You don't have to be an Einstein ...
IPKat reader David Pearce (Eric Potter Clarkson) writes:
"I have created a fully consolidated and hyperlinked version of the UK Patents Act and Rules. I have done this because I found it annoying and confusing the way the Act and Rules are highly intertwined but don't often actually refer to each other correctly. Also, the UK Patent Office has not chosen to go the way the EPO has with the European Patent Convention and make a properly linked version available online, but only a pdf consolidated version (useful though this is, what with all the recent changes).The IPKat is delighted to be able to publicise David's efforts and congratulates him on having done this. You don't have to be an Einstein to know how difficult it can be to navigate the various levels of UK law; this facility means you don't have to be an Einstein to do work your way through the legal provisions either.
Anyway, you or your colleagues may find it useful. It also may be useful for other IPKat readers, so if you want to publicise this I would be glad to distibute copies to anyone interested, and provide updates as time goes on. My hope is that it will turn into a more collaborative effort, and become even more useful".
Merpel adds, what we actually need is a Wikipatent, where users of the patent system can add comments, links, case references etc to the labyrithine primary and secondary legislation with which Europeans in general, and Brits in particular, must wrestle.
If you'd like a copy of David's file, email him here.
Don't forget UNESCO
The IPKat's friend Patricia Akester has just done a study for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on the Draft WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. This study is now published online for your delectation.
We spend so much time pondering over WIPO and the WTO that it's easy to forget that UNESCO has an important intellectual dimension too, says the IPKat. Also, since it's driven by users' concerns rather than owners' interests, its perspectives are often quite different to that of its sister organisations.
* The Association of Independent Music in the UK (whose web address has apparently expired) is calling for ISPs to be made liable for file-sharing activities of internet users that infringe copyright: here (thanks to Simon Haslam, Abel & Imray)
* Yellowikis web listing site is under threat from Yell, but not from Wikis: here (thanks to Jim Davies, Bell Dening)
* Here's Judge Richard P Matsch's opinion in Clean Flicks v Soderbergh, see message posted on the IPKat (see No Sex Please - We're Copyright Lawyers here). The IPKat thanks Monika Bruss, KCL, who says:
"Judge Matsch very neatly applies Section 107 of the US Act and Campbell v Acuff-Rose. The decisive point comes from Harper & Row Publishers v Nation Enterprises, though: "[Fair use] is predicated on a theory of an author’s implied consent to reasonable and customary use when he releases his work for public consumption. Id. at 550. That theory is not applicable here because the infringing parties are exploiting a market for movies that is different from what the Studios have released into and for an audience the Studios have not sought to reach". What a clever way to introduce the right of integrity through the backdoor!"