This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Musbri Mohamed DIL; ADIL ( ITM ) Pursuing MBL ( UKM )
Harta intelek menurut pandangan undangundang Malaysia merangkumi harta industri dan hak cipta.
Penguatkuasaan undang-undang harta intelek di negara kita adalah merangkumi bidang kuasa yang diperuntukkan di dalam Akta Hakcipta 1987, Akta Perihal Dagangan 1972, Akta Cap Dagangan 1976, Akta Paten 1983, Akta Reka Bentuk Perindustrian 1996, Akta Reka Bentuk Susun Atur Litar Bersepadu 2000, Akta Petunjuk Geografi 2000, Akta Cakera Optik 2000 dan lain-lain. Kebanyakan kes harta intelek di negara kita banyak tertumpu kepada jenayah cetak rompak mengikut Akta Hakcipta 1987 dan Akta Perihal Dagangan 1972.
Undang-undang hak cipta Malaysia bermula dengan adanya Copyright Act 1911 yang berkuatkuasa di Pulau Pinang dan Melaka. Selain itu terdapat juga kewujudan Enakmen 73 yang berkuatkuasa di Selangor, Perak, Pahang dan Negeri Sembilan. Perundangan hak cipta yang pertama sekali berkuat kuasa termaktub dalam Copyright Act 1967. Undang-undang tentang hak cipta masa kini merujuk kepada Akta Hakcipta 1987. Akta tersebut menjalani pindaan pada tahun 1990, 1996, 1997 dan 1999. Pindaan tahun 1990 menandakan kemasukan Malaysia dalam Berne Convention. Pindaan pada 1997 digubal bagi memenuhi keperluan dan tuntutan baharu era teknologi maklumat, industri multimedia dan Koridor Raya Multimedia (MSC).
Malaysia tidak terlepas daripada arus harta intelek ini dan dengan kewujudan peningkatan kes berkaitan harta intelek di negara kita, operasi dan inisiatif Mahkamah khas ini dijangka dapat menyelesaikan lebih 1,600 kes harta intelek tertunggak mengikut rekod Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah sehingga tahun 2006. Statistik menunjukkan terdapat 515 kes tertunggak di Mahkamah Majistret sehingga Jun 2006 manakala sebanyak 1,030 kes lagi di Mahkamah Sesyen dan 67 kes di Mahkamah Tinggi sehingga 31 Disember 2006.
Projek perintis ini telahpun dilaksanakan di Mahkamah Sesyen Jenayah (4) di Kuala Lumpur untuk mendengar secara khusus kes-kes jenayah harta intelek mulai 1 Januari 2006 lalu dan hasilnya banyak kes-kes berkaitan telah berjaya dilupuskan dengan lebih efektif dan cepat di mana sehingga tahun 2006 hampir 99 kes berkaitan harta intelek telah dilupuskan dan pihak yang kerugian serta teraniaya mendapat keadilan melalui perintah penghakiman dan pampasan yang sewajarnya daripada mahkamah.
Dengan adanya sistem baru mahkamah ini, ia bukan sahaja akan mempercepatkan lagi proses penggendalian kes-kes yang melibatkan pelanggaran harta intelek di negara ini malah kita akan memperoleh kepakaran dari perundangan seperti hakim dan peguam, sekali gus akan meletakkan negara kita di landasan yang setanding dengan negara luar dari segi kelengkapan bagi memutuskan kes-kes berkaitan.
Jenayah harta intelek kini semakin berkembang dan bermaharajalela melalui medium maya terutamanya internet di samping kaedah tradisional, menuntut kerajaan bersedia melaksanakan inovasi mahkamah siber sepenuhnya berteraskan keupayaan ICT terkini bagi memberikan impak dan momentum positif kepada sistem perundangan dan kehakiman di negara kita setanding negara maju lain dalam mengadili jenayah harta intelek.
Patentable inventions must possess the following characteristics: § They must be new, meaning that the invention has not been publicly disclosed in any form, anywhere in the world; § They must involve an inventive step, that is to say the invention must not be obvious to someone with knowledge and experience in the technological field of the invention; § They must be industrially applicable, meaning it can be made or used in any kind of industry.
There is no need to register copyright material in Malaysia. A work is automatically protected under the following conditions: § Sufficient effort has been made to make the work original in character; § The work has been placed in material form (written, recorded, etc.); § The author is a qualified person, the work is made in Malaysia, or the work is first published in Malaysia.
