INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AN INTRODUCTION

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AN INTRODUCTION <!--[if gte mso 10]> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AN INTRODUCTION By Afshan Ghazanfar, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad The word `Intellectual' basically originates from a word intellect, which is an intellectus perception of a person possessing a good understanding or intelligence, a person who is enlightened, a doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reasonably exercising intellect only. Whereas the word 'Property' is defined as owing, being owned, things owned possessions, exclusive and personal ownership of a man. In common law intellectual property is a form of legal entitlement which allows its holder to have control the use of his ideas and their expansion. The term reflects the idea that once established, such entitlements are generally treated by Courts by exercising their jurisdiction treating it as a tangible property. Intellectual Property (IP) means the legal rights which are resulted from intellectual activity in the industrial scientific, literary and artistic fields. It is a bunch of legal doctrines that regulate the uses of different sorts of information, ideas and insignia or distinguishing marks of honour and the person who is owner originally creator of an 'Intellectual Property' has sole and exclusive entitlement to use it and to draw maximum/all benefits from the profit inherent (in it and it may exist either for and indefinite period of time in case of trademarks and trade secrets or they may last for a term of years after which they typically expire and become part of public domain). Traditionally each country established and enforced its own intellectual property rights (term intellectual rights declined since the early 1980's as use of the term intellectual property has increased, the term 'intellectual property' appears to have originated in Europe during 19th Century. A French author once used this term in publications in 1846), beginning with the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property in year 1883, numerous treaties have provided for cross border protection, and multinational procedures. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was established in 1967 based at Geneva has become the world's central organization for the promotion of internationalism in intellectual property. The term 'intellectual property' has been in use in the United States since at least the mid Nineteenth Century, a U.S. Circuit Court defined intellectual property as:-‑ "The labours of mind, productions and interests as much a man's own as the wheat he cultivates." Wood Bury and Minot Rep. Cases Circuit Court of U.S. 1.56 (1847). In later years, the public benefit idea has been down played in favour of the idea that the primary purpose of exclusive rights is to benefit the rights holders even to the detriment of society at large and this development has attracted some opponents, but the optimists ensure that someone who devoted say, ten years while struggling to develop Vulcanized rubber or a workable steamship, could recoup or detect his investment of time and energy using monopoly power, the inventor could charge fee from those who want to have its copies of his invention. Most common form considered as intellectual property are:-‑ A. Copy rights. Which gives the holder some exclusive, sole right to have control over of works reproduce work, in any material form whatsoever, includes books, music composition, movies, almost any kind of texts, soft-wares pictures, photos and any material related to information and entertainment or art. Anything which is not original or is not in a tangible form cannot attract the copyright protection. Here is the example of the preamble to Connecticut's first copyright statute: "Whereas it is perfectly agreeable to the principles of natural equity and justice, that every author should be secured in receiving the profits that may arise from the sale of his works, and such security may encourage men of learning and genius to publish their writings: which may do honour to their country and service to mankind." Two hundred years later in the Supreme Court of U.S. adopted a similar view:-‑ "We agree with the Court of appeals that copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge, but we believe the second circuit gave insufficient deference to the scheme established by the Copyright Act for fostering the original works that provide the seed and substance of this harvest, the. rights conferred by copyrights are designed to assure contributors the store of knowledge a fair return of their Labour. (Ref. Harper and Row case). Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and wider public literacy. The statute of Anne was the first real Act of copyright, and gave the authors rights fora fixed period (50 years). Internationally the Berne Convention was adopted on September 9, 1886. It is the oldest treaty in the fical of copyright. This convention has been revised several times in order to improve it. It was lastly amended in 1971 in Paris and is still enforced to this day. The Berne Convention basically rests on three principles. (1) National Treatment.---Means that works originating in one of the member States are to be given the same protection in each of the member State as these grants to work of their own Nationals. (2) Automatic Protection.---According to which such national treatments is not dependant on any formality. Protection is granted automatically. (3) Independence of Protection.