Damages: what do you think?

Well hidden within the website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now rebranded as the Ministry of Justice), a new consultation on the law of damages has recently been issued. As with most government consultations these days, the time limit is quite short. You have, if you are interested, until 27 July to let the Ministry know what you think about the law, and whether anything should be done about it.

Further hidden amongst the 44 questions posed in the consultation is one which asks the following:
What are your views on how the system of damages works in relation to:
(a) patents;
(b) designs
(c) trade marks and passing off
(d) copyright and related rights?
Any IP practitioners with an interest in the subject should perhaps have a think about this. This particular Kat takes a completely neutral position on the subject, as he doesn't get involved in litigation. He would, however, be interested to see what views there are out there on how the system currently works, and whether we need to change it. One question that immediately comes to mind is whether the system should include the possibility of a punitive element, rather than being only restorative. Do feel free to let the IPKat know what you think.
Damages: what do you think? Damages: what do you think? Reviewed by David Pearce on Friday, May 11, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. To start the ball rolling, I'm very happy to be practicing in an environment where patent infringement is not a criminal offence and for which damages are not punitive.

    The concept of triple-damages for infringing a patent is just frightening. How on earth did the US get themselves into such a predicament?


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.