Intellectual Property

thomas Edison

What is the condition of the gun and the barrel length?

The first US patent was issued in 1790, the first Superintendent of Patents was recognized as separate from the Department of State in 1802, and the US Patent and Trademark Office was created by a revision of patent laws in 1836.

Practically anything can be protected by copyright. Intellectual or physical property can be registered. In many cases registration is not required, it may later, have to be proved that the person claiming rights was the first to have the idea.

Amortization is not entered separately but just shown as a deduction from the respective asset(patent) in balance sheet. However it is shown separately in P&L A/c. Its treatment is similar to that of depreciation.

The intellectual aspect of personality is basically how smart you are and how that affects the rest of your personality. Some people are so intelligent, that there are not many more personality traits which they exhibit.

Barcadi

No. Plenty of laws can be considered unethical. A glaring example: slavery was legal for many years, but certainly never ethical. A great number of people would say that many current laws are unethical as well.

Further, plenty of ethical behavior is illegal. Many have made arguments that certain crimes (possession of marijuana, or underage possession of alcohol, for example) are not unethical. Also, many civil wrongs may not be unethical. Having a car accident and damaging another person's car may be a pure accident, and pose no ethical consideration, but the driver can be held legally responsible for the damages.

Lawmakers generally try to consider ethics when deciding which laws to adopt, but it isn't necessarily true that the two must co-exist.

A Copyright or Trademark registration is considered intellectual property protection. Itellectual property could be an idea, design, or concept, etc that the originator came up with themselves.

This was my first baseball glove. I bought it for $2.66 @ Sears in 1958.

No. Without both signatures, the promissory note is not legal. As the other party is deceased, there is no way to collect that signature to make the note valid.

A representation which is subsequently made part of the contract ceases to be a representation and becomes something more, viz., a promise that such a thing is or shall be. Anson, Contract, 15th ed., 1920,p. 182.

The question then arises whether this representation, which has ceased to be a mere representation, and has become a term of the contract, is a condition or is a warranty.

A "warranty" is defined in the Sale of Goods Act (Ont. s. 2; U. K. s. 62) as meaning:

An agreement with reference to goods which are the subject of a contract of sale, but collateral to the main purpose of such contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages, but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. An earlier definition is that of Lord Abinger in Chanter v. Hopkins, 1838, 4M. & W. 399, at p. 404:

A warranty is an express or implied statement of something which the party undertakes shall be part of a contract; and, though part of the contract, yet collateral to the express object of it. A "condition" is not defined in the statute. A condition is a term which is "of the essence" of the contract or, in other words, which is " regarded by the parties as a vital term going to the root of the contract."

Anson, op. cit., pp. 183, 186.

A valuable note as to the terms "condition" and "warranty," with quotations from many sources, is contained in Chalmers, Sate of Goods, 7th ed. 1910, pp. 191 ff.

In Wallis v. Pratt, in a judgment which was approved by the House of Lords, ([1911] A.C. 394), Fletcher Moulton L.J. said ([1910] 2 K.B. 1003, at p. 1012):

A party to a contract who has performed, or is ready and willing to perform, his obligations under that concract is enabled to the performance by the other contracting part of all the obligations which rest upon him. But from a very early period of our law it has been recognized that such obligations are not all of equal importance. There are some which go so directly to the substance of the contract or, in other words, are so essential to its very nature that their non-performance may fairly be consi-derel by the other party as a substantial failure to perform the contract at all. On the other hand there are other obligations which, though they must be performed, are not so vital that a failure to perform them goes to the substance of the contract, Both classes are equally obligations under the contract, and the breach of any one of them entitles the other party to damages. But in the case of the former class he has the alternative of treating the contract as being completely broken by the non-performance and (if he takes the proper steps) he can refuse to perform any of the obligations resting upon himself and sue the other party for a total failure to perform the contract. Although the decisions are fairly consistent in recognizing this distinction between the two classes of obligations under a contract there has not been a similar consistency in the nomenclature applied to them. I do not, however, propose to discuss this matter, because later usage has consecrated the term "condition" to describe an obligation of the former class and "warranty" to describe an obligation of the latter class.

The Sale of Goods Act (Ont. s. 13; U.K. s. 11) provides: 13 - (2) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, the breach of which may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a warranty, the breach of which may give rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated, depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract.

In Bentsen v. Taylor, [1893] 2 Q.B. 274, at p. 281, Bowen L.J. said:

Of course it is often very difficult to decide as a matter of construction whether a representation which contains a promise, or which can only be explained on the ground that it is in itself a substantive part of the contract, amounts to a condition precedent, or is only a warranty. There is no way of deciding that question except by looking at the contract in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and then making up one's mind whether the intention of the parties, as gathered from the instrument itself, will best be carried out by treating the promise as a warranty sounding only in damages, or as a condition precedent by the failure to perform which the other party is relieved of his liability. In order to decide this question of construction, one of the first things you would look to is, to what extent the accuracy of the statement - the truth of what is promised - would be likely to affect the substance and foundation of the adventure which the contract is intended to carry out.