---Means enjoyment and exercise of the rights granted is independent of existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. The protection under the convention is to operate for the benefit of the author and his successor in title. The exclusive right was granted to authors under convention includes. (I) The right of translation. (II) The rights of reproduction in any manner including any sound or visual recording. (III) The right to perform dramatic, dramatico musical and musical works. (IV) The right to broadcasting and communicating to the public by wires by broadcasting or by sound speaker or any other analogus instrument of the broadcast of the work. (V) The right to public recitation. (VI) The right of making adaptations, arrangements or other alterations of a work. (VII) The right of making cinematographic adaptations and reproductions of a work. DURATION OF PROTECTION A minimum term for protection is the life of Author plus 50 years. Exceptions (1) For cinematographic work, the term is 50 years after the work has been made available to the public. (2) If not made available then 50 years after making of such a work. (3) For photographic work and works of Applied Art, the minimum term for protection is 25 years from the making of the work. The Berne Convention is also administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In year 1918 a case was argued in Circuit Court of appeals in U.S.A. cited as 248 U.S. 215 titled as International News Service v. Associated Press. "The main question was examined in the Court whether a news article in a newspaper may be copyrightable under the Copyright Act, 1909. The news as such, is not copyrightable. As against the public, any special interest of the producer of copyrighted news matter is lost upon the first publication. But one who gathers news at pains and expense, for the purpose of lucrative publication, may be said to have a quasi-property in the results of his enterprise as against a rival in the same business, and the appropriation of those results at the expense and to the damage of the one and for the profit of the other is unfair competition against which equity will afford relief." In another .case where the law became more clear is Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L' Anzaresearch International Inc. 532 U.S. 135 decided on 9th March, 1998:-‑ "Respondent L'anza, a California manufacturer, sells its hair care products in this country exclusively to distributors who have agreed to re-sell within limited geographic areas and only to authorized retailers. L'anza promotes its domestic sales with extensive advertising and special retailer training. In foreign markets, however, it does not engage in comparable advertising or promotion; its foreign prices are substantially lower than its domestic prices. It appears that, after L'anza's United Kingdom distributor arranged for the sale of several tons of Lanza products, affixed with copyrighted labels, to a distributor in Malta that distributors sold the goods to petitioner, which imported them back into this country without L'anza's permission and then re-sold them at discounted prices to unauthorized retailers. L'anza filed suit, alleging that petitioner's actions violated L'anza's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Act), 17 U.S.C. sections 106, 501 and 602, to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted material in the United States. J The District Court rejected petitioner's "first sale" defence under section 109(a) and entered summary judgment for L'anza. Concluding that section 602(a), which gives copyright owners the right to prohibit the unauthorized importation of copies, would be "meaningless if section 109(a) provided a defence, the Ninth Circuit affirmed". Held: the first sale doctrine endorsed in section 109(a) is applicable to imported copies. Pp. 140-154. (a) In Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 349-350, this Court held that the exclusive right to "vend" under the copyright statute then in force applied only to the first sale of a copyrighted work. Congress subsequently codified Bobbs-Merrill's first sale doctrine in the Act. Section 106(3) gives the copyright holder the exclusive right "to distribute copies .... by sale or other transfer of ownership", but section 109(a) provides: Notwithstanding (S)106(3), the owner of a particular copy... lawfully made under this title ..is entitled, . without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anzaresearch International, Inc. No.96-1470 Argued December 8, 1997 decided on March 9, 1998 523 U.S. 135. As a result of an infringement of the Copyrights a famous case of Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. 523 U.S. 340 decided on March 31, 1998, is reproduced here. In this case respondent Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., terminated agreements licensing several television series to three television stations owned by petitioner Feltner after the stations' royalty payments became delinquent. When the stations continued to broadcast to the programs, Columbia sued Feltner and others for, inter alia, copyright infringement. Columbia won partial summary judgment as to liability on its copyright infringement claims and then exercised the option afforded by section 504(c) of the Copyright Act (Act) to recover statutory damages in lieu of actual damages. The District Court denied Feltner's request for a jury trial, and awarded Columbia statutory damages following a bench trial. