IPHire last week he has received quite a bit of email correspondence about the availability of positions in the field of intellectual property. The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA) has a job board, as does the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), here. The Kats suspect that there may be others. When there are good folk out there who are actually looking to give out jobs, it's tragic that there are also lots of good folk out there who are looking for them and can't get them. Let's hope that the coming year is a good one for IP employment!
here) -- wonders whether the lack of distinctive character could be redressed by making the animals gender-specific, along the lines of the definitely registrable Heffner Playboy Bunny. The IPKat notes that it's easier to register the Playboy Bunny, since the trade mark is a two-dimensional image rather than the product itself. Says Merpel notes, on the subject of gender, it's strange that, while the Heffner Bunny logo is implicitly male, since it bears the black tie which is symbolic of formal male attire, the three-dimensional version of the concept of the Playboy Bunny which is likely to be summoned up in the consumer's mind is that of a female.
Case T-19/07 Systran SA v The European Commission is available only in French. It seems to this Kat that the Third Chamber of the General Court has fined the Commission executive 12,001,000 euros for infringing the software copyright of Systran. Could the fact that the decision exists so far only in the language of Victor Hugo be anything to do with the fact that Systran's software is used for the purpose of, er, translation? Anyway Merpel notes that the sum in question is made up of 7 million euros in unpaid fees, 5 million euros by way of compensation and 1,000 euros in symbolic compensation for non-material damage.
|For support |
without growth ...
"I hope to hear from the widest possible range of interests. I also urge respondents to focus upon the question at the heart of this review rather than the catch-all remit of some previous reviews, namely: what, if anything, should we do to change the UK's IP system in the interests of promoting more rapid innovation and economic growth? It is through that lens that I will be assessing all responses. The most persuasive arguments will be those supported by the most robust evidence. That evidence might come in the form of statistics or in case studies based upon direct, personal and organisational experience".If you follow the link you will find details of the questions the review will consider and on which it seeks evidence. Says the IPKat, now that many readers are snowbound and their winter holidays are cancelled, they should seize this golden opportunity to answer this call.
[A Merpel Kat-rant starts here] Merpel adds that it's worth noting the words "what, if anything, should we do to change the UK's IP system?" In her opinion, one of the reasons the UK system fails its users is that it has not been able to teach them how to use it better. Whatever its actual or theoretical faults the British IP system is recognisably the same as that of very many countries that appear to enjoy more rapid innovation and economic growth than that experienced in the UK. How often do we spend money on advice and protection when it's not needed but fail to seek it when it is? Or go to court when it's a waste of time to do so, but fail to take legal steps when we should? And look at the poorly-drafted, poorly-thought-out licences that end up in stress, suspicion, and downright distrust between businesses that should be working together? If we only knew and understood our own system better, how much better off we'd be -- and how disappointed will we be if, when we do improve our system, it still fails to deliver the goods because we haven't learned how to play it? We've already introduced an absolutely brilliant facility by which anyone, for just £200, can get a patent examiner's expert opinion as to whether someone's patent is valid or if a specific act is likely to infringe it -- but it's hugely underused because almost no-one has heard about it. There's now a wonderful new regime for cheaper IP litigation in the Patents County Court which even some lobby groups seem to have missed. The key words for Hargreaves to consider are INFORMATION, EDUCATION and, oh, can't remember what the third one was .. .
let's get bizzy ..."