دانلود رایگان مقاله لاتین رویکرد حقوقی و فنی شرکت از سایت الزویر
عنوان فارسی مقاله:
حفاظت از مالکیت معنوی شرکت: رویکردهای حقوقی و فنی
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
Protecting corporate intellectual property: Legal and technical approaches
سال انتشار : 2016
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله رویکرد حقوقی و فنی شرکت اینجا کلیک نمایید.
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
2. Legal approaches
2.1. The Microsoft case The decisions in the Microsoft E-Mail case and subsequent appeal raise important legal issues. Petraeus-gate demonstrated the ability of security agencies, acting lawfully, to piece together fragments of electronic data to find a source. The nude photos hack demonstrated that advertised security measures may not be much help against a determined hacker, possibly raising private legal remedies. What is clear from these three matters is that what was once private is now no longer private if linked to the internet. While determining jurisdictional limitations was a key issue in the Microsoft E-Mail case decision, other factors worth considering also arose. This was one of the very few cases that made it into the public arena, as service of such warrants generally imposes limitations on those served (e.g., Zetter, 2013). Without assessing the contents of such warrants and the data handed over itis not possible to ascertain whether or notthe warrants achieved a national security purpose. The nude photo hack ignores jurisdictional limitations because of the nature of hacking. Jurisdictional limitations usually apply to the execution of a BUSHOR-1325; No. of Pages 11 2 M.G. Crowley, M.N. Johnstone search and seizure warrant and that is what makes the Microsoft E-Mail case important. A hypothetical web user always faces the risk that determined security agencies acting legally might access their internet data. The nude photos hack tells this same user that commercial security measures may not be adequate. The Microsoft E-Mail case tells our user the data may not be safe no matter where they are stored. Jurisdiction is generally state-based so that a legal instrument issued in the U.S. is limited to its own territory. Each state hasresorted to the use of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT). These treaties provide an agreed process for service and execution of warrants seeking information from outside the jurisdiction. However, the state in which the warrant is served may decline the request. The decision in the Microsoft E-Mail case stepped around these international treaties because the warrant was served within the U.S. The essence of the judgement is that Microsoft is to deliver email content held on one of its servers in Ireland to a New York Court because the warrant was served to Microsoft in the U.S. Microsoft opposed the warrant because the email content was held in Ireland, while the government argued the warrant required Microsoft to hand over email content no matter where it was held. At first blush this may not seem unreasonable until it is recognized that the impact of the judgement means all internet and cloud companies operating out of the U.S. may be required by the government to hand over content stored in other jurisdictions. Judge Francis’s decision turned on the nature of digital information and the impact of a search warrant. In this case, Microsoft held non-content information, address, and basic related details about the email account in the U.S. but the crucial email content was held on its server in Ireland. The search warrant required Microsoft to hand the email content over to the U.S. court or breach U.S. law (i.e., Carroll, 2014). In complying, Microsoft may or may not breach Irish law but would almost certainly breach European Union data transfer laws. Additionally, this warrant is jointly covered by various U.S. laws, including section 108 of the Patriot Act. In particular, emphasis was placed on the meaning of the words ‘‘where the property is located’’ being the location of the ISP, not the location of any server. It means the restrictions governments face with physical searches of a property do not apply in an online environment, rather the use of this particular warrant shifts the onus on production to Microsoft. This is because the warrant is a combination of a search warrant as usually used in criminal proceedings and a subpoena, a writ requiring persons or things to be delivered to the court.
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله رویکرد حقوقی و فنی شرکت اینجا کلیک نمایید.
کلمات کلیدی:
How to Secure Intellectual Property from Loss or Compromise | Digital ... https://digitalguardian.com/blog/how-to-secure-intellectual-property Jul 27, 2017 - Protecting intellectual property is a top priority for today's ... Gary Smith is a member of the Corporate Department of Boston law firm Posternak ... How Companies Can Protect Themselves Against Intellectual Property ... https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/.../how-companies-can-protect-themselves-against-intell... Feb 3, 2014 - Experts on supply chain management and intellectual property outline ... which coordinates the company's IP strategy, policies and protection ... Ten Simple Rules to Protect Your Intellectual Property journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002766 by M Jolly - 2012 - Cited by 4 - Related articles Nov 8, 2012 - Rule 4: If You Don't Protect the IP, Your Innovation Is Less Likely to ... as would any color associated with your company and any sound you use ... Searches related to Protecting corporate intellectual property how to protect intellectual property rights intellectual property protection strategy how to protect intellectual property online types of intellectual property protection intellectual property protection examples intellectual property protection definition how to protect intellectual property without a patent intellectual property protection pdf