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that neither section 504(c) nor the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on statutory damages. Held: (1) There is no statutory right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. Section 504(c) makes no mention of a right to a jury trial or to juries at all, providing instead that damages should be assessed in an amount "the Court deems just", and that, in the event that "the Court finds" an or infringement that is wilful or innocent, "the Court in its discretion" may increase or decrease the statutory damages. The word "Court" in this context appears to mean Judge, not jury. Other remedies provisions in the Act use the term "Court" in contexts generally thought to confer authority on a Judge, and the Act does not use the term "Court" when addressing awards of actual damages and profits, see section 504(b), which generally are thought to constitute legal relief, Dairy Queen Inc. v. Wood 369 U.S. 469, 477. Feltner's reliance on Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 585, for a contrary interpretation is misplaced. There being no statutory right to jury trial on statutory damages, the Constitutional question must be addressed. See Tull v. United States 481 U.S. 412, 417, pp. 345--347. (2) The Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under section 504(c), including the amount itself. Pp.347-335. [523 U.S. 3411. (a) The Seventh Amendment applies to both common law causes of action and to statutory actions more analogous to cases tried in 18th Century Courts of law than to suits customarily tried in Courts of equity or admiralty. Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 42. To determine the proper analogue, this Court examines both the nature of the statutory action and the remedy sought. See ibid. pp. 347-348. (b) There are close 18th Century analogues to section 504(c) statutory damages actions. Before the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, the common law and statutes in England and this Country granted copyright owners causes of action for infringement. More importantly, copyright suits for monetary damages were tried in Courts of law, and thus before juries. There is no evidence that the first federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790, changed this practice; and damages action under the Copyright Act of 1831 were consistently tried before juries. The Court is unpersuaded by Columbia's contention that, despite this undisputed historical evidence, statutory damages are clearly equitable in nature. pp. 348-353. (c) The right to a jury trial includes the right to have a jury determine the amount of statutory damages, if any, awarded to the copyright owner. There is overwhelming evidence that the consistent common law practice was for juries to award damages. More specifically, this was the consistent practice in copyright cases. Tull v. United States, supra in which this Court determined that, although the Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial on liability for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, Congress could Constitutionally authorized trial Judges to assess the amount of the civil penalties---is inapposite to this case. In Tull, there was no evidence that juries historically had determined the amount of civil penalties to be paid to the Government, and the awarding of such penalties could be viewed as analogous to sentencing in a criminal proceeding. Here, there is no similar analogy, and there is clear and direct historical evidence that juries, both as a general matter and in copyright cases, set the amount of damages awarded to a successful plaintiff. Pp.353-355. 106 F.3d 284, reversed and remanded. In another case: Respondent Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS), brought this action against petitioners, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), and their members and affiliates, alleging, inter alia, that the issuance by ASCAP and BMI to CBS of blanket licences to copyrighted musical compositions at fees negotiated by them is illegal price fixing under the antitrust laws. Blanket licences give the licensees the right to perform any and all of the compositions owned by the members or affiliates as often as the licensees desire for a stated term. Fees for blanket licences are ordinarily a percentage of total revenues or a flat dollar amount, and do not directly depend on the amount or type of music used. After a trial limited to the issue of liability, the District Court dismissed the complaint, holding, inter alia, that the blanket licence was not price fixing and a per se violation of the Sherman Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for consideration of the appropriate remedy, holding that the blanket licence issued to television networks was a form of price fixing illegal per se under the Sherman Act and established copyright misuses. Broadcasting Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. No.77-1578 Argued January 15, 1970 Decided April, 17, 1979 GO 441 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT B. Patents. Give the holder an exclusive right to prevent third parties from commercially exploiting an invention for certain period from the filing date of a patent application. The first patent in England was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 years monopoly this was the start of a long tradition by the English Crown of the granting of "letters Patent" (Meaning open letter from sovereign, conferring sole right, title for a period to make use or sell, exclusive privilege of new invention for its protection which granted monopolies to favoured persons or people outside England 'Patent Law' was the subject of legislative). C. TRADE MARKS. Are distinctive names, phrases used identity products of consumer. Round of multilateral trade negotiations held under the 'framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was concluded on December 15, 1993, the agreement embodying the results of those negotiations, the agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization CWTO Agreement") was adopted on April 15, 1994 in Marrakech, those negotiations for the first time included intellectual property subject in its meetings the result of those negotiations was the "Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights" the