Confirmatory Assignment Ukur

There are certain recurring forms of agreement in the IP world that remain a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps none is more puzzling than the so-called "confirmatory assignment." For my sins, perhaps, after a long hiatus, I encountered several versions of confirmatory assignment over the last month.

This got me to thinking about the why and what of a confirmatory assignment, assuming that the putative confirmation relates to an unwritten assignment of rights that took place at an earlier point in time. So what are my difficulties with a confirmatory assignment? Let me mention the following:

1. Depending upon the applicable IP rights and related law of contract of the jurisdiction, to what extent can an unwritten agreement validly assign IP rights?

2. Assuming that an unwritten assigment is valid, what is the evidentiary showing that is required?

3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required?

4. Is the evidentiary showing different in connection with establishing the validity of the assignment in the context of a transaction?

5. How can a purchaser receive sufficient comfort about the validity of the assignment, or is it a matter of risk allocation depending upon the positon of the parties?

6. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ once again in the context of a court proceeding?

7. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ yet again iin the context of taxation?

8. Is a confirmatory assignment a form of ratification?

9. If it not a form of ratification, what is the proper legal characterization for the agreement?

10. In light of all of the foregoing, does the confirmatory assignment confer any benefit to the parties, other evidentiary or substantive?
Any readers with thoughts about these questions are urged to share them.

Ridwan Saptoto

Abstract

Many intelligence test administered designed as paper and pencil test. Testee give answer by making cross or simple straight diagonal line in the answer sheet. But efficiency demand in this time make it administered using computer answer sheet, and testee forced to give answer by blackening answer dots using 2B computer pencil in answer sheet. This method reduce testee time to think the right answer, and may influence intelligence test result. Poorly, many tester did not gave added time. They still use original standard administering time. This study aimed to compare time to fill answer sheet and intelligence test results, between testee who did test with paper and pencil answer sheet and testee who did test with computer answer sheet. Researcher using stopwatch to measure time to fill answer sheet and CFIT to measure intelligence. Experiment method choseed in this study. Simple design with repeated sample used in first experiment step. Prior, subjects were assigned to fill answer sheet by streak. And then they assigned to give answer by blackening answer dots. Data analysis show that there were significant difference between first and second assignment (F = 192.192, p < 0.05). Two independent group design used in the second experiment step. Subjects were randomly assigned to join control group or experiment group. This assignment makes both groups stand in same condition before experiment implemented. Subjects in control group did test using paper and pencil answer sheet, while subjects in experiment group did test using computer answer sheet. Means of both group then compared using independent sample t test. Data analysis show that there were significant difference in intelligence level between control group and experiment group in CFIT A (t = 1.681, p < 0.05; one tailed), CFIT B (t = 2.289, p < 0.05; one tailed), and CFIT A and B (t = 1.819, p < 0.05; one tailed). Control group consistently higher in intelligence test results than experiment group.read more

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *