The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property

The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Business, Innovation and Skills Committee
Publisher:The Stationery OfficeISBN 13: 9780215045751ISBN 10: 0215045750

Paperback & Hardcover deals ―

Amazon IndiaGOFlipkart GOSnapdealGOSapnaOnlineGOJain Book AgencyGOBooks Wagon₹2,196Book ChorGOCrosswordGODC BooksGO

e-book & Audiobook deals ―

Amazon India GOGoogle Play Books GOAudible GO

* Price may vary from time to time.

* GO = We're not able to fetch the price (please check manually visiting the website).

Know about the book -

The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property is written by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and published by The Stationery Office. It's available with International Standard Book Number or ISBN identification 0215045750 (ISBN 10) and 9780215045751 (ISBN 13).

The Business Innovation and Skills Committee publishes a report - "The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: where next?" - as part of its inquiry into the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. The Committee believes further work remains to be done in analysing whether the economic benefits of a parody exception would be as extensive as claimed. However, other grounds may yet support a change to the law by extending what is legally permissible. which would probably help improve public respect for copyright law in general. On content mining, the Committee agrees that the ability to read published scientific data automatically is useful and needs to be opened up. On the the issue of Digital Copyright Exchange, the Committee encourages the Government to push forward with this idea provided that the system is kept simple and there is a proper cost/benefit analysis. On the Government's approach to negotiations on the Unified Patents Court, the Committee is concerned about the Government's approach on this. A unified patent and litigation system could bring many benefits, particularly if the central court were situated in London, but the current proposals have not been welcomed by practitioners or industry.