Anyway, if you have any news and views for Jeremy while he is on his travels, do feel free to email him -- but please forgive him if he takes longer to reply than is usually the case, since he will be online a lot less often than usual between now and then.
I am not going to accept any more spiteful and mean-spirited anonymous comments about the function of this blog in drawing the early attention of readers to the publication of cases which members of the blogging team may not yet have had the time or the opportunity to read. Will any reader who wishes to continue this line of commenting please give a verifiable name.To this, the anonymous blogger sought to post the following response:
Luckily, Chinese dissidents, Female Afghan schoolchildren and those reporting on the deaths of their families in Syria, don't submit their anonymous reports via this website.If any reader of this blog seriously believes that attempts to post anonymous carping and unmerited criticism of one of our blog team should be allowed, I'd be grateful to hear from them and to find out precisely why. Likewise, I'd like to hear from anyone who seriously believes that asking the author of such attacks on any blogger to identify himself when making criticisms is an any sense to be equated with the dreadful position of Chinese dissidents, Female Afghan schoolchildren and those reporting on the deaths of their families in Syria. Finally, here's a message to the anonymous critic: you are perfectly free to post whatever you want, for anyone to read, and to remain as anonymous as you want: all you have to do is create your own weblog for the purpose.
Still, if what they had to say was of importance, I'm sure they'd leave their name and address. Censorship exists for the good of the people! As long as those people are "of the establishment". How does the ditty go? "If you like a lot of one-sided comments on your blog posts, join our club"?
here. Laure, who is also something of an IP/IT law blogger, explains about her book:
Les diverses branches du droit de la propriété intellectuelle sont traditionnellement étudiées séparément : droit d’auteur, brevets, marques, etc. Les importantes différences d’une branche à l’autre le justifient pleinement et c’est pourquoi la seconde partie de cet ouvrage présente, les unes après les autres, toutes les propriétés intellectuelles.
Pour autant, il existe suffisamment de traits communs aux diverses propriétés intellectuelles pour nous inciter à les examiner ensemble. C’est l’objet de la première partie dont l’approche transversale conduit à dégager les grandes lignes : elle révèle un tronc commun qui traduit l’unité de la matière et permet de mieux en comprendre l’esprit.
So, if you are fed up with the usual Anglo-oriented commentaries, why not try something deliciously Gallic for a change?
Dutifully attending a certain other event last Thursday, a number of Kats past and present missed the pre-International Trademark Meeting Meeting which is traditionally held annually in London. However, that event generated its own narrative, which runs as follows:
Toe Su gave a rousing speech, exhorting all those who work in the field of IP to be better prepared to defend the important purpose served by intellectual property laws: for a long time IP professionals have been busy talking about how important and valuable an asset IP is to businesses -- but more focus is now needed on defending the merits of IP protection in the face of current challenges.
Toe Su spoke passionately and with enthusiasm and left delegates feeling inspired about her term as INTA President and looking forward to a great conference in Dallas"
During the morning session, the speakers will consider the impact on industry, the economy and the legal profession of the EU proposals to establish a Unified Patent Court. An agreement to form the EU Unified Patent Court was signed by the Government in February. If the agreement is ratified, which is likely, the concern is that Ireland will become irrelevant in patent litigation terms and the consequences are likely to be detrimental to industry, the economy and the legal profession and will have a negative effect on investment in Ireland and Ireland’s endeavours to brand itself as a knowledge economy [Merpel wonders: if this candid assessment of Ireland's prospects is accurate, how many other countries can be said to be in the same position?]. In addition, the transfer of litigation from the Irish Courts to courts in Munich, Paris and London will have constitutional implications, necessitating a referendum scheduled to take place later this year.More information about this programme can be found here.
[speaking in favour of extending permitted uses] and Professor Robert Clark [arguing for a more restrictive approach] will present both sides of the argument to limit copyright protection in the information age by the possible introduction of a US style doctrine of “fair use” instead of the existing “by exception” approach of fair dealing [though it's only a debate, and each might just have well been arguing the other side ...]. The final session on trade marks will look at the impact of the proposed private member’s bill before the Dáil concerning plain packing in the tobacco industry and the possible knock-on effects for other industry sectors and the implications for trade mark law and for brand owners. Confirmed speakers include representatives from industry as well as IP lawyers from Ireland and the UK. This conference aims to encourage discussion and open up the debate on these critical topics.