* Law publishers Globe White Page have just sent the IPKat a free copy of issue two of Intellectual Asset Management (September/October 2003). The cover story is “Microsoft gets serious about IP”. This may be startling news for those of us who have just returned from a distant galaxy, but for the rest of us it's about as surprising as "Rain sometimes falls in England". The article is however quite informative, giving a good account of how Marshall Phelps plans to rework Microsoft’s IP strategy in the coming years. Ed Kahn’s piece on patent mining and Joff Wild’s review of the nanotech patent market are also worth a read.

* Thomson’s UK imprint Sweet & Maxwell is running a “fire sale” of 30% off more than 110 titles, in areas including intellectual property. Bargains include Copinger & Skone James on Copyright (reduced from £460 to £322), Terrell on the Law of Patents (from £285 to £200) and Gerald Paterson’s European Patent System (from £205 to £144). The IPKat is not impressed by this sale. In terms of the books’ overall value, the reduced prices probably reflect the length of time they have lost currency while they were sitting in the publisher’s warehouses. More to the point, when books are more sensibly priced and are not bloated with hundreds of pages of appendices, more people will buy them while they’re still relatively up-to-date.

PUBLISHERS’ POINTS <strong>PUBLISHERS’ POINTS</strong> Reviewed by Jeremy on Saturday, October 04, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.