Computer Patent Annuities (CPA) publishes a neat little quarterly magazine, the IP Review. The IPKat isn't sure why he receives it, but he's really rather pleased that he does. The ninth issue, now published, is bright and easy on the eye, beautifully produced and with content that may be read profitably without having to tax the reader's brains. From CPA's point of view it must be a fairly effective form of advertising, since its articles steer readers towards the CPA philosophy of managing IP rights.

IP Review's 28 pages include features on the following topics:
* A spiky photo and matching article by Keven Bader (UK Trade Marks Registry) on new dispute resolution procedures before his office).

* David Bainbridge's case note on the ludicrous decision of a Netherlands court last year to declare perfumes protectable subject-matter under the law of copyright.

* A reminder to readers of the advantages of shopping for counterfeits in Thailand (well, that's not what's intended, but it's amazing what you can read between the lines).

* "Eyeing up the options", on the benefits and detriments of locating IP rights in offshore companies.

CPA: advertising in style with the IP Review
The IPKat says, at £60/US$110 per annum, it is not a huge expense. It's fun and it's readable. Merpel adds: "If you can really persuade people to buy your promotional literature, you know you're on to a good thing".
IP REVIEW: A REVIEW IP REVIEW: A REVIEW Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, January 23, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.