31
Law / Re: What is unfair competition?
« on: May 08, 2015, 09:13:00 PM »
News:
Daffodil International University Forum contains information about Open Text material, which is only intended for the significant learning purposes of the university students, faculty, other members, and the knowledge seekers of the entire world and is hoped that the offerings will aide in the distribution of reliable information and data relating to the many areas of knowledge.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
32
Law / Re: What is unfair competition?
« on: May 01, 2015, 03:25:52 PM »
"শুধুমাত্র লাইফবয়ই পারে জীবানু থেকে ১০০% সুরক্ষা দিতে" এ ধরনের বক্তব্য বিজ্ঞাপনে ব্যবহার করা কি আনফেয়ার কম্পিটিশন নয়?
33
Law / Re: What is Patent?
« on: May 01, 2015, 03:20:36 PM »
Thanks for sharing. Actually World intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has extensive literature on their website regarding IPR and also has the domestic laws of member countries related to IPs. Those materials and extremely helpful for people who are keen on knowing IPR.
34
Law / Students at one Baltimore law school may take exams at home
« on: May 01, 2015, 03:02:37 PM »
Law students scheduled to take final exams at the University of Maryland’s law school in Baltimore beginning on Monday got a concession amid rioting and protests in the city.
The school announced that students could take exams at home at the time of their choice, within a 48-hour period, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The exam period began on Monday.
Students taking the exams at home must download testing software that blocks access to hard drives or the Internet, which is intended to prevent cheating.
The exam period hasn’t begun yet at the University of Baltimore’s law school.
Meanwhile, the University of the District of Columbia’s law school offered to delay one final exam for students who provide legal support for Baltimore protesters, the NLJ story says. Advance approval is needed. Its final exams began on Wednesday.
Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/students_at_one_baltimore_law_school_may_take_exams_at_home
The school announced that students could take exams at home at the time of their choice, within a 48-hour period, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The exam period began on Monday.
Students taking the exams at home must download testing software that blocks access to hard drives or the Internet, which is intended to prevent cheating.
The exam period hasn’t begun yet at the University of Baltimore’s law school.
Meanwhile, the University of the District of Columbia’s law school offered to delay one final exam for students who provide legal support for Baltimore protesters, the NLJ story says. Advance approval is needed. Its final exams began on Wednesday.
Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/students_at_one_baltimore_law_school_may_take_exams_at_home
35
Law / Want a .law domain? File your 'expression of interest'
« on: April 16, 2015, 09:03:52 AM »
A CEO overseeing the distribution of the new .law domain is getting the word out to lawyers and marketers who may be interested in registering for names such as chicagoprobate.law or denveraccidentlawyer.law.
Lou Andreozzi, CEO of the .law division of Minds + Machines, appeared this week to talk about the domain application process at the Legal Marketing Association annual meeting in San Diego. Next he heads to an event in Las Vegas for plaintiffs lawyers called Mass Torts Made Perfect.
“We’re trying to get the message out,” Andreozzi tells the ABA Journal.
Minds + Machines has the exclusive license to operate the new .law domain from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, according to previous coverage by LawSites by Robert Ambrogi.
Minds + Machines said in a press release that it was partnering with the Legal Marketing Association to allow its members to submit an expression of early interest in .law domain names.
But that doesn’t mean others can’t submit their own expressions of interest, Andreozzi says. Those who submit an expression of interest aren’t obligated to buy the domain, but they will be allowed to purchase it when .law becomes generally available, if no one else expresses an interest. When more than one person is interested, an auction is held. Andreozzi says the date of general availability will probably be Sept. 1.
Standard names such as johnsmith.law will cost $200, while premium names such as ohiodivorce.law will start at $500. The cost will be based on factors such as the number of characters, and the value of certain practice areas.
Anyone who applies for a .law domain will have to certify that he or she is a lawyer and submit to a verification process. Lawyers can apply on behalf of themselves, their law firms and their companies.
Andreozzi is a former chairman of Bloomberg Law and former CEO of LexisNexis North American Legal Markets, Martindale-Hubbell and lawyers.com. He tells the ABA Journal his company wants to avoid the situation that happened with dot-com domains, where savvy applicants bought up the best URLs. “We want [the domains] to get in the hands of people who will use them,” he says.
Other new domains of interest to lawyers will also become available, according to the LawSites story. They include .attorney, .esq and .lawyer.
See more: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/legal_marketers_get_early_crack_at_law_domain_names
Lou Andreozzi, CEO of the .law division of Minds + Machines, appeared this week to talk about the domain application process at the Legal Marketing Association annual meeting in San Diego. Next he heads to an event in Las Vegas for plaintiffs lawyers called Mass Torts Made Perfect.
“We’re trying to get the message out,” Andreozzi tells the ABA Journal.
Minds + Machines has the exclusive license to operate the new .law domain from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, according to previous coverage by LawSites by Robert Ambrogi.
Minds + Machines said in a press release that it was partnering with the Legal Marketing Association to allow its members to submit an expression of early interest in .law domain names.
But that doesn’t mean others can’t submit their own expressions of interest, Andreozzi says. Those who submit an expression of interest aren’t obligated to buy the domain, but they will be allowed to purchase it when .law becomes generally available, if no one else expresses an interest. When more than one person is interested, an auction is held. Andreozzi says the date of general availability will probably be Sept. 1.
Standard names such as johnsmith.law will cost $200, while premium names such as ohiodivorce.law will start at $500. The cost will be based on factors such as the number of characters, and the value of certain practice areas.
Anyone who applies for a .law domain will have to certify that he or she is a lawyer and submit to a verification process. Lawyers can apply on behalf of themselves, their law firms and their companies.
Andreozzi is a former chairman of Bloomberg Law and former CEO of LexisNexis North American Legal Markets, Martindale-Hubbell and lawyers.com. He tells the ABA Journal his company wants to avoid the situation that happened with dot-com domains, where savvy applicants bought up the best URLs. “We want [the domains] to get in the hands of people who will use them,” he says.
Other new domains of interest to lawyers will also become available, according to the LawSites story. They include .attorney, .esq and .lawyer.
See more: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/legal_marketers_get_early_crack_at_law_domain_names
36
Law of Bangladesh / Re: What does copyright protect?
« on: April 10, 2015, 11:37:33 PM »
Useful information indeed! Thanks.
38
Law / Re: Respite for children
« on: April 10, 2015, 10:10:41 AM »
We need to put these things into practice otherwise the law would not bring any change in the scenario.
39
Law / Re: Why should Bangladesh care about protecting intellectual property rights?
« on: April 10, 2015, 10:06:13 AM »
IPR protection in the developing countries has both positive and negative aspects. While the developed countries will always press upon tightening our IPR laws because they own most of the modern inventions. We need to carefully assess our stance before taking their prescription.
40
Law / Re: On violence during hartal
« on: April 10, 2015, 09:59:46 AM »
Good piece! Thanks for sharing.
41
Law / Freedom of expression: A myth or a right?
« on: April 04, 2015, 12:56:25 PM »
KM Ashbarul Bari, Nusrat Jahan
The Supreme Court of India has recently given a judgment upholding the status of the right to free speech and expression. It repealed Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act holding the same as unconstitutional as it stroke the very root of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
Section 66A reads: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”
The petitioner contended that the Section 66A infringes upon the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and is not covered by any of the eight exceptions provided by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The words of the Section are not defined which leaves scope for arbitrary use by anyone. The enforcement of the said section would be an insidious form of censorship which impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)(a) that talks of freedom of expression.
Though it was argued that the government would not use the section arbitrarily, there was no guarantee that successive governments would not misuse it. The petitioners also contended that this section would have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. It is also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution on grounds of discrimination as it punishes a person just because he is using a particular mode of communication.
Although the defence argued by contending that mere possibility of abuse does not render a particular provision unconstitutional, the court declared the section unconstitutional considering a number of issues, eg ambit of public order, chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, reasonable restriction and so on.
The court held that the section does not specify the distinction between mere discussion, advocacy to a particular view and an incitement. Moreover, whether a particular act is offensive or not varies from person to person. Moreover, as the section has a wide amplitude, it takes in the innocent as well as guilty. It creates a ban on all sorts of demonstrations even if it is innocent and thus endangers public tranquility. As there is ample opportunity for it to be used for purposes not sanctioned by the constitution, the same is unconstitutional.
In Bangladesh, we have a similar provision, ie Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006 which makes it an offence if any person deliberately publishes fake and obscene things, things that may induce a person to do immoral acts, causes defamation, deteriorates law and order, tarnishes the image of the state or a person or hurts religious sentiment of the people, on a website or on other electronic form.
The punishment provided for the aforesaid offence is imprisonment for a period of maximum 14 years and minimum seven years. Moreover, the offence is non-bailable which means court will generally not give bail unless the accused can satisfy the court that there is no reasonable case against him. Additionally, police may arrest a person accused of committing the crime under this section any time without obtaining an arrest warrant from the magistrate.
