legal and economic Analysis of applicable legal rules on license contract (Examination of US legal System approach to present guidance for Iranian Legal system

Document Type : Scientific research

Authors

• , Ali Saatchi
• , omid mohammadinia

https://doi.org/10.22067/lowecon.2022.41770

Abstract

Applicable rules on Intellectual properties contracts such as innovation licenses is one of the challenging issues of legal systems. The essential question is contractual issues like the formation of contracts, the obligations of parties; methods of dissolution of the contract, etc. are subject to which rules? US legal system has a problem to answer this question in the legislative, judiciary, and doctrine areas. In the legislative area, there are efforts to specialize applicable rules on license contract and particularly software. Nevertheless, the states do not approve this specialization due to its generalization and similarity to the law of goods contracts. In the judiciary area, the approach of the majority of courts is an inclination to apply laws of goods contracts on information-based contracts. However, contrary to majority’s view and according to practical doctrine, in order to determine appropriate rules, one has to address the particular subject of these contracts and mainly commercial custom of a license contract and macro policies of intellectual properties systems. Thus, in Iranian Law, we must distinguish the complementary rules from mandatory rules. In consideration of complementary rules, one must examine the commercial context of intellectual properties contracts, contractual forms of the license, and nature of subject-matter (Information). In consideration of mandatory legal rules, the legal system of innovations must be identified accurately, and its applicable rules will be analyzed and codified in the light of them.
 

Keywords

• License
• Contract law
• complementary rules
• commercial custom
• foundations of innovation’s system
• legal and economic analysis

References

1.  

                                                                                 

   25. Allart, Henri, (1887) De La Propriété Des Brevets D'Invention, Arthur Rousseau, Paris.
   26. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, (2000) Who's Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution, 53 Vanda. L. Rev.
   27. Brennan, Lorin, Esq. and Jeff Dodd, Esq, (2016) A Concept Proposal for a Model Intellectual Property Contracting Law, available in uncitral.org/pdf/english/colloquia/3rdSecTrans/.
   28. Broacher, Jean, (2006) Contracting out of article 2 using a "license" label: a strategy that should not work for software products, 40 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 261, 280 Provided by: University of Washington Law Library.
   29. Byrne, Noel & McBratney ,Amanda,(2005) Licensing Technology, Negotiating & Drafting
   30. Calabresi,Guido  (1968)  , Transaction Costs, Resource Allocation and Liability Rules: A Comment Journal of law and Econemis,No2,pp 67-98.
   1. D. Marchese,(2009) “Warranties and Covenants In IP Licenses,” Journal Of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 4, no. 3 January 18
   32. Devlin, Alan, (2010) the Misunderstood Function of Disclosure in Patent Law, 23 Harv. J.L. & Tech.
   33. Duffy, John F., (2004) Rethinking the Prospect Theory of Patents, 71 U. CHI. L. REV.
   34. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., (1989) Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev.
   35. Federal reporter, volume 89, 3rd Series, Minnesota, west Publishing.
   36. Hargrives HeaP, Shaun. P (2004) Economic Rationality, uk, Edward Elgar Publisher.
   37. Hargrives Heap,sharpe  (2004 )Economic Rationality,Elgar publisher, London.
   38. Kimball, Dennis R., (1981) Strict Tort Liability of Inventors for Defective and Dangerous Inventions: The Issue May Be On the Horizon, 10 CAP. U. L. REv. 803, 815-17.
   39. Kingma, Bruce R.(2001), The Economics Of Information , a Guide to Economic and Coast Benefit analysis. For Information professional, Englewood Colorado, 2ed Libraries.
   40. Kissman, Lee ,(2004)Revised Article 2 and Mixed Goods/Information Transactions: Implications for Courts, Santa Clara Law Review Volume 44 | Number 2 A

   Ladas ,Stephen, (1975) Patents, Trademarks, and Related Rights: international protection, V 1,Harvard university Press

   41. Lemley ,Mark A .(20012)The Myth of the Sole Inventor , Michigan Law Review, Vol. 110:709
   42. Lemley, Mark A.Ragesh K. Tangri, (2003) Ending Patent Law's Willfulness Game, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1085, 1100-01
   43. Leonard, Penny, (2003), Promoting Welfare? Government Information policy and social citizenship, The Police Press.
   44. Lichtman, Doug,(2005) Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Maurer and Nard, 93 Geo. L.J. n.42
   45. Manfred, Lowisch (2003) Nw Law of Obligations in Germany, Ritsumeikan Law Review No. 20
   46. Marchese, David, (2009) Warranties and covenants in IP licenses Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3.
   47. Meislik Ira, Horn Dennis, (2010)The Commercial Lease Formbook: Expert Tools for Drafting and Negotiation, Second Edition, ABA Publishing,
   48. Nimmer, Raymond T, (1998) Breaking Barriers: The Relation between Contract and Intellectual Property Law, Berkeley technology law journal, 13:827.
   49. Nimmer, Raymond T, (2006) Essay on Article 2's Irrelevance to Licensing Agreements, An, 40 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 235, 260 Provided by: University of Washington Law Library
   50. Nimmer, Raymond T., (2000) Through the Looking Glass: What Courts and UCITA Say about the Scope of Contract Law in the Information Age, 38 Duq. L. Rev. 255, 318 Provided by: University of Washington Law Library
   51. Oddi, Samuel, (1996) Un-Unified Economic Theories of Patents-The Not-Quite-Holy Grail, 71 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 267, 275-77.
   52. Pejovic , Svetozar , (2012), Economic analysis of institutions and systems, Springer , Kluwer Academic publishers
   53. Plantinga, Alvin(1993) Warrant the current Debate, Oxford University Press, New York.
   54. Posner,Richrd(1973) Economic analysis of law, Aspenser publisher, New York.
   55. Raysman, Richard, Pisacreta, Edward A., Ostrow, Seth H., Adler, Kenneth A, (2006) intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis, law journal press, New York.
   56. Robert B. Doe and Jen C. Salyers, (2007) the law and business of computer software (west Services, Inc., Ch. 18 (2d ed.) published in KATHERYN A. ANDRESEN.
   57. Singleton, solveig, (2005) IP as conflict resolution: a micro view of IP, San Diego law review, vole, 42 issue, 2005.
   58. Smith, A.Stophen(2004) contract theory: 'Introduction to General Theories' and 'the Justification of Contractual Obligations, Oxford University Press, New York.
   59. Stigler ,George,j (1996) The Theory of price, Macmilan,3 ed, New York.
   60. Technology Transfer Agreements, 3rd ed., Jordan’s Publishing Limited.
   61. Vivien , Irish, Intellectual Property Rights for Engineers, Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, United Kingdom ,2nd Edition, 2008
   62. William T. Vukowich, (1968) Implied Warranties in Patent, Know-How and Technical Assistance Licensing Agreements, California law review, Vol. 56:168, pp168-197.