining substantial similarity under this approach， a court would first break dowthe allegedly infringed program into its constituent structural parts. Then， by examining each of these parts for such things as incorporated ideas， expressiothat is necessarily incidental to those ideas， and elements that are takefrom the public domain， a court would thebe able to sift out all non-protectable material. Left with a kernel， or possible kernels， of creative expressioafter following this process of elimination， the court's last step would be to pare this material with the structure of aallegedly infringing program. The result of this parisowill determine whether the protectable elements of the programs at issue are substantially similar so as to warrant a finding of infringement. It will be helpful to elaborate a bit further.
Step One： Abstraction
As the district court appreciated， see Computer Assocs.，775 F. Supp.at560， the theoretic framework for analyzing substantial similarity expounded by Learned Hand ithe Nichols case is helpful ithe present context. INichols， we enunciated what has now bee knowas the 'abstractions' test for separating idea from expression：
Upoany work...a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well， as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more thathe most general statement of what the isabout， and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point ithis series of abstractions where they are no longer protected， since otherwise the could prevent the use of his 'ideas，' to which， apart from their expression， his property is never extended.
While the abstractions test was originally applied irelatioto literary works such as novels and plays， it is adaptable to puter programs. Icontrast to the Whelaapproach， the abstractions test 'implicitly recognizes that any givework may consist of a mixture of numerous ideas and expressions.'
……

序言