Professor William Cornish’s three 2002 Clarendon Law Lectures (Intellectual Property: Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant?) have now been published by Oxford University Press.

The background to Professor Cornish’s lectures is as follows. Intellectual property rights are increasingly significant elements of economic policy and, in an age of global trade, they are vital to developed countries. Today's new technologies, derived both from the digital and the biotechnological revolutions, are creating new problems. The three lectures focus on some of the major issues that are the subject of public debate: (i) the omnipresent spread of IPRs across some recent technologies, (ii) the distraction caused by rights that achieve little of their intended purpose and (iii) the apparent irrelevance of intellectual property rights as viewed by users of new technologies such as the internet. Taking these three themes, Professor Cornish surveys current arguments over legal policy in this field. In doing so he touches on issues surrounding the patenting of biotechnological and genetic innovations; the threat posed to copyrights in publishing, computer programs and record and film production by the internet and the tension between legal protection of brands, the freedom to compete and the drive for 'fair trading'.

More on the Omnipresent, the Distracting and the Irrelevant

OMNIPRESENT, DISTRACTING, IRRELEVANT? OMNIPRESENT, DISTRACTING, IRRELEVANT? Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo on Friday, April 09, 2004 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.