Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Software and intellectual property have come ...

Join the Discussion on the App

While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.

Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.

To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.

Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?

a)
Software should not be given strong intellectual property protection
b)
Software protection is against public good
c)
Intellectual property protection should be given to software
d)
None of the above

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: English

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following is a correct deduction from the given passage?

View answer

Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?

View answer

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Who amongst the following is unconvinced according to Richard Stallman ?

View answer

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Who amongst the following is unconvinced according to Richard Stallman ?

View answer

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Intellectuals a category that includes academics, opinion journalists, and think tank experts are freaks. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I myself have spent most of my life in one of the three roles mentioned above. I have even been accused of being a public intellectual, which sounds too much like public nuisance or even public enemy for my taste.My point is that people who specialize in the life of ideas tend to be extremely atypical of their societies. They are freaks in a statistical sense. For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.The terms intellectual and intelligentsia arose around the same time in the 19th century. Before the industrial revolution, the few people in advanced civilizations paid to read, write, and debate were mostly either clerics like medieval Christian priests, monks, or secular scribes like Confucian mandarins who worked for kings or aristocrats, or, as in the city-states of ancient Greece, teachers whose students were mostly young men of the upper classes.The replacement of agrarian civilization by industrial capitalism created two new homes for thinkers, both funded directly or indirectly by the newly enriched capitalist elite. One was the nonprofit sectorthe university and the nonprofit think tank founded chiefly by gifts from the tycoons who lent these institutions their names:Stanford University, the Ford Foundation.Then there was bohemia, populated largely by the downwardly-mobile sons and daughters of the rich, spending down inherited bourgeois family fortunes while dabbling in the arts and philosophy and politics and denouncing the evils of the bourgeoisie.Whether they are institutionalized professors and policy wonks or free-spirited bohemians, the intellectuals of the industrial era are as different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies as the clerics, scribes, mandarins, and itinerant philosophers of old were from the peasant or slave majorities in their societies.To begin with, there is the matter of higher education. Only about 30 percent of American adults have a four-year undergraduate degree. The number of those with advanced graduate or professional degrees is around one in ten. As a BA is a minimal requirement for employment in most intellectual occupations, the pool from which scholars, writers, and policy experts is drawn is already a small one. It is even more exclusive in practice, because the children of the rich and affluent are overrepresented among those who go to college.Then there is location. There have only been a few world capitals of bohemia, generally in big, expensive cities that appeal to bohemian rich kids. In the U.S., the geographic options for think tank scholars also tend to be limited to a few expensive cities, like Washington, D.C. and New York. Of the different breeds of the American intellectual, professors have the most diverse habitat, given the number and geographic distribution of universities across the American continent. Like college education, geographic mobility in the service of personal career ambitions is common only within a highly atypical social and economic elite.Q.Identify the statements that are correct as per the information provided in the passage.I. The term Intellectuals came into existence with the industrial revolution.II. Industrial revolution contributed to the creation of new places for intellectuals.III. Intellectuals lead to the industrial revolution.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?a)Software should not be given strong intellectual property protectionb)Software protection is against public goodc)Intellectual property protection should be given to softwared)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam