Appointment of an IP Tsar: is this a meaningless gesture or a vital step towards resolving IP problems at national level? Monday's post on the subject has sparked off quite a bit of debate, so I'm going to write an editorial for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) on this very point. The editorial will be freely accessible to readers of this weblog, which is only fair since they have contributed freely to my thoughts on the subject. Three quick thoughts on the subject: (i) If knowledge is power, the IP Tsar should be able to assemble and distribute it with the greatest facility; (ii) Debate tends to focus mainly on IP's civil law aspects, but the Tsar's role may be far more important on the criminal side; (iii) The brief of the Tsar might include encouraging the many and varied pro-IP groups to rationalise wasteful duplication at all levels of their operations.
What is the effect of Article 96 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (the provision that gives exclusive jurisdiction to Community Trade Mark Courts) on CTM-related arbitrations? That is the substance of two questions which MARQUES' Class 46 weblog has asked its readers. If you want to offer your sage advice, click here ...
Among the more impressive titles that the IPKat has recently been perusing is one from Sweden. Intellectual Property in Science, by Caroline Pamp, covers a range of central legal issues in relation to intellectual property in early-stage research, with a focus of bioscience and biotechnology and from the perspective of Swedish research groups. According to the web-blurb,
"Universities are in the middle of a transformation process where science is privatized and subject to a commercial logic. This process is not limited to commercialization activities but also extends to research programs. Legal constructions such as intellectual property rights influence and impact this transformation process, which results in an increased transaction-based logic at universities, and which also has an effect on how research collaboration agreements are drafted. Control by intellectual property rights claims is not per se decisive for the effects on access to research results; what matters is how such claims are used: statically, to block access, or dynamically, to enable access".As an academic with professional experience, the author is better-placed than many to undertake the task of reviewing this subject (which was originally her thesis topic). She shows a welcome degree of understanding of all sides of the equation. Her sources include both mainstream writing and materials which, published in Swedish, are not so easy for some of us to appreciate. There's some case law too, reviewing research-based defences to actions for patent infringement on a comparative basis. This paperback, published by Jure, weighs in at 473 pages and its ISBN is 9789172233560. It's written in English and the print is large and clear. The cost is 690 Swedish kronor and you can order it via the publisher here. Says the IPKat, if you're looking for a well balanced account of this subject, you won't be disappointed.
It's short notice, but the Intangible Asset Finance Society is holding a meeting this Friday, 6 August, entitled "You say IP. I say IPR". What's this all about? The IPKat's friend Roya Ghafele, Lecturer at Oxford University and expert on IP perceptions, will be in conversation with Jim Singer (partner, Pepper Hamilton) to discuss whether accounting rules and language hinder the monetization of intellectual property -- or whether accounting, given its inability to measure intangible asset value, is becoming progressively irrelevant. The IPKat has no idea where on the planet this meeting is being held, but believes that you can find more information here.
From the IPKat's Romanian friend Mihaela Ciocea comes news of carping in the Carpathians following the revelation that the country's new tourism brand, under the slogan "Explore the Carpathian Garden" has been overshadowed by controversy once some crafty bloggers found that part of the logo is almost identical to an image available on the internet [said to be the British Change Transport logo, but the Kat couldn't get the supplied link to work]. Minister of Tourism Elena Udrea has stated publicly: "The similarity of the two logos is just accidental" and that its use will continue. However, the Romanian Ministry of Tourism is said to have suspended payment of the brand producer, the Spanish company THR-TNS, until both the local Trade Mark and Patent Office and OHIM have had their say.