Section 57 of our ICT Act restricts the freedom of expression which is guaranteed in Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Words and phrases of the section are not well defined so as to leave room for the law enforces to abuse the provision. All these make this provision even more draconian than that of section 66A of the IT Act of India which the Indian Supreme Court has declared as null and void. Will we learn from our neighbour?
KM Ashbarul Bari And Nusrat Jahan are LLM students, Department of Law, University of Dhaka.
See more at: http://www.dhakatribune.com/juris/2015/apr/04/freedom-expression-myth-or-right#sthash.0lUwp2oN.dpuf
The Supreme Court of India has recently given a judgment upholding the status of the right to free speech and expression. It repealed Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act holding the same as unconstitutional as it stroke the very root of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
Section 66A reads: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”
The petitioner contended that the Section 66A infringes upon the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and is not covered by any of the eight exceptions provided by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The words of the Section are not defined which leaves scope for arbitrary use by anyone. The enforcement of the said section would be an insidious form of censorship which impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)(a) that talks of freedom of expression.
Though it was argued that the government would not use the section arbitrarily, there was no guarantee that successive governments would not misuse it. The petitioners also contended that this section would have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. It is also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution on grounds of discrimination as it punishes a person just because he is using a particular mode of communication.
Although the defence argued by contending that mere possibility of abuse does not render a particular provision unconstitutional, the court declared the section unconstitutional considering a number of issues, eg ambit of public order, chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, reasonable restriction and so on.
The court held that the section does not specify the distinction between mere discussion, advocacy to a particular view and an incitement. Moreover, whether a particular act is offensive or not varies from person to person. Moreover, as the section has a wide amplitude, it takes in the innocent as well as guilty. It creates a ban on all sorts of demonstrations even if it is innocent and thus endangers public tranquility. As there is ample opportunity for it to be used for purposes not sanctioned by the constitution, the same is unconstitutional.
In Bangladesh, we have a similar provision, ie Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006 which makes it an offence if any person deliberately publishes fake and obscene things, things that may induce a person to do immoral acts, causes defamation, deteriorates law and order, tarnishes the image of the state or a person or hurts religious sentiment of the people, on a website or on other electronic form.
The punishment provided for the aforesaid offence is imprisonment for a period of maximum 14 years and minimum seven years. Moreover, the offence is non-bailable which means court will generally not give bail unless the accused can satisfy the court that there is no reasonable case against him. Additionally, police may arrest a person accused of committing the crime under this section any time without obtaining an arrest warrant from the magistrate.
Section 57 of our ICT Act restricts the freedom of expression which is guaranteed in Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Words and phrases of the section are not well defined so as to leave room for the law enforces to abuse the provision. All these make this provision even more draconian than that of section 66A of the IT Act of India which the Indian Supreme Court has declared as null and void. Will we learn from our neighbour?
KM Ashbarul Bari And Nusrat Jahan are LLM students, Department of Law, University of Dhaka.
See more at: http://www.dhakatribune.com/juris/2015/apr/04/freedom-expression-myth-or-right#sthash.0lUwp2oN.dpuf
42
Law / Re: Debate: Do Patents Help or Hinder Innovation?
« on: March 28, 2015, 10:12:50 PM »
There's been this argument against the patent system, for that matter against the whole IP regime for long. The open source software came as a big slap on the face of IP. However, IP prevailed with all its drawbacks and shortcomings. It's because the balance of convenience was in favour of IP. I wonder how may people will buy a toothpaste without a label on the tube even after knowing that the paste is indeed very good.
43
Law / Re: Appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court: Needs a fresh approach
« on: March 28, 2015, 10:00:39 PM »
The separation of Judiciary from the executive that we have in place is merely a paper tiger, except the fact that executive magistrates no longer enjoy judicial powers. Appointment of judges in our country is still dominated by Executive. We badly need a fresh approach here.
44
Law / Re: বণ্টন দলিল ও বাটোয়ারা মামলা
« on: March 28, 2015, 09:50:04 PM »
An informative piece for all. Thanks.
45
Law / Re: "There should not be any doubt about the trial process in Bangladesh"
« on: March 28, 2015, 09:48:34 PM »
Asish Nandi is a celebrated political psychologist and his theories are pretty popular among the south Asian youth now a days. I did not know that he visited Bangladesh recently. Is there any public lecture of him in Dhaka?