For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Wednesday, 1 March 2006

IP SHORTIES - SIX OF THE BEST!


Today the IPKat has brought some choice snippets for your delectation. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Gowers review

The Gowers review of IP law in the UK has been mentioned a couple of times on this blog (see posts here and here). Gowers has now formally issued its call for evidence, which must be received by Friday 21 April 2006.

Merpel notes that the Gowers review logo (right) is suggestive of the three balls symbol of the pawnbroker. Is this a clue to the review's attitude towards IP securitisation?

Gowers review website here.


2. Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

It is only very recently that the IPKat has discovered the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) which, its website states,

"is devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of social science research and is composed of a number of specialized research networks in each of the social sciences.

Each of SSRN's networks encourages the early distribution of research results by publishing Submitted abstracts and by soliciting abstracts of top quality research papers around the world. We now have hundreds of journals, publishers, and institutions in Partners in Publishing that provide working papers for distribution through SSRN's eLibrary and abstracts for publication in SSRN's electronic journals".
The Kat wonders how many of his readers use the SSRN and how useful they find it from an IP perspective. Comments are welcome - you can post them below.


3. The CAFC and product-by-process claims

The IPKat's friend Duncan Bucknell has drawn his attention to SmithKline v Apotex, a recent decision of the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit which appears to be at odds with conventional US thinking on the application of patent law novelty principles to product-by-process claims.

Duncan's comments can be read here.


4. Forthcoming attraction

The European Court of Justice is closed this week, to enable the overworked judges to catch up on their sleep. Next week, fresh from their slumbers, they give their ruling in Case C-421/04 Matratzen Concord v Hukla Germany, which considers the registrability in Spain of the word MATRATZEN. This word, which in Spanish has no meaning at all, is the German word for "mattress".


5. Chinese whispers

One of the IPKat's stealthier pals has sent him this link to a piece from Managing Intellectual Property on the new Chinese domain name dispute resolution policy. The new rules, which come into force on 17 March, make three main changes to the existing one:

* a new time bar will prevent people filing complaints about .cn domain names that were registered more than two years earlier. After that period, trade mark owners will have to file a civil lawsuit in the Chinese courts.

* "bad faith" will be narrowly defined as "registering for the purpose of selling, hiring or assigning to the civil right owner or to their competitors to obtain unjustified benefits". Complainants will need to show evidence that the .cn holder tried to sell, hire or assign the rights in the website name to the right owner or a competitor. Evidence obtained by way of anonymous approaches will no longer be enough to prove bad faith.

* registrants only need to show that they have used the domain name in good faith to provide goods or services, that they have not obtained trade marks but have acquired a certain reputation through use, or that they have legitimately used the domain name for commercial or non-commercial purposes without intending to mislead the public.
The IPKat can't help feeling that the policing and protection of all available domain names is a time-wasting and costly exercise for most legitimate traders and it doesn't seem to benefit consumers or competition policy.


6. Badscience

The Badscience website comes recommended by the IPKat's friend Michael Harman. It is piloted by Dr Ben Goldacre, whose mission is to share his deep suspicion of the way the media depict science. He also articulates concern at the way science is subjected to dumbing down.

Given that patentability of an invention may be barred on morality or public policy grounds by media-influenced (mis)impressions, this site is not without its relevance to the IP community. Ironically, it is through the media that Dr Goldacre disseminates much of his sharp wit, as a columnist with The Guardian newspaper.

6 comments:

Ilanah said...

I use it as of last night, when I seredipitously and quite by fluke also discovered it.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with you about management and prevention of "genuine" domain name hijackers. Proactive control is far easier and cheaper than a cure. Also I suggest that consumers do not benefit from being led astray online.

Paul G said...

The SSRN is a great resource. I regularly consult the 'Cyberspace Law' and 'Intellectual Property Law' subject matter journals (accessible via the left hand frame on the front page) for articles on various IP-related themes. Articles are regularly made available in near final form many months before they are actually published. At present it is somewhat dominated by U.S. scholarship, but this would appear to be changing.

As an author - and in light of the self-archiving policies now adopted by many journals - it is a good place to make your own works publicly available. Uploading your works is straightforward (although you do have to create your own PDFs) and there are even real people (!) to help you out if you get in a tizzy.

Dev Gangjee said...

I'm a huge fan of SSRN and have been for a while - in addition to Paul's mention of the IP and Cyberspace Law abstracts, of particular relevance for IPKat readers would be the International Trade Law abstracts as well, which often cover TRIPS issues.

Dariusz Czuchaj said...

The SSRN is a great thing for less developed countries, in which the universities cannot afford to subscribe the latest (mostly expensive) journals or books. I can speak for myself - my master thesis concerned software patents in comparative approach (USA, UE). Our library had offered me some books and journals from the late '70, although our IP institute library is perceived to be the best one in Poland. Thanks to free access to SSRN I could use the knowledge of M.Lemly, Shapiro, Megers, etc. which normally would be inaccessible. For me and for my friends that's most important advantage of SSRN.

Andres Guadamuz said...

I am a great fan of SSRN, where I have made most of my articles available. Shameless plug to follow:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=387238

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':