Hedge or Counterweight? New Constitutionalism and the Role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Intellectual Property Litigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter looks at Canadian intellectual property law through a new constitutionalist lens. Over the past few decades, Canada has been the target of several international measures in the area of IP law. The chapter examines these measures through the lens of the theory of new constitutionalism. Doing so suggests that these measures have certain significant similarities: they all seek to use international trade law as a means through which to lock in strong protections for owners under Canada's IP system and to limit the ability of either the Government of Canada or Canadian courts to shape IP laws so as to constrain the exclusive rights of IP owners. Beginning from the position that IP rights ought to ‘serve human values’, the chapter proceeds by considering whether, and to what extent, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter) can produce counter-norms to those promoting strong protection for right-holders that are provided by international trade law. It argues that while the Canadian Charter has traditionally had little impact on Canada's IP system, it can and ought to play a more prominent role in this area by helping to preserve space for the Government of Canada to legislate in the public interest.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".