Are you game for a little theory?

Why do some businesses have a sue-on-sight policy for infringers, while others are more laid back? Why can it make good sense to 'infringe' your own IP rights? What is an n-person iterated non-zero-sum game? If you ever wanted the answer to any of these questions, come and support IPKat's co-blogmeister Jeremy when he speaks this evening on 'How to Win at Monopoly: Applying Game Theory to the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights'.

The lecture, in the Current Legal Problems series, takes place at 6pm today in UCL's Bentham House, conveniently near Euston Station. Mr Justice Lightman is in the chair.

X Factor dispute

The BBC reports on the action brought by Simon Fuller against The X Factor which, he claims, infringes the format of his Pop Idols programme. Fuller claims that the ITV1 show copies his Pop Idol format. Fuller's company 19 TV, which created Pop Idol and American Idol, is taking action against FremantleMedia, Cowell and his firms Simco and Syco. Cowell, who became a household name as a Pop Idol judge in 2001, called the claim "utterly ridiculous".

The trial continues. The IPKat will bring you the result. He expects, though that the court will stick to the party line that there is no copyright in a TV programme format.
FINAL REMINDER; THE X-FACTOR FINAL REMINDER; THE X-FACTOR Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, November 24, 2005 Rating: 5


  1. The X factor case is not actually brought on the basis of alleged format rights. It is brought on the basis that the Pop Idol shows constituted dramatic works. Whether this attempt to rely upon Norowzian v Arks will succeed remains to be seen ... one has one's doubts...

  2. According to the Times, there's also a breach of contract being argued: "... some of the X Factor's production team had also worked on Pop Idol despite having signed contracts that prevented them from working on rival shows."

    Presumably the test of whether a show is a "rival" (assuming that term is sufficiently definite) may involve format rights (assuming that they can be defined sufficiently definitely).


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.