From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Friday, 13 May 2016

Friday Fantasies

Essay Competition. CREATE, together with TrademarkNow and SCRIPTed are seeking submissions for an essay competition with the theme of  "How will Artificial Intelligence change the practice of Intellectual Property law”". What will happen when A.I. can create and invent?  Or do you have a vision for how A.I. could streamline litigation?  For a chance at the top prize of €300, and more information, see here. The deadline for submissions is 30th August.

The UK IPO has unveiled its 2020 vision, in "IP Enforcement 2020". The report promises to review platform liability online, and the familiar strains of education about IP and "follow the money" strategies to cut off income streams of profitable online piracy can be found, too. IP Minister, Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe said: 
"As a country famed for its creators and innovators, we know that … intellectual property rights lie at the heart of the economic and creative wellbeing of the UK. But these crucial IP rights are undermined and devalued on all fronts by infringement, whether by the wholesale sharing of digital content through myriad file sharing and streaming websites, deliberate copying of patent or design protected products, or the importation and sale of counterfeit goods on a massive scale."
The Australian Productivity Commission has recently published a report calling for a liberalising overhaul of copyright and patent laws. The 600 page document, initially designed to prepare codification of fair use down under, also managed to find room for recommendations including shorter copyright duration, stricter criteria for granting patents, and bypassing geoblocking restrictions. More information here.

Torres Strait Islanders have recently been briefed in their intellectual property rights over the course of a 3 day forum organised by the Regional Authority (TSRA). The main objectives were to empower artists and cultural workers through education about the "forgotten" value of IP to them. Representatives from the Arts Law Centre of Australia, the Australia Council for the Arts, Arts Queensland, Viscopy, the Copyright Council all made appearances, along with the formidable indigenous cultural property rights lawyer and advocate, Terri Janke. The National Indigenous Times' report of the event is here.

The IPKat scrubs up 
Have you consulted the events page recently? If not, you may have missed updates such as the The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) Copycat Packaging Event which has been rescheduled to 2 June in London. John Noble from British Brands Group and Michael Edenborough QC from Serle Court will be discussing the topic. 

Or the IP Ball on 25 June, which promises to be a good time in favour of a great cause, the Great Ormond Street Hospital. This year's Ball has taken as its theme a celebration of all things Brazil, and the dress code accordingly is black tie with a hint of the carnival to it. Reserve tickets here before Friday 20 May.

Or, last but by no means least, the "#leastpretentious event of INTA2015", the Tweetup - which is back at INTA this year at a Baskin Robbins ice cream store, on Monday 23 May from 3pm, for tweeting INTA attendees to relax and enjoy some local cuisine.

1 comment:

Ron said...

The IPO's 2020 vision clearly has admirable aims, but it seems that its not inconsiderable cost is being met, not by the Government, but by the IPO creaming off a proportion of the statutory fees paid for statutory services relating to Patent, Trade Mark and Registered Design rights. After all, apart from the funding for the Copyright Tribunal (paid from government funds), the IPO is entirely self-funding, and its funds can only have come from these fees: there is no mention in the 2020 document of the IPO expecting to receive any benefit from the fines levied on the guilty parties that would recoup the costs of its funding. So what, you may ask?

Well, according to the HMT document "Guide to the Establishment and Operation of Trading Funds"

12.5.2 For legal reasons, the price of a statutory service should never be set deliberately to generate a surplus above the agreed return on capital employed (3.5 per cent in the SR2002 and SR2004 periods), unless the statute specifically provides for this. A
planned surplus would be interpreted as illegal taxation.
[emphasis added]

Perhaps I am missing something, but as the IPO' budget appears to includes provision for funding the 2020 vision (not to mention the several million pounds already paid to the Metropolitan Police IP crime unit and various other non-statutory activities), and the funding for these non-statutory activities can only have been obtained by charging higher-than-cost fees for its statutory services in order to generate a surplus that can be used to fund these new non-statutory activities, does anyone have any suggestions as to how this can be reconciled with 12.5.2 of the Treasury Guide? Is there a relevant statutory provision?

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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