Do Domainers have to be enemies? New newsletter; After Gowers, the GIT

Do Domainers have to be enemies?

This question is also the title of a CPA webinar (sic) on the monetisation of domain names and the rise of 'domaining' - the identification and colonisation of domain names with high traffic quality by so-called domainers. The webinar [the IPKat really dislikes this word and wishes he could think up a better one] takes place on 13 February 2007 at 3pm (GMT)/10am (EST). Details here.

New newsletter

Digital Media & Marketing is the name of a new newsletter launched by London law firm Lewis Silkin. You can see the first issue here. It carries, among other items, an article by Simon Morrissey on Second Life, virtual world reality and some of the legal consequences that emerge from it. The IPKat affects to remain nonchalantly unimpressed: Second Life is no big deal for cats who have nine lives.

After Gowers, the GIT

Here's a post by the IPKat's friend Peter Groves, reporting on a post-Gowers seminar at which Andrew Gowers reports on the Gowers Implementation Team that has been set up at the Patent Office to see his recommendations on intellectual property law reform through. This looks like remarkable haste. Is there going to be no formal discussion and adoption or rejection of the Gowers Review's recommendations, wonders the IPKat.

Right: The Gowers Implementation Team: action, not debate ...
Do Domainers have to be enemies? New newsletter; After Gowers, the GIT Do Domainers have to be enemies? New newsletter; After Gowers, the GIT Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, February 01, 2007 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.