TRIPS Agreement, which was enforced on January 1, 1995 along with WTO Agreement, WTO Agreement established a new organization, the World Trade Organization which began its work on January 1, 1995 under clause (1) of Article 15 of "TRIPS" agreement trade marks are defined as under:-‑ (1) "Any sign or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods of services of one's undertaking from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting, a trade mark, such signs in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals figurative elements and combinations of colours as well any combination of such signs shall be eligible for registration as trade marks. Where signs are not inherently capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services, members may make registrability depend on distinctiveness acquired through use. Members may require, as a condition of registration that signs be visually perceptible." The Trade Mark Law Treaty (TLT) was adopted on October 27, 1994, at a Diplomatic Conference in Geneva. The purpose of the Trade Mark Law Treaty is simply to harmonize the administrative procedure in respect of national applications and protections of marks. These are the signs which may serve as trade marks. (1) Words Include company name, surname, firm name, geographical names or any Slogan. (2) Letters and Numbers. One or more letter or numbers or any combination. (3) Devices: Fancy devicing, drawings, symbols or representation of goods or containers. Combination: of words, letters devices, etc. (5) Coloured Marks: any, of above or combination in colours as well as colour combination and colour as such. (6) Three Dimensional signs. (7) Audible sign (Sound Mark). Trade Mark Cases 100 U.S. 82 (1) Property in trade marks has long been recognized and protected by the common law and by the statutes of the several States, and does not derive its existence from the act of Congress providing for the registration of them in the Patent Office. (2) A trade mark is neither an invention, a discovery, nor a writing within the meaning of the eighth clause of the eighth section of the first Article of the Constitution, which confers on Congress power to secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. (3) If an act of Congress can in any case be extended, as a regulation of commerce, to trade marks, it must be limited to their use in "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes". (4) That legislation of Congress in regard to trade marks is not, in its terms or essential character, a regulation thus limited, but in its language embraces, and was intended to embrace, all commerce, including that between citizens of the same State. (5) That legislation is void for want of Constitutional Authority, inasmuch as it is so framed that its provisions are applicable to all commerce, and cannot be confined to that which is subject to the control of Congress. The first two cases were brought here on certificates of division in opinion between the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The last was brought here on a certificate of division on opinion between the Judges of the Circuit Court of the Unites States for the Southern District of Ohio. Stiffens was indicted under the fourth and fifth sections of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to punish the counterfeiting of trade marks and the sale or dealing in of counterfeit trade, mark goods, approved Aug. 14, 1876, 19 Stat. 141. The first count in the indictment charges him with knowingly and wilfully having in his possession counterfeits and colourable imitations of the trade marks of G.H. Mumm & Co., of Rheims, France, manufacturers and sellers of champagne wine. The second count charges him with knowingly and wilfully selling counterfeited representations and colourable imitations of the trade mark of said G.H. Mumm & Co. (100 U.S. 83). Wittemann was indicted under the fifth section of that Act. The indictment consists of six counts, and they charge: Ist, the counterfeiting and forging; 2nd, the having in possession colourable imitations of; 3rd, the buying; 4th, the selling; 5th, the offering for sale; and, 6th, the dealing in colourable imitations of the private trade mark belonging to and used by the firm of Kunkleman & Co., of Rheims, France, manufacturers and dealers in wine known as the "Piper Heidsick" brand of champagne wine. Johnson, McNamara, and Reeder were prosecuted under that Act by a criminal information containing seven counts, of which the first, fourth, and sixth are founded upon a trade mark consisting of the letters "OK", registered in the United States Patent Office by Charles F. O'Donnell, April 2, 1878, for use upon packages of whiskey, and respectively charge the defendants with counterfeiting, affixing a colourable imitation, and dealing in and selling packages of whiskey to which was attached a colourable imitation of. said trade mark; and the second, third, fifth, and seventh counts are founded upon another trade mark, consisting of a seal and ribbon, the latter secured by the seal of a package containing whiskey, registered by Charles F. O'Donnell, May 21, 1878; and respectively charge the defendants with counterfeiting, making a colourable imitation, affixing a colourable imitation, and dealing in packages of whiskey to which was attached colourable imitation of said trade mark. