Intellectual property Rights

Inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, and symbols, names, and images used in commerce
are all examples of intellectual property (IP). Intellectual property rights are the rights granted to
individuals over their mental creations. For a set period of time, they usually grant the creator
exclusive rights to use his or her creation. Any and all rights associated with intangible assets owned
by a person or company that are protected against unauthorized use are known as intellectual
property rights. Non-physical property, such as intellectual property rights, is referred to as
intangible assets.

These rights are outlined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states
that authors of scientific, literary, or artistic works have the right to have their moral and material
interests protected.

India's intellectual property rights India is one of the UK's most important international markets. If
people plan to do business in India, or already doing business there, must understand how to use,
protect, and enforce your rights to intellectual property (IP) that you or your company owns. This
guide covers the basics of intellectual property and how to apply these principles in the Indian
market. It explains how to deal with IP infringement in India, gives advice on how to deal with it
effectively, and provides links to additional resources.

Types of Intellectual Property rights

Patents- Patents are primarily used to protect new plant species or strains, as well as innovative
ideas or processes. Patents are intellectual property rights that give the owner the right to prevent
others from making, selling, using, or importing an invention for a period of time, usually twenty
years. The US Patent and Trademark Office issues patents in the United States. An inventor does not
have exclusive rights to his or her invention until a patent is issued.

Every country has its own distinct process for granting patents. As a result, the US patent is
unenforceable in international markets. Utility patents (which cover an invention's function), design
patents, and plant patents are the three types of patents issued by the US office.

Trademark- A trademark is the name of a product or service that is connected with it. It's what
customers use to figure out what a thing is or where it came from. A wordmark is a trademark that is
made up of a single word or words. Colors, sounds, and even fragrances can be utilised as
trademarks in addition to the name. Most trademarks are either wordmarks, phrases, or logos.

When it comes to a fresh innovation, you'll want to protect your wordmark first, then go on to other
types of trademarks. It is necessary to conduct research to confirm that no one else is using a similar
mark. The registration of your trademark is not required. However, you get an advantage by doing
nationwide rights, and no one else can secure that trademark with the US Patent and Trademark
Office.

Copyrights- Images, text, product packaging, labels, and the product itself are all protected by
copyright. Copyright registration for these sorts of intellectual property is not expensive, and
anybody who infringes on the copyright is obligated by law to pay attorney fees.

You would be liable for your own attorney bills if you had not registered copyright, which would be
more expensive than the damages caused by someone duplicating your words and photos. Movies,
films, images, essays, and software are all examples of copyrightable works. While software is a
practical thing, the creativity utilised in the selection and arrangement of various portions of code
allows it to be copyright protected.

Trade secret- A trade secret is knowledge that is not widely known and reasonably ascertainable yet
is not publicly available. It provides a competitive edge to its owner. The owner of a trade secret
must maintain it discreet in order for it to be effective. This is accomplished by employing non-
disclosure techniques and enacting rules and procedures that limit access to such data.

The Coca-Cola Company, for example, has a trade secret in their Coca-Cola recipe. By safeguarding
this recipe, other firms will be unable to imitate the Coca-Cola product.

Industrial Design- An industrial design product is one that is made in a certain shape, pattern, or
colour with the goal of improving utility, usefulness, or aesthetic value. For the artist, the Industrial
Design Act safeguards these designs. Visual appeal and uniqueness are essential for an industrial
design to be safeguarded. The Patent Office grants industrial design patents to protect just a
product's non-functional aspects.

The right to industrial design is a reward for the creator's efforts and investment in the production of
a product. The normal duration of enforceable protection is from 10 to 25 years, divided into
periods. You must renew your registration for certain forms of intellectual property if you want to
prolong your term.

Database- Database rights, which were first introduced in 1996, were created primarily to safeguard
databases. The rights exist if there has been a significant amount of effort put into acquiring,
presenting, or validating the contents of a database. Financial, human, and technological resources
are all part of the investment. The author of the database is the original owner, and he or she is
responsible for gathering, confirming, and presenting the database's contents.

In addition, the manufacturer or creator bears the risk of investing in the same. The rights give the
owner the ability to restrict others from extracting or reusing all or part of their database's contents.
From the date of creation, the right is granted for 15 years. The database rights are enforceable for
15 years if the database is released within this time frame.

Unfair Competition- Any dishonest trading conduct that is prohibited by legislation, regulation, or
common law is considered unfair competition. It encompasses similar concepts that provide for a
variety of causes of action, including trademark or copyright infringement, improper appropriation
of trade secrets, and claims for defamatory false published. The legislation safeguards firms'
financial, intellectual, and inventive investments in order to differentiate themselves and their
products. It also aims to boost competition by providing firms with incentives to promote goods and
services that are superior to those offered by competitors.

Intellectual property of this nature makes a substantial contribution to any country's or state's
economy. The majority of industries rely on effective patent, trademark, and copyright enforcement.
Consumers, too, utilize intellectual property to guarantee that they are purchasing safe and secure
products.

