Your search
Results 292 resources
-
The remoteness enquiry in negligence, which serves to exclude the liability of defendants for harmful consequences that their careless conduct caused, but for which it seems unfair to penalise them, has long been beset by uncertainty. Indeed, a common view is that this area of the law can be explained only by reference to diffuse considerations of 'legal policy'. This paper, however, argues that the remoteness enquiry represents a principled response to a problem that can arise, at a deep level, in ascribing a harmful outcome to the negligent exercise of individual agency. The relevant problem concerns the possible mismatch between the hypothetical 'risk-claim' in virtue of which conduct was faulty and the causal set that subsequently materialised for harm. The 'revised risk theory' that emerges from this analysis accounts for the majority of remoteness determinations. However, a few exceptions are also considered where 'policy', in a restricted sense, operates to extend or curtail a negligent agent's legal responsibility.
-
Un article de la revue Revue du notariat, diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.
-
“No one has advanced a just and logical reason why reward for service to the public should be extended to the inventor of a mechanical toy and denied to the genius whose patience, foresight, and effort have given a valuable new [discovery] to mankind” (Katopis CJ. Patents v patents: policy implications of recent patent legislation. St John’s Law Review 1997;71:329). The law around the world permits the granting of patents for drugs, medical devices, and cosmetic treatment of the human body. At the same time, patentability for a method of treatment of the same body is denied in some countries on various public policy grounds. Is there any logical justification for this distinction? Are methods of medical treatment not as vital to the health or even to the life of a patient as drugs or medical devices? Why is a cosmetic result patentable and a curative result not?
-
As many authors have already observed, intellectual property increasingly permeates ordinary people’s daily lives. And yet, this area of law, reputed for its complexity and its constant evolution prompted by frequent legislative activities and case law developments, is to a great extent portrayed as the exclusive province of specialists. Nevertheless, patent law, like other legislative activity, must not be reserved to the experts: to the contrary it should be made accessible to the ordinary jurist and, whenever possible, to the general public. Accordingly, this article, which will appear in two parts, seeks to provide a concise text, aimed at those interested in a succinct overview of the present state of Canadian patent law. In this first part, we present the normative sources of the relevant Canadian legal regime and proceed to succinctly explain what can be patented and the conditions of patentability. The second part, to be published in an upcoming issue of the Review, will deal with the scope and limits of exclusive rights, the procedure to obtain patent protection and the duration of the legal protection.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.