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1876 are as follows:-‑ Section 4. That any person or persons who shall, with intent to defraud any person or persons, knowingly and wilfully cast, engrave, or manufacture, or have in his, her, or their possession, or buy, sell, offer for sale, or deal in, plate or plates, brand or brands, engraving or engravings, on wood, stone, metal, or other substance, moulds, or any false representation, likeness, copy, or colourable imitation of any, plate, brand, engraving, or mould of any private label, brand, stamp, wrapper, engraving on paper or other substance, or trade mark, registered pursuant to the Statutes of the United States, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as prescribed in the first section of this Act. Section 5. That any person or persons who shall, with intent to defraud any person or persons, knowingly and wilfully make, (100 U.S. 84) forge, or counterfeit, or have in his, her, or their possession, or buy, sell, offer for sale, or deal in, any representation, likeness, similitude, copy, or colourable imitation of any private label, brand, stamp, wrapper, engraving, mould, or trade mark, registered pursuant to the Statutes of the United States, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as prescribed in the first section of this Act. Sect. 4937, Rev. Stat., is as follows:-‑ Any person or firm domiciled in the United States, and any corporation created by the authority of the United States, or of any State or territory thereof, and any person, firm, or corporation resident of or located in any foreign country which by treaty or convention affords similar privileges to citizens of the United States, and who are entitled to the exclusive use of any lawful trade mark, or who intend to adopt and use any trade mark for exclusive use within the United States, may obtain protection for such lawful trade mark, by complying with the following requirements: First, by causing to be recorded in the Patent Office a statement specifying the names of the parties, and their residences and places of business, who desire the protection of the trade mark; the class of merchandise, and the particular description of goods comprised In such class, by which the trade mark has been or is intended to be appropriated; a description of the trade mark itself, with facsimiles thereof, showing the mode in which it has been or is intended to be applied and used; and the length of time, if any, during which the trade mark has been in use. Second, by making payment of a fee of twenty-five dollars in the same manner and for the same purpose as the fee required for patents. Third, by complying with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Patents. To each indictment there was a general demurrer. The Judges of the Circuit Court were opposed in opinion upon the following question:-‑ Can the Act of Congress approved August 14, 1876, Entitled "An Act to punish the counterfeiting of trade mark goods and the sale or dealing in of counterfeit trade mark goods", under which this indictment is found, be upheld, wholly or in part, as a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution any of the powers vested in the Congress by the Constitution of the United States? (100 U.S. 85). To the information against Johnson, MCNamara, and Reeder there was a general demmurrer, and thereupon a question arose for decision whether the said Act of Congress "is within the Constitutional power of Congress, or whether the same is unconstitutional, null, and void," and the opinions of the Judges of the Circuit Court were opposed. "Respondent Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., manufactures a multi function tool which improves on the classic Swiss army knife. When petitioners Cooper Industries, used photographs of a modified version of Leatherman's tool in posters, packaging, and advertising materials introducing a competing tool, Leatherman filed this action asserting, inter alia, violations of the Trade Marks Act of 1946 (Lanham Act). Ultimately a trial jury awarded Leatherman $ 50,000 in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in punitive damages. Rejecting Cooper's arguments that the punitive damages were grossly excessive under BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, the District Court entered judgment. As relevant here, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the punitive damages award, concluding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce that award". Held: Courts of appeals should apply a de novo standard when reviewing District Court determinations of the Constitutionality of punitive damages awards. The Ninth Circuit erred in applying the less demanding "abuse of discretion" standard in this case. pp. 432-443. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. No.99-2035 Argued February 26, 2001 decided May 14, 2001 532 U.S. 424. D. TRADE SECRETS. Where a company keeps information secret perhaps by enforcing a contract under which those given access to information are not permitted to disclose it to others. In Pakistan Copyrights Act was promulgated in 1962, it came into force in year 1967, previous to it Indian Copyright Act, 1914, and Copyright Act, 1911, (England) were in field. LEGAL STATUS. Exclusive rights are generally divided into two categories those that grant exclusive rights only on copy/ reproduction of the item or act protected (e.g. copyrights) and those that grant a right to prevent others from doing something the difference between those is that a copyright would prevent someone from copying the design of something, but could not stop them from making that design if they had no knowledge of the original, held by the copyright holder. Patents and trade marks on the other hand, can be used prevent that second person from making the same design even if they had never heard of or seen the claimed property those rights must be applied for a registered and are more expensive to enforce. There are also more specialized varieties of so-called suigeneris exclusive rights, such as circuit design rights (called mask work rights in U.S.A. Law, protected under the Integrated Circuit Topography Act in Canadian Law and in European Community Law by Directive 87/54/EEC of 16th December. 1986 on the legal protection topographies of semi-conductor products), plant breeder rights, plant variety rights, industrial design rights, supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceutical products data base rights (in European Law), and out designs of Integrated Circuits Ordinance of 2000 (Pakistan). MODERN TRENDS. Recently the general trend in exclusive rights law has been in expansion to cover new types of subject-matter such as databases, to regulate new categories of activity in respect of the subject-matter already protected increase the during of individual rights and to remove restrictions and limitations on these rights. Another effect of this trend is an increase in the term of the Government granted rights and an expansion of the definition of `author' to include corporations as the legitimate creators and owners of works. The concept of work for hire has had the effect of treating a corporation or business owner as the legal author of works created by people while employed. Another trend is to increase the number and type of what is claimed as "Intellectual Property". This has resulted in increasingly broad patents and trade marks: Trade marks' in EU Law can now encompass smells (e.g. of cut grass tennis balls), shapes (e.g. of soft drinks bottle) colours (e.g. red for fizzy drinks) words (e.g. COCA-COLA) and sounds (intel-has registered four notes) the granting of patents for life forms. Software algorithms and business models stretches the initial concept of giving the inventor limited rights to exclude the use of his inventions. Some argue that these expansion harm and essential "bargain" driven between public and copyright holders, as most new ideas borrow from other ideas, it is thought that too many "intellectual property" laws will lead to a reduction of the overall creative output of a society. The expansion of exclusive rights is also alleged to have led to the emergence of organizations whose business model is to frivolously sue other companies. The electronic age has seen an increase in the attempt to use software base digital rights management tools to restrict the copying and use digitally based works. This can have the effect of limiting fair use provisions of copyright law and even make the first sale doctrine (known in EU law as "exhaustion of rights") moot. This would allow, in essence, the creation of a book which would disintegrate after one reading. As individuals have proven adept at circumventing such measures in the past many copyright holders have also successfully lobbied for laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which uses criminal law of prevent, any circumvention of software used to enforce digital "rights management" systems. Equivalent Provisions, to prevent circumvention of copyright protection have existed in EU for some time, and are being expanded in for example Articles 6 and 7 of the copyright Directive other examples are Article 7 of the Software Directive of 1991(91/250/EEC) and the conditional Access Directive of 1998 (98/84/EEC). At the same time the growth of the internet and particularly distributed search engines represents a challenge for exclusive rights policy. The recording Industry Associated of America in particular, has been of the front lines of the fight against what is terms "Piracy" the Industry has had victories against the file sharing company and some people have been prosecuted for sharing files in violation of copyright. However, the increasingly recent realized nature of such networks makes legal action against distributed search engines more problematic. UK STATUTES Copyrights, Designs and, Patents Act, 1988. Ornamental Design Act, 1842. Patents Act, 1997. Registered Design Act, 1949. Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977. Utility Model Law, 1843. Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations S. 1 1997/3032. NATIONAL LEGISLATION AUSTRIA Constitution---Article 13. Broadcasting Regulation 20, 20(3). Arts as well as on Related Proprietary Rights. BELGIUM Law of August 31, 1998 concerning the protection of databases. DENMARK Act No. 407, 26 June, 1998 amending the Copyright Statute. FRANCE - Design Law, 1806. - Act 92-546, 20 June, 1992 Mandatory Deposit of materials in State. - Act 92-546, 20 June, 1992. - Law on Intellectual Property Code Article: L112-2(4) to 121-(3), 122(4). 122-9341-1-343-4, L613-11, 1,613-15. - Decret des 13-19 Janvier 1791 relatif aux spectacles. cco GERMANY Constitution: Articles 1(1), 2(1), 5, 14, 14(1), 14(2), 100(1). Act Against Restraints of Competition BGBI. IS 235 sl9(4) s19(4) s20(4), s22(4)(3), s26(2) 26(2). Constitution Court Act, Articles 78, 82, 95, (3). Copyright Act, 1965, as amended 1996. Copyright Administration Law, 1965, s 11(1), s(12). Information and Communication Services Act, Art.7. Law Concerning Copyright in Design and Models, 1876. Law on the German Library. Patent Act, s(2)(3). Standard Contract Terms Act, 1976. Unification Treaty. ISRAEL - Sale (Housing) Law 5733-1973, s7A. ITALY - Law No.22/4/ 1941, n633, Title II his. NETHERLANDS - Civil Code, Arts.6.231-4-7. Arts.6.231-4-7. Arts.6.236-& - Act of 8 July. 1999 Implementing EC Directive 96/9 EC on Databases. SPAIN Law Cotporating Directive 96/9/EC on Databases SWEDEN - Constitution, Ch.2, Art. 19. - Constitution protecting freedom of the press. - Law amending the law (1960: 729) on Copyright respect of Literary and Artistic Works (SFS 1997: 790). SWITZERLAND - Constitution, Art.25(1). UNITED STATES Constitution (Supremacy Clause) Berne Convention Implementation Act, 1988, Pub. V (No. 100-568, 102 Stat 2853 (1988). Copyright Act, 1976, 17 USC 102, 106, 106A, 106(2). 106(6), 107-121. 107, 108, 109(a), 110(1), 110(3), 110(8), 111, 114(d) (c) (I)-ix) (2), 1140) (2), 1140) (4), 114(j) (6), 1140) (7), 116. 117, 119, 301, 302(a), 302(b), 403 (2000), 407.