Definition of Datatbase

Management of intellectual property rights (IPR) is an essential component of any data management
programme. A database or other data resource creator will be interested in who owns the resource
and how others may use it. Someone who intends to populate that resource with data contributed
in part by others should ensure that all legal, ethical, and professional duties to the data provider are
honoured. Given the well-documented benefits of data sharing, a researcher may choose to share
their database and/or content with others. Others can only fully exploit external data if they are
aware of the data's conditions of use (if any).Databases are an important aspect of digital curation,
whether as a tool for curating data or themselves entities that must be curated. Ownership of the
intellectual property in a database, as well as the rights that come with it, will have a big impact on
what kind of curation can be done with it. Practitioners will benefit from a clear grasp of what these
rights are, when they arise, and how they work. The advantages will come not only in terms of
preventing violation of third-party rights, but also in terms of being able to recognize their own
rights, therefore maximizing the potential for access, exploitation, and distribution.

The intellectual property right that protects the expression of ideas or information is known as
copyright. The preservation of copyright in a database is frequently misunderstood. Copyright
protection may apply to a database, but only under specific conditions. To begin, a database's
structure may be protected if it is the author's intellectual production as a result of the contents'
selection or arrangement. Second, copyright may exist independently in the database's contents,
depending on what is stored in the database (for example, a database of images where each of the
images would attract its own copyright protection as an artistic work).

As soon as the produced object takes on a physical form, copyright protection is triggered. It is not
necessary to register or publicise the work. The author, who in the case of a database is the person
who produces the database, is the original owner of copyright. In summary, the owner of the
copyright has the only right to:

● Duplicate the work

● Make copies for the general public.
● Renting or lending to the general population
● Inform the general people.
● Make a change or do any of these additional actions in connection to a change.

Database Rights

A database may be eligible for a relatively new right called the Database Right, in addition to limited
copyright protection. This is a one-of-a-kind kind of intellectual property protection that was created
specifically to safeguard databases and was first introduced in 1996. The database right exists in a
database if a significant amount of money was spent collecting, validating, or displaying the
database's contents (even if the database's contents and/or structure are not original and so do not
attract copyright). The term "investment" has a broad definition that includes financial, human, and
technological resources. The database right originates in the same way as copyright does.

The ‘maker' of a database is the original owner of the database right, according to the law. The
maker is the individual who takes the initiative in gathering, confirming, or presenting the contents
of a database and is willing to take on the risk of doing so. The database right allows the owner to
restrict others from extracting and/or reusing all or a significant portion of their database's contents.
Although it is uncertain what defines a "significant component," it is known that it may be tested
numerically and qualitatively. It should also be emphasized that the systematic and repetitive
extraction or re-use of insignificant bits of a database's contents might amount to a major part.

The right lasts for 15 years from the day the database was created, but if the database is published
during that period, the term lasts for 15 years from the date of publication. Despite the fact that this
period is substantially shorter than the copyright counterpart, it is not without controversy. The Act
that established the database right stipulates that the duration of the right is renewed each time the
database's contents undergo a "significant change." A large number of databases are dynamic. It has
been claimed that if a database is altered and updated on a regular basis, the right to use it might
last eternally. The perception that the database right is close to granting an intellectual property
right in data and information per se, with only a limited exception for extraction (but not re-
utilisation) of data for illustration for teaching or research and not for any commercial purpose, has
been a major source of concern. As a result, persons participating in curation may face limitations in
their access to and capacity to re-use the raw data required for scientific development.

Case Apple FBI

Introduction

The FBI–Apple encryption debate centres on whether and to what extent US courts may compel
manufacturers to aid in unlocking phones with cryptographically secured data. The public's access to
robust encryption is a hot topic of dispute.

In 2015 and 2016, Apple Inc. received at least 11 orders issued by United States district courts under
the All Writs Act of 1789, which it objected to or disputed. The majority of them seek to compel
Apple to "use its current capabilities to retrieve data including contacts, images, and calls from
locked iPhones running on operating systems iOS 7 and older" to aid criminal investigations and
prosecutions. A few demands, on the other hand, concern phones with more robust security
features, which Apple currently lacks.

A February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
was the most well-known example of the latter kind. The FBI sought Apple to produce and approve
new software that would allow the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C found from one of the
shooters who killed 14 people and wounded 22 others in a terrorist assault in San Bernardino,
California, in December 2015. After destroying their personal phones, the two assailants were killed
in a confrontation with police. The work phone was retrieved undamaged, but it was protected by a
four-digit password that was configured to erase all data after 10 failed password tries (a common
anti-theft measure on smartphones). The program was not created by Apple, and a hearing was set
for March 22. The government, however, requested a postponement a day before the hearing was
scheduled, claiming that it had discovered a third party who could aid in unlocking the iPhone. The
government declared on March 28 that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and that it had withdrawn
its request. "The FBI finally determined that Farook's phone contained just information about work
and showed nothing about the plot," the Los Angeles Times wrote in March 2018.

