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.

Tuesday, 2 September 2008

Latest JIPLP

The September 2008 issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP), has now hit the streets (the online version has, as usual, been available well in advance). Topics tackled in this issue include

* Dawn Osborne (Rouse Legal) writes on user-generated content, looking at crucial copyright and trade mark infringement issues;
* "Intangible assets for intangible deliverables: trade marks at your service" by Aarhus Business School's Matthew Elsmore, a thoughtful discussion of the present and prospects for trade marks in the service sectors;
* "Unfair competition and the financing of public-knowledge goods: the problem of test data protection" by WIPO global IP policy guru Antony Taubman;
* Scandinavian scholar Rosa Maria Ballardini looks at software patents in Europe and the 'technical requirement' dilemma.
The editorial for this issue, "The Impossible Nightmare? IP in Recession", considers the argument that, if you are going to be involved in any area of the economy, it may as well be the intellectual property sector which has outperformed the market during previous recessions and may be expected to do the same again. You can read this editorial in full, and at no cost, here.

Read all the editorials of the past twelve months here
Full contents of this issue here
For free sample, click here; to subscribe, click here; to write, click here
50 most-read JIPLP features over the past month here.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Were they rationing verbs when you wrote the editorial? You've put "that what damage to one element" and "if nothing about it", plus I can't find the verb for "chances of survival".

Jeremy said...

Dear anonymous -- no, they weren't rationing verbs. This was a somewhat imperfect attempt to precis the piece I wrote, in order to get it to fit the page. The verbs are still lying on the sub-editor's floor ...

Dr Chong Yee Khoo said...

To the previous Anonymous:

Were they overdosing sarcasm and ingratitude at your institution when you wrote your comment?

It is after all a free read and I for one know how difficult (impossible?) it is to get everything right. The editorial makes sense as a whole and reads well; it does not take much to fill in the missing words.

Whatever happened to purposive construction?

Anonymous said...

Sorry - that was a bit unkind of me. I was rather surprised to see such errors in a prestigious published journal - they stuck out straight away when I read it. I'd have thought they would be picked up easily on proof-reading - I personally wouldn't class this as particularly difficult (for a native English speaker, as I presume Jeremy is) to get right. And sadly, yes, cynicism is rife at my institute. Fortunately Jeremy does not appear to have taken as much offence as Dr Khoo did.

By way of balance - errors apart, it was a well written article and made an interesting point. Only time will tell whether things do pan out as you predict, but it looks plausible. Of course, while patent agents may be kept busy, patent offices may find themselves with less to do, if companies concentrate on asserting their existing rights rather than acquiring new ones. And academics may also lose out, if there is more desire to use rather than to change the system.

MaxDrei said...

In the context of one of the Papers in this month's issue, I'm interested in the "peer review" assurance. Would the Editor like to post a comment on the rigor of the JIPLP peer review process?

Jeremy said...

Maxdrei: thanks for taking the trouble to write. Some articles are peered by members of the editorial panels, others by people from a list of volunteers. Some are academics, others are practitioners.

Peer reviewers are asked to give an opinion as to whether, in their opinion, the article under review is (i) cogent in intellectual terms, (ii) interesting/topical and (iii) plausible in legal terms.

Peer reviewers are not asked to comment on spelling and grammar; nor are they asked whether they agree with the conclusions of the authors.

Sometimes it can be difficult finding a suitable peer reviewer, where either the subject-matter or the jurisdiction are not specifically covered by anyone on my lists, but we do our best.

If you have issues regarding a specific article, please feel free to write to me in confidence on jjip@btinternet.com and I'll take up your points. If there is substance to them. I will take them up with ther referee concerned. Also, if you'd like to do some peer reviewing, please let me know.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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