Here is my annotated bibliography. The first source by Jennings is done. The rest of the sources have the Abstracts of the articles. I will need you to annotate them for me. Basically summarize the ar

Intellectual Property: Suing for your Ideas

Baffour Gyau

BUS 635

Professor Gordon A. Dexheimer

September 22, 2018

Intellectual Property: Suing for your Ideas

Jennings, M. M. (2018). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 11th Edition. [Chegg]. Retrieved from https://ereader.chegg.com/#/books/9781337514392/

This book effectively illustrates how law and ethics apply to issues in the workplace and emphasizes real-world applications of Business Law. Jennings dedicates Chapter 15 of this book to Business and Intellectual Property Law. This book, and this chapter specifically is relevant to the research topic because it breaks explains the different types of intellectual property, talks about the legal protections for intellectual property and the remedies that exist for its protection.

Claeys, E. R. (2018). Intellectual property and practical reason. Jurisprudence, 9(2), 251–275. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umary.edu/10.1080/20403313.2017.1386460

neglect an important dimension of reasoning about rights—practical reason In perfectionist theories of law, ‘practical reason’ describes the principles by which general justifications for rights are implemented in specific decisions in politics and ethics. This article introduces practical reason to IP scholarship, and it shows how practical reason facilitates reasoning about the design of different legal IP rights. The article illustrates with patent’s novelty requirement, copyright’s originality requirement, copyright’s idea-expression distinction, and the duration limits for various forms of intellectual property

Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 329-343. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5

This is an example of a summary annotation. This article focuses on the role of social capital in responsible leadership. It looks at both the social networks that a leader builds within an organization, and the links that a leader creates with external stakeholders. Maak’s main aim with this article seems to be to persuade people of the importance of continued research into the abilities that a leader requires and how they can be acquired.

Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 329-343. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5

This is an example of an evaluative annotation. This article focuses on the role of social capital in responsible leadership. It looks at both the social networks that a leader builds within an organization, and the links that a leader creates with external stakeholders. Maak’s main aim with this article seems to be to persuade people of the importance of continued research into the abilities that a leader requires and how they can be acquired.

The focus on the world of multinational business means that for readers outside this world many of the conclusions seem rather obvious (be part of the solution not part of the problem). In spite of this, the article provides useful background information on the topic of responsible leadership and definitions of social capital which are relevant to an analysis of a public servant.

Haiyan Liu. (2018). In the shadow of criminalisation: intellectual property criminal law, enforcement institutions and practices in China and the United States. Information & Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 185–220. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umary.edu/10.1080/13600834.2018.1458451

This article provides an extensive overview of major intellectual property rights (IPR) criminal enforcement agencies and judicial institutions; criminal enforcement rates and trends; recent major enforcement operations; and the substantive criminal IP law and sentencing regulations in the United States and China. Substantive criminal IP laws and enforcement practices manifest a consistent pattern of increased criminalisation of IP infringements and politically motivated sweeping campaigns to enhance enforcement in both countries, not only on the books but also in action. In addition, documentary and descriptive statistical analyses reveal that various aspects of the criminal enforcement institutions and practices in the two countries differ notably. Then a comparative legal analysis indicates that the U.S. criminal law on IP thefts is more updated and comprehensive with the promulgation of several new IP acts. In addition, types and severity of sanctions that IP offences carry diverge greatly between the two countries. More importantly, how punitive the system appears on the books does not always tally with what happens in practice. Finally, I provide policy recommendations for improving IP enforcement in China, from better and more frequent collaboration during enforcement to enhancing institutional capacity of the enforcement agencies. Recommendations are also made for China to modify its substantive criminal IP law and promulgate a detailed sentencing guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Halbert, D. (2016). Intellectual property theft and national security: Agendas and assumptions. Information Society, 32(4), 256–268. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umary.edu/10.1080/01972243.2016.1177762

About a decade ago, intellectual property started getting systematically treated as a national security threat to the United States. The scope of the threat is broadly conceived to include hacking, trade secret theft, file sharing, and even foreign students enrolling in American universities. In each case, the national security of the United States is claimed to be at risk, not just its economic competitiveness. This article traces the U.S. government's efforts to establish and articulate intellectual property theft as a national security issue. It traces the discourse on intellectual property as a security threat and its place within the larger security dialogue of cyberwar and cybersecurity. It argues that the focus on the theft of intellectual property as a security issue helps justify enhanced surveillance and control over the Internet and its future development. Such a framing of intellectual property has consequences for how we understand information exchange on the Internet and for the future of U.S. diplomatic relations around the globe.

Wexler, R. (2018). Life, Liberty, and Trade Secrets: Intellectual Property in the Criminal Justice System. Stanford Law Review, 70(5), 1343–1429. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umary.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130238908&site=ehost-live

The criminal justice system is becoming automated. At every stage, from policing to evidence to parole, machine learning and other computer systems guide outcomes. Widespread debates over the pros and cons of these technologies have overlooked a crucial issue: ownership. Developers often claim that details about how their tools work are trade secrets and refuse to disclose that information to criminal defendants or their attorneys. The introduction of intellectual property claims into the criminal justice system raises undertheorized tensions between life, liberty, and property interests. This Article offers the first wide-ranging account of trade secret evidence in criminal cases and develops a framework to address the problems that result. In sharp contrast to the general view among trial courts, legislatures, and scholars alike, this Article argues that trade secrets should not be privileged in criminal proceedings. A criminal trade secret privilege is ahistorical, harmful to defendants, and unnecessary to protect the interests of the secret holder. Meanwhile, compared to substantive trade secret law, the privilege overprotects intellectual property. Further, privileging trade secrets in criminal proceedings fails to serve the theoretical purposes behind either trade secret law or privilege law. The trade secret inquiry sheds new light on how evidence rules do, and should, function differently in civil and criminal cases.

Sheff, J. N. (2016). Values, Questions, and Methods in Intellectual Property. St. John’s Law Review, 90(3), 549–564. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umary.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=121908996&site=ehost-live

The article focuses on the differences in legal academic disciplines in intellectual property (IP) and how societies could reasonably disagree about whether patents produce more embarrassment than advantage. It mentions international legal instruments such as Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and bilateral and multilateral trade agreements on copyright law. It also mentions aspect of litigation costs for IP rights