Innovation starts with an idea—your idea. You discover a problem to solve or a gap to fill. Sometimes it starts with a fleeting thought that keeps coming back, or it's a tug that won't let go. Then it starts waking you up at night or it just won't let you sleep. Your idea demands attention. It wants to go places, and you decide that you're the one to take it there.
What if you also decide to treat that idea as a valuable business asset right from the beginning? That's what intellectual property IP is all about.
Imagine that your next-door neighbour asked you to describe what you do. Would you use any of these words? If so, then you need to know about IP. IP is all around us. The inventions and products that we use every day all had their beginnings as IP. IP is what you create, invent or develop as a result of your intellectual activity.
IP is valuable, and just like other types of property you own, it comes with legal rights. There is no monopoly on good ideas. People discover new things every day. As you develop your idea into something tangible—whether that means building your business or designing and creating a product to manufacture or sell—someone else might be doing the same thing.
Protecting your creation helps protect your ability to reap the benefits of your hard work. What if you could look 5 or 10 years into the future? What will your creation look like? Will your company be a household name? Will you have a product in everyone's kitchen? Will you be making money from licensing agreements? Whatever your goals are, use your IP rights to help you achieve them. And don't be afraid to think big. After all, it was your ingenuity.
Inventing something new is a process. You do research. You try things. Some work, some don't. When you invent, you learn. And you create IP. Virtually every innovation has some type of IP, right from the moment you start bringing your idea to life.
Many businesses—both big and small—use their IP to introduce innovations to Canadians and bring new products into the marketplace. What if your "original creation of the mind" is next? Start giving your IP the attention it deserves. IP rights protect you as a creator. There are 4 main types of IP rights, and more than 1 might apply to your creation. What if you wrote a song that is catching fire on Internet radio? You own the copyright to that work.
Copyright means the sole right to produce or reproduce a work—or a substantial part of it—in any form. What if you have a name for your new business that's clever and catchy and that describes the essence of you and your product? You have created a trademark for your company. A trademark is what identifies your goods or services in the public mind.
What if you are creating a new inkless, erasable marker that works on paper, whiteboards and glass? It might be eligible for a patent. Patents protect original inventions and can be applied to products, processes, machines, chemical compositions and improvements to any of these. What if you are developing a cool new item of wearable technology? You may be able to protect its novel look as an industrial design.
Industrial design is about how something looks. It protects the visual features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament, or any combination of these features applied to a finished article. In other words, it protects the appearance of a product.
Did you create an original literary or artistic work? You can register your copyright. Have you established a business? Make sure your company name, logo or slogan doesn't infringe on someone else's trademark. Search the Canadian Trademarks Database to find out if it has already been filed or registered. Are you creating a new product or design? If you are coming into Canada with a firearm, please fill out a Non-Resident Firearms Declaration form before you arrive at your entry point into Canada to save you time.
After a CBSA customs officer signs your Declaration, it is a temporary licence and it is valid for 60 days. You do not need a licence if you want to borrow a firearm in Canada, as long as you are under the direct and immediate supervision of a licensed adult.
You will need a sponsor associated with the intended activity, for example, an outfitter or a Canadian resident licensed to hunt in the province where you will be hunting. The sponsor can apply on your behalf. To have a firearm in Canada, you must have a PAL. A PAL allows you to get and have a specified class, or classes, of firearms.
You must meet the firearms-safety training requirements before you apply for a PAL. Accordingly, this guarantee was omitted from the Charter contained in the proposed resolution of October In the absence of a consensus on this issue, the government was prepared to defer it to the "second round" of constitutional reform, when it could be incorporated pursuant to the amending formula in the new Constitution.
During the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada in , the Progressive Conservative Party proposed an amendment to s. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Through acting Minister of Justice Robert Kaplan, the government first indicated a willingness to agree to this amendment. After the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in April , the issue lay dormant for a year, at least at the federal level.
In September , the British Columbia Legislature had unanimously passed a resolution seeking an amendment of s. Accordingly, on 21 April , Prime Minister Trudeau stated in the House of Commons that if the opposition parties agreed to limit debate to one day, the government would introduce a resolution entrenching in s. The Conservative Party agreed with this proposal. The New Democratic Party, however, wanted more detailed consideration of the matter. It did not oppose a property rights guarantee per se , but wanted the matter referred to a parliamentary committee which could report after hearing from concerned members of the public and representatives of the provinces.
Representatives of the NDP were concerned about such matters as: the effect of a guarantee on provincial legislation regulating non-resident ownership of land; the ability of governments to legislate on and control unique types of "property," such as data bank information; legislation providing mortgage relief; legislation preserving farmland and recreational land; legislation regulating businesses, such as legislation setting a minimum wage; and legislation dealing with the division of matrimonial property.
While negotiations were proceeding to try to accommodate the concerns of the NDP, the Conservative Party introduced, in the form of a non-confidence motion, a resolution containing a proposed amendment to s. This move brought the process to a halt. The government, not surprisingly, would not vote in favour of a non-confidence motion.
This ensured defeat of the proposed amendment. Further, since the rules of the House forbade the reconsideration in the same session of a question that had been negatived, such an amendment could not be considered again until the next session of Parliament. Effectively, the Conservative motion prevented further consideration of a property rights amendment in the first session of the 32 nd Parliament. The Conservative motion could have been withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House, but the NDP refused to agree.
On 2 May , the motion was defeated. In the second session of the 32 nd Parliament, which began in December and concluded in June , the issue of a property rights amendment did not arise. In one significant development after , on 15 October , Mr. John Reimer M. The motion, as amended, was adopted by a to 16 vote, and thus became a resolution of the House, as follows:.
That in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, should be amended in order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process.
Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, it can be repealed or amended only by the process of constitutional amendment. This is explicit in s. Amending the Charter to include a reference to property rights in s. Section 38 2 requires a resolution supported by a majority of the members of the legislature, rather than a majority of those present and voting, if the proposed amendment "derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province.
Section 38 3 permits the legislative assembly of a province to "opt out" by passing a resolution of dissent to an amendment of the kind described as s.
If there were more than three dissenting provinces, the amendment would not have the required support of two-thirds of the provinces and would therefore be defeated. The procedures for amendment "may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province" s.
Once the authority for an amendment has been provided by the requisite number of resolutions of assent, s. Under s. The intent here is to allow each legislative assembly sufficient time to consider the proposal.
In its constitutional package announced in September , the federal government simply proposed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to guarantee property rights. This was the only reference made to property rights. No indication was given as to how "property" would be defined if such rights were entrenched in the Charter. Similarly, no definition of "property" had been included in earlier proposals to entrench property rights in the Charter, neither at the time of the committee hearing on the Constitution in nor later in the House of Commons.
If property rights were entrenched in the Charter but the term "property" were left undefined, Canadian courts would be given wide latitude to define the term for purposes of the provision. For example, they might define "property" to include only traditional types of property, such as tangible assets like real property, chattels, and traditionally recognized property such as stocks and debentures. This is the way the term has been interpreted in the United States. The Fifth Amendment to the U.
Constitution, passed in , provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The courts in the United States have interpreted "property" within the meaning of this constitutional provision to include the traditional types of property, such as tangible assets like real property and chattels, and also intangible assets, such as patents and copyright.
The courts have gone even further to include the so-called "new property," comprising various forms of government benefits. The American judicial position with respect to "new property" has been summarized as follows:.
0コメント