The Patent Acts provide for patent enforcement by the Enforcement Division of the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. Patent owners shall lodge an official complaint supported by the necessary documents to the Enforcement Division of the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs if they suspect infringement. The Division will conduct the necessary investigations and prosecutions
Music Piracy in Malaysia A Malaysian businessman suspected of selling pirated music for cell phone ring tones is likely to be the first person in his country to be charged with the offense, an industry official said Thursday. The 24-year-old mobile phone salesman was detained by trade ministry officials who found 4,084 illegally copied songs on his laptop in Malaysia’s northern Penang state. The man allegedly sold mostly Mandarin and other Chinese-language songs for customers to download on cell phones at his store.
Do you like soup? Trademarks have evolved from the earliest of times, when humans used marks to designate ownership. Cave drawings from as early as 5000 B.C., for example, show bison with symbols on their flanks. In 3500 B.C., Mesopotamian commodities were identified with cylindrical seals (www.lib.utexas.edu). Today, trademarks are used in all aspects of commerce. They bring consumer recognition to products and add value to businesses. When Nestle purchased a British chocolate company named Rowntree in 1988, it paid half a billion pounds for its factories and stock. However, it paid 2 billion pounds for its trademarks (www.wipo.int). Coca-ColaÂ® has been ranked by BusinessWeek as the most valuable brand in the world, at $67 billion. Products such as Campbell’sÂ® soup, GilletteÂ® and CanonÂ® also have great value in their brands. Some of these products might not be on the market today if they did not have trademark protection.
Intellectual property owners may exercise their rights flexibly or enforce them vigorously, depending upon their business model or philosophy. Owners may have the option of excluding others from selling a product, reproducing a book or using a trademark, for example. On the other hand, intellectual property rights must be positively exercised. The failure to do so, whether intentional or not, may result in others using an invention, creative work or trademark. To illustrate the great versatility of intellectual property rights in the market place, four models are provided here.
First, the IBMÂ® model makes part of a company’s intellectual property portfolio available to the public. IBMÂ® announced last year that it was making 500 of its patents freely available to anyone working on open-source projects such as the LinuxÂ® operating system. IBMÂ® is the largest patent holder in the United States. It obtained 3,248 patents in 2004 and it created at least $1 billion from licensing its inventions last year (www.ibm.com).
Second, the Cohen and Boyer model issues an unlimited number of licenses for a reasonable up-front payment and a moderate royalty. Intellectual property rights may be licensed in whole or in part. Licensing arrangements have the flexibility to take into account the needs of the parties involved. For example, they may be exclusive, non-exclusive, territorial (that is, different people can use a product in different parts of a country), and they may creatively address the issue of royalties.
In 1980, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer patented a blockbuster method of replicating DNA. They licensed their invention out to more than 370 companies with a $10,000 up front payment, an annual advance of $10,000 and earned royalties of .5 percent to 3 percent of sales, depending upon the type and sales volume of the products.
Third, the Warhol model enforces intellectual property rights only against potential infringers who are seeking commercial gain. Andy Warhol had a successful career as an artist by building upon the works of others. He took advantage of the flexibility that other intellectual property owners demonstrated when he built upon popular icons such as Campbell’sÂ® soup. Although Warhol died in 1987, his foundation has a policy of not enforcing its rights against those who choose to build upon Warhol’s works merely for the sake of art. However, the foundation actively enforces its rights against potential infringers who seek commercial again (www.warholfoundation.org). Fourth, companies following the vigorous enforcement model seek to defend many or all of their intellectual property rights. This model is particularly important to entities like The Walt Disney Company that have made large investments in research and development or creative works, or those that rely significantly upon brand recognition. Intellectual property holds the key to the future. Of foremost importance is the preservation and advancement of the standards for the protection of intellectual property. Without intellectual property protections, we may not have Campbell’sÂ® soup for artists, inventors and business people to build upon. Great works like those of Warhol might never exist. As Peter Drucker, author of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, says, with intellectual property protection, “(i)nnovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship…the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth” for all.
Strong patent laws provide incentives for new inventions that create wealth in the market place. For example, the United States Supreme Court clarified that living things are patentable under U.S. law in 1980. Since that time, the biotechnology industry in the United States has experienced tremendous growth and has brought countless, life saving inventions onto the market. Today, the United States leads the biotechnology industry with more than 1,500 biotech companies employing more than 900,000 people with salaries that average more than $60,000 per year.
A strong intellectual property rights regime is a cornerstone of a successful knowledge-based economy. As Malaysia moves further up the value chain in industries such as information technology and moves into new industries such as biotechnology, Malaysian government leaders recognize that it is in the country's own national interest to strengthen IPR enforcement. A Message from Former Ambassador Christopher J. LaFleur
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?