Friday frolics

Another good month for the IPKat ... January 2007 saw the records tumbling again. The weblog received 13,672 casual visits, the first time it has ever breached the 13,500 mark, and on last Sunday a remarkable 328 IP enthusiasts visited the site, even though for many of them it would have been a day off work. The blog's email list of automatic recipients now stands at 749, another all-time high. Once again the IPKat and Merpel say thanks to all of you for visiting, and an especial thanks to those of you who have taken the trouble to post your comments, thus giving the IPKat team a chance to learn from your interaction.

Another good reason for avoiding co-ownership of IP rights like the plague. Take a quick look at Patently-O and read the succinct note by Dennis Crouch (left) on Israel Bio-Engineering v Amgen (Fed. Cir. 2007) to see why. The bottom line is that the voluntary cooperation of all joint patent owners is needed for locus standi to bring a US patent infringement action.

Another good reason for throwing in the towel is that there's even more serious reading matter out there than you'd imagined. The IPKat has just discovered, via the Patent Baristas, that there's a new quarterly magazine - Reader - covering all the US patent Federal Circuit litigation. The Reader even comes with its own free quarterly preview, The Resolution. You have been warned ...

Right: depression sets in when you can't find the point of equilibrium between time spent reading essential law and time spent charging clients for practising it.

Another reason for visiting Berlin is the forthcoming conference of SERCI, the Society for Economic Research on Copyright Issues. The event takes place on 12 and 13 July at the Humboldt University and the organisers are hungry for good papers. If you'd like to speak on any topic relevant to the economic theory of copyright, email by 15 March. At the submissions stage only a detailed abstract of speakers' papers is required, but full versions of accepted papers will be requested about a month before the congress. A selection of the papers from the congress will appear in a special issue of the journal RERCI.

Another reason to salute the financial prudence of long-standing intellectual property publishers Sweet & Maxwell. IPKat team blogger Jeremy, who edits the European Trade Mark Reports for them, was delighted to receive a notice relating to his monthly editorial fee. It not only tells him how many pounds sterling he can expect - it also tells him how many pennies, down to no fewer than thirteen decimal places. Let's not hide the fact: there's very little difference between £0.58 and £0.5799999999999 - but S&M are not known for their financial flippancy. The IPKat says, why not go on strike unless Sweets gives in and pays the extra £0.0000000000001? Merpel says: no, let Sweets keep it - who knows what might happen if they add it to the ETMR marketing budget ...
Friday frolics Friday frolics Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, February 02, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Congratulations on your record month and ne'er a comment that in the middle of it the IpKat mysteriously changed from fishing for stories for me in order to provide fun for everyone

  2. It's nothing personal - he wasn't just fishing for stories for you!

    I changed it to see if any of our readers felt strongly enough about the change to make any mention of it ...


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.