Volume 12 Issue 1
Patents picket when the patent holder practices the patent in certain jurisdictions but refuses to work the patent in others. The concept of patent picketing developed as a result of a shift from the representation of the working of an invention physically to merely describing, effectively, the inventions in patent applications. Patent holders picket with their patents and demand a higher price, thereby not only preventing others from using their invention but also ensuring that the product is not made available in all markets. Such behaviour can be regarded as an intellectual property (IP) abuse when the non-working of a patent leads to deprivation of another patent locally. The issuance of a market-initiated compulsory licence may solve the problems linked with IP abuse arising out of patent picketing.
Algorithmic high-frequency trading is a tech-innovation of securities trading. It is enabled by high-tech trading algorithms and communication and computing infrastructure that allows traders to profit based on the speed and volume of their trading, rather than by trading based on conventional trading fundamentals. However, its strategies have become ubiquitous with market manipulation, regulatory arbitrage and clouding the ability of investors to accurately read the market. Understandably, regulators have been making efforts to protect the markets and stay abreast with the rapid evolution of high-frequency trading. In this endeavour, the U.K. Financial Services Authority remarked that regulators are riding bicycles to chase down the high-frequency trading Ferrari. Further, this Ferrari seems to constantly change its license-plate, routes and appearance. This has complicated efforts to prescribe preventive measures and seems to have resulted in a disproportionate reliance on post facto remedial measures. In this light, this Article evaluates SEBI’s proposals in its recent discussion paper on algorithmic trading and proposes certain measures to strengthen SEBI’s regulatory framework.
This article aspires to constitute a useful tool for both Asian and European readers as regards some of the state-of-the-art technologies revolving around the Internet of Things (‘IoT’) and their intersection with cloud-computing (the Clouds of Things, ‘CoT’) in both the continents. The main legal issues will be presented, with a focus on intellectual property, consumer protection, and privacy. The cases chosen are from India and the United Kingdom, two countries that are conspicuously active on this front.
In his book, Online File Sharing, published in early 2014, Jonas Andersson Schwarz argues that this dichotomy is a deeply flawed way of understanding the file-sharing dispute. Using tools from critical theory and political philosophy, Schwarz aims to break down the binaries, and to demonstrate that the reality of file-sharing is simply too complex, and too nuanced, to be captured by way of dualities, no matter which side projects them. To the
intellectual defenders of the Pirate Bay and other such operations, who base their case on values of openness, freedom and unlimited access to culture, Schwarz presents a series of internal contradictions that remain unresolved
under all present models; on the other hand, the defenders of copyright must face up not only to an absence of credible evidence of harm, but also to the reality that unquestionably legal enterprises like Spotify have been built upon the concept and tools of file-sharing.