Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 SEPTEMBER 2021

Who Owns The Internet?

Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Explore more from Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.

In this day and age, so much of our professional and personal life exists on the internet. This has become especially true over the last half-dozen years — and with much of the world at home...

LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer
Dennemeyer
Author LinkedIn connections

In this day and age, so much of our professional and personal life exists on the internet. This has become especially true over the last half-dozen years — and with much of the world at home during the COVID-19 pandemic, the internet was the conduit through which we stayed connected to family, friends and colleagues.

It is fascinating — and more than a little bit complicated — to think about a system as vast and multifaceted as the internet from an Intellectual Property (IP) perspective. We must first examine some critical points of the internet's early history and take a look at its present-day makeup to answer any question regarding "ownership."

Who invented the internet?

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UPC CoA Confirms “gold Standard” For Added Matter In Sibio v Abbott

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.