Private International Law and the Internet, by the imposingly-named Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, is itself an imposing addition to the jurisprudence on this extremely important subject. The author, European by origin and currently Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, Bond University (Gold Coast, Australia), came to Australia in 1999 where he pursued studies in alternative dispute resolution and cyberlaw. His University of New South Wales PhD thesis is the subject of this book.
What the publisher says:
"In this fresh and original approach to what is perhaps the most crucial current issue in private international law, Dan Svantesson examines how the Internet affects and is affected by the four fundamental questions:Left: A Google search under the terms private + international + cat threw up this handsome specimen
* When should a lawsuit be entertained by the courts?
* Which state's law should be applied?
* When should a court that can entertain a lawsuit decline to do so?
* And will a judgement rendered in one country be recognised in another?
He identifies eleven characteristics of Internet communication that are relevant to these questions, and then proceeds with a detailed investigation of whether and to what extent these characteristics (or their closest analogues) have already been dealt with in legal issues arising from other forms of communication".
The IPKat says: this is a briskly enthusiastic account of the subject, based on a 2004 PhD but substantially updated. All IP lawyers will be disappointed that Dr Svantesson writes about subjects other than intellectual property, though it was inevitable, given his location in Australia and the notoriety of the Gutnick litigation, that defamation was likely to be a focal point. This aside, the book positively bubbles with ideas and is replete with a broad range of references drawn from legal cultures with vastly different traditions (the references to China are evidence of this). Of particular note is Chapter 10 which deals with geo-location technologies which, the author convincingly argues, are not a substitute for the application of private international law but may assist - at a cost - in identifying the geo-location of actual and potential parties to legal disputes.
Bibliographic details: List Price:US$154.00 or €120.00; ISBNs 9041125167 and 13 9789041125163. Hardback, xxi + 440 pages. Rupture factor: low to moderate.
The June 2007 issue of the ever-enterprising Euromoney publication Managing Intellectual Property has now fallen into the IPKat's paws. As per usual, it has some pretty exciting stuff. Nailbiting feaures include
* "How to win in Europe", in which staff writer Emma Barraclough observes that, in the 11 years since OHIM opened its doors, it has received more than 500,000 applications for Community trade marks. Of those, thousands have been rejected, and thousands more opposed. So how can applicants who play the CTM system maximise the odds in their favour?Full list of contents and features here
* Editor James Nurton writes on the US Supreme Court ruling on obviousness in patent law in KSR v Teleflex (see IPKat comment here), a decision still less than two months old but which is already starting to get that timeless air about it. According to MIP this decision "threatens to change the balance of power between patent owners and alleged infringers in the US". The Kat remains unconvinced, but is prepared to be proved wrong.
* A five-strong team from Freshfields (four lawyers, headed by Justin Watts, and trainee Christian Meyer from the firm's Duesseldorf office) write on employee inventor issues, prompted by the recent UK litigation in LIFFE v Pinkava (noted on this blog here). Merpel says, three cheers for any firm that is prepared to give credit to a trainee: the Good Lord knows, they do enough of the hard work that goes into law firm publications but rarely get a name-check).
Part 3 of Sweet & Maxwell's bimonthly European Commercial Cases for 2007 has now been issued. As the IPKat has mentioned before, this is not an IP-specific series of law reports but does from time to time carry some very significant decisions, often available for the first time in English.
This issue just has the one IP case and it's a British one: the decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G Ltd to refer various questions on the trade mark/comparative advertisement interface to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (on which see the IPKat's post here).