Intellectual Property and Private International Law: Comparative Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intellectual property and private international law' was one of the subjects discussed at the 18th International Congress of Comparative Law held in Washington (July 2010). This volume contains the General Report and 20 National Reports covering Canada, US, Japan, Korea, India and a number of European countries (Austria, France, Germany, UK, Spain etc). The General Report was prepared on the basis of National Reports. The national reporters not only describe the existing legal framework, but also provide answers to 12 hypothetical cases concerning international jurisdiction, choice-of-law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in multi-state IP disputes. Based on their answers the main differences between legal systems as well as the shortcomings of the cross-border enforcement of IP rights are outlined in the General Report. The Reports in this volume analyze relevant court decisions as well as recent legislative proposals (such as the ALI, CLIP, Transparency, Waseda and Korean Principles). This book is therefore a significant contribution to the existing debate in the field and will be a valuable source of reference in shaping future developments in the cross-border enforcement of IP rights in a global context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".