Examples of conditions:

Behn v. Burness, 1863, 3 B. & S. 751, 6 R.C. 492 (vessel "now in the port of Amsterdam").

Varley v. Whipp, [1900] 1 Q.B. 513 (reaping machine described as new the previous year and as having been used to cut only 50 or 60 acres) ; as to this case see 56.

Fisher, Reeves & Co. v. Armour & Co., [1920] 3 K.B. 614 (goods "ex store Rotterdam").

Examples of warranties:

New Hamburg Mfg. Co. v. Webb, 1911, 23 O.L.R. 44 (" rebuilt" engine).

Cameron v. McIntyre, 1915, 35 O.L.R. 206, 26 D.L.R, 638 (promise to give a written warranty that horse sound).

Hart-Parr Co. v. Wells, 1918, 47 Can. S.C.R. 344, 43 D.L.R. 686, affirming 11 Sask. L.R. 132. 40 D.L.R. 169 (warranty of good material and certain horse-power capacity) .

Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Mitten, 1919, 59 Can. S.C.R. 118, 49 D.L.R. 30, reversing l2 Sask. L.R. 1, 44 D.L.R. 40 (warranty excluded by terms of contract).

In the United States the use of the terms "condition" and " warranty" is different from their use in the Sales of Goods Act. In the latter statute the terms indicate two kinds of stipulations or promises - the performance of a condition being essential, and its breach therefore giving rise to the right to repudiate the contract, the performance of a warranty not being essential, and its breach therefore merely giving rise to a claim for damages. In the Uniform Sales Act, on the other hand, this distinction is obliterated, both kinds of promises being designated warranties, and the right to rescind the-contract and reject the goods being allowed for breach of warranty. The term "condition" is apparently used in the narrower sense of a term by which the obligation of either of the parties is made subject to the happening of a contingency or event, and not as including a promise, the performance of which is essential. See 54, where the relevant provisions of the Uniform Sales Act are quoted.

Intellectual Property refers to works created by inventors, authors and artists. these works are unique and have value in the market place. In our daily lives, we are surrounded by things that are protected by IP. Your school bags, your shoes and even your socks are protected by Intellectual Property rights. Nike, Bata or Adidas, for example, are all protected by a group of legal rights.

Trademark protection is an important way of preventing fraud in the marketplace. It benefits the consumer to know that the stuff in this bottle of Robitussin is actually Robitussin, a tested and regulated medicine, rather than just some stuff some guy mixed in his garage.

Both are forms of intellectual property, giving the creator (or other rightsholder) the exclusive right to use them or authorize others to do so. Beyond that, they are quite different: copyright protection exists to allow creators to ascribe value to their works, and is available for a limited time; trademark law exists to protect consumers from fraud, and protection is perpetual for as long as the mark is in use.

Copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to make and distribute copies, or perform a work, or make derivative works, depending upon the type of creative work it is. It is infringed when someone violates those rights, such as by making illegal copies.

Trademark provides an individualized right to use a distinctive mark, sound, color, word, design, etc, to indicate a particular source and quality of branded goods or services. It is infringed when someone uses the brand to falsely indicate or suggest goods or services came from the rightful brand owner, and not the knock-off producer.

Sometimes these overlap, as where a design may be protected by copyright in the sculpture of something and in the trademark value represented by the form itself. Consider the "MICKEY MOUSE" design: copyrighted as a cartoon character, and trademarked as an indication that it came from Disney (or a licensee). You would infringe the copyright by using "MICKEY" in your own cartoons; you would infringe the trademark by putting MICKEY's picture on the package.

The creator of a work has, for a limited time, the exclusive right to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display the work in public, or authorize others to do so. For sound recordings, the copyright also contains the exclusive right to perform the sounds by digital transmission.

It is illegal to sell purses that are exact replicas of the designer ones, and to tell customers that they are authentic.

It is NOT illegal to sell knock-offs that are only similar to the real thing (not exactly identical), again, as long as you do not try to claim that the items are the real thing.

Most if not all companies have some sort of trademark(over their name, logo, slogan, etc.). Depending on their activities, they may also have one or more patents, and may control a number of copyrights. In the US, copyright is covered by US Code Title 17 and administered by the Copyright Office (within the Library of Congress), and trademarks and patents are covered by US Code Title 37 and administered by the Patent and Trademark Office (within the Department of Commerce). Other countries have all three forms of intellectual property handled by one office.

central bank does not accept deposit from customers whiles commercial bank does.

central bank is responsible for issuing of currencies whiles commercial bank does not.

central bank is accountable to the government whiles commercial bank is accountable to the share holders.

central bank is not set up for profit but commercial bank is set up for profit.

central bank is governed by an act of parliament whiles commercial bank is set up by an incorporation.

central bank formulate monetary policies whiles commercial bank does not.