[正版二手] 英美法案例精选丛书(英文版)：美国知识产权法(第2版) 下载 mobi epub pdf 电子书 2024

☆☆☆☆☆
简体网页||繁体网页

陈剑玲著

下载链接在页面底部

点击这里下载

facebook linkedin mastodon messenger pinterest reddit telegram twitter viber vkontakte whatsapp 复制链接

想要找书就要到图书大百科

book.qciss.net

立刻按 ctrl+D收藏本页

你会得到大惊喜!!

发表于2024-11-29

类似图书点击查看全场最低价

图书介绍

店铺：独峰书院图书专营店

出版社：对外经济贸易大学出版社

ISBN：9787566304582

商品编码：20335448948

包装：平装

出版时间：2012-09-01

图书描述

（W）友情提示：本店出售二手图书均为正版，请放心选购！一般当日下单，次日发货（发货时间周一至周六，如遇法定假日，发货时间顺延至假期后的个工作日），有特别着急的客户请您谨慎下单。此订单从北京发货，一般同城次日达，外阜3-5日达。关于二手图书的品相问题：本店一般默认八成新以上的二手图书才会出库发货，如有个别书达不到标准，我们会在发货前与您联系。如图书标明含有光盘及学习卡之类的附件，请您下单之前联系客服询问是否完整（二手图书品相每个人的标准有差异，所以请追求完美的客户谨慎下单）。如需帮助请给我们留言，我们会在上班后统一回复，并根据您的下单时间安排发货。营业时间：周一至周六，早9点到晚6点。

基本信息

书名：英美法案例精选丛书(英文版)：美国知识产权法(第2版)

定价：38.00元

作者：陈剑玲

出版社：对外经济贸易大学出版社

出版日期：2012-09-01

ISBN：9787566304582

字数：

页码：317

版次：2

装帧：平装

开本：32开

商品重量：0.4kg

编辑推荐

内容提要

《英美法案例精选丛书（英文版）：美国知识产权法（第2版）》是对外经济贸易大学法学院国家重点学科建设项目英美法案例精选丛书（英文版）中的一辑，选录了美国版权法、法、商标法三个领域中的一些经典案例，旨在通过研究原汁原味的案例，介绍美国知识产权法框架体系中的一些基本原则。由于篇幅所限，《英美法案例精选丛书（英文版）：美国知识产权法（第2版）》难以对三大部门法中的相关经典案例作一个非常全面的介绍，因此，《英美法案例精选丛书（英文版）：美国知识产权法（第2版）》的重点主要是在版权法上。读者在阅读案例时，可以跟随美国法官的思路，理解其如何在综合考虑多方因素的基础上，尽量维护多种利益的平衡，并得出终的判决。案例后面附有思考题，以帮助读者更快地理解每个案件的焦点问题。

编美国版权法
章版权保护的条件
节表达和思想观念
案例1 Baker V.Selden
案例2 Nichols V.Universal Pictures Corporation
案例3 Morrissey V.Procter&Gamlble;
第二节作品的原创性
案例4 Feist V.Rural
案例5 GraceV.Bradford Exchange.
第三节作品的固定
案例6 White Smith Music Pub Co.v.Appollo Co
案例7 National Football League v.McBee & Bruno's,Inc
第四节版权标记
案例8 Hasbro Bradley,Inc.V.Sparkle Toys,Inc
第五节版权保护的消极条件
案例9 Mitchell Bros.v.Cinema Adult Theater
第二章作品的类型
节一般形式
案例10 Andrew Leicester V.Warner Brothers
第二节特殊形式
案例11 GRicordi&Co.v.Paramount; Pictures,Inc
案例12 New York Times Co.v.Tasini
第三章版权的保护期限
案例13 Eric Eldred v.JohD.Ashcroft
第四章版权的内容
节作者的权利
案例14 Columbia Pictures Industries v. Redd Horne
案例15 Quality Kmg Distributors,lnc.v. L'Anza Research Int'l,Inc
第二节合理使用
案例16 Harper&Row; Publishers V.NatioEnterprises
案例17 Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music Inc
第五章版权的侵权和救济
节侵权
案例18 Sony Co.v.Universal City Studios, Inc
案例19 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.v.Grokster,Ltd
第二节救济
案例20 Feltner v.Columbia Pictures Television,Inc
案例21 Boissov.BaniliaInc
第六章版权法和其他知识产权法的关联
节版权和
案例22 MaZer v.Stein
第二节版权和商标
案例23 Dastar Corp.v.Twentieth Century Foxfilm Corp
第七章和计算机软件有关的版权问题
节保护的范围
案例24 ComputerAssociates International,lnc.,V.Altai,Inc.
第二节保护的限制
案例25 Sega Enterprises Ltd.v.Assolade,lnc.
第八章版权滥用及其规则
案例26 Laserb America v.Reynolds
案例27 Practice ManagementlnformatioCorp.v.AMA

第二编美国法
第三编美国商标法

作者介绍

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