Apple ordered to assist the FBI

The FBI seized an Apple iPhone 5C that had been issued to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the gunmen
in the December 2015 San Bernardino assault, by the San Bernardino County, California government.
[15] The incident resulted in the deaths of 14 individuals and the serious injuries of another 22. The
two terrorists were killed in a gunfight with police four hours after the incident, after having
destroyed their personal phones. Authorities were able to recover Farook's work phone, but they
were unable to break its four-digit passcode, and the phone was set to erase all of its data after 10
failed password attempts.
Due to enhanced security measures, including encryption of user data, the FBI was unable to open
the county-owned phone it found on February 9, 2016. The FBI attempted to hack into the phone
with the help of the National Security Agency, but they were unable to do so since they only knew
how to break into other devices typically used by criminals, not iPhones. As a result, the FBI
requested that Apple Inc. produce a new version of the iOS operating system that could be loaded
and run in the phone's random access memory to deactivate certain security features known as
"GovtOS." Apple rejected owing to its philosophy of never jeopardising the security elements of its
products. The FBI replied by successfully petitioning Sheri Pym, a United States magistrate judge, for
a court order requiring Apple to develop and supply the desired software. The order was issued
under the All Writs Act of 1789, not as a subpoena. The court order was issued in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and was titled In the Matter of the Search of an
Apple iPhone Seized.

Technical information about the order

According to the court ruling, Apple must cooperate in completing the following tasks:

● "Whether or whether the auto-erase function is activated, it will be bypassed or

disabled"[25]. (After ten consecutive failed attempts, this user-configurable feature of iOS 8
deletes keys needed to access encrypted data automatically.)
● "It will allow the FBI to electronically transmit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing
through the physical device interface, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or any other protocol available."
● "When the FBI sends passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, it will guarantee that software
operating on the device does not purposely induce any additional delay between passcode
tries beyond what Apple hardware causes."

Apple's opposition to the order

Magistrate Judge Pym issued an order on February 16, 2016, giving Apple five days to seek relief if it
considered the order was "unreasonably onerous." Apple has stated that it will fight the decision,
noting the security dangers that such a backdoor would pose to customers. It went on to say that no
other country has ever requested comparable access. The firm has until February 26 to reply to the
court ruling completely.

On the same day that the court order was announced, Apple CEO Tim Cook made an online letter to
consumers detailing the company's reasons for fighting it.

He also claimed that, while they respect the FBI, the request they made jeopardises data security by
setting a precedent that the US government may use to force any technology business to develop
software that could compromise the security of its products. He wrote, in part: "The US government
has demanded that Apple take an extraordinary measure that jeopardises our customers' security."
We are opposed to this ruling, which has far-reaching consequences that go beyond the legal case at
hand. This is a time for public debate, and we want our customers and everyone around the country
to be aware of the issues.

In response to the resistance, the US Department of Justice filed a fresh application on February 19
requesting that a federal judge compel Apple to follow the order. According to the new application,
Apple could put the software on the phone on its own premises, and then uninstall and delete it
once the FBI had hacked the phone through remote connection. To contest the order on appeal,
Apple engaged attorneys Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
On the same day, Apple revealed that it had discussed four methods of accessing data in the iPhone
with the FBI in early January, but that one of the more promising methods had been ruled out due to
a mistake made during the investigation of the attack, as revealed by a footnote in the February 19
application to the court. Following the recovery of the shooter's phone, the FBI requested that San
Bernardino County, the phone's owner, reset the password to the shooter's iCloud account so that
data from the iCloud backup could be obtained. However, until the phone's passcode was entered, it
was unable to backup recent data to iCloud. The US Department of Justice acknowledged this,
adding that any support will be provided.

The Outcome of the case

After the government said that it had located a third party who could unlock the iPhone, the hearing
was postponed. Cellebrite, an Israeli business, was claimed to be engaged in the reports, however
the company never verified it.

The Department of Justice said that it had obtained access to the iPhone's data and had asked the
judge to dismiss the case. The FBI stated in a statement that it couldn't comment on the "technical
elements" of the iPhone's unlocking or the participation of third parties.

"We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have in the past, and we
will continue to strengthen the security of our devices as threats and attacks on our data become
more prevalent," Apple stated.

Who was the winner of the case

This looks to be the best solution conceivable in a tough circumstance. Apple has been steadfast in
its support for civil liberties.

Apple defied the FBI's requests and got away with it, therefore it appears that Apple is the winner in
this case. When examined further, it becomes clear that this is not the case. The FBI abandoned the
investigation because they had identified another business that could get into the iPhone;
nevertheless, the public soon realised that Apple is not as safe as it wants its consumers to think.

Apple now realises that the FBI's way of circumventing Apple's security will surely fall into the wrong
hands. This implies that Apple now needs to deal with the prospect that thieves may use this
technology to further erode the security of user data on the iPhone at some point in the future.

"From the beginning, we objected to the FBI's demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone
because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent; neither of these things
happened as a result of the government's dismissal," Apple said in a statement following the case's
dismissal.

The FBI was successful in obtaining access to Farook's iPhone. However, there are some concerns
about Apple's security procedures.

Though, in the end, the FBI got what they wanted after a three-month battle with Apple. Because of
the public nature of this battle, other computer companies may be encouraged to develop stronger
end-to-end encryption.