Recent periodicals

The July 2008 edition of that venerable serial, the Modern Law Review, has just arrived. This weighty journal has included the occasional IP article in the past, but in this issue there are two, both of which are well worth a look.

* Justine Pila from Oxford University, examines “An intentional view of the copyright work”, by looking at the old classic cases of Walter v Lane and Interlego through the eyes of Hyperion Records (noted here by the IPKat);

Right: All aboard the Interlego Express!

* Phillip Johnson, 7 New Square, has penned “Dedicating Copyright to the Public Domain” which is, unsurprisingly, about whether it is possible to dedicate copyright to the public domain (some organisations like Creative Commons provide the facility to do just this). He concludes, that such a dedication is no more than a copyright licence -- and a revocable licence at that.

The July/August 2008 issue of Informa's bimonthly Copyright World has a most eye-catching cover, even though the IPKat's not 100% sure what it symbolises. The cover story, "International Music Industry Tackles Baidu", is an offering from the Field Fisher Waterhouse duo of Ed Wilkie and Hamish Porter on attempts to bring the Chinese ISP into line over the issue of infringing downloads. There's also a quick-off-the-mark piece by IPKat team blogger Jeremy on a recent reminder from the European Court of Justice that, while the sui generis database right was buried some years ago, it seems to be rising from the grave. The contents of this issue, and lots of other little bits and pieces, can be reviewed here.

The front cover is an anaemic white, brightened only by its logo, but the International Journal of Law and Information Technology (IJLIT), published three times a year by Oxford University Press, often has some colourful content for IP enthusiasts. This issue does too: there's an article, "Looking for zero-sum or win-win outcomes: a game-theoretical analysis of the fair dealing debate", by Yu-Lin Chang, whose excellent doctoral thesis submitted to Queen's University, Belfast, was examined last year by IPKat team blogger Jeremy. Everything you ever need to know about the IJLIT here.

In stark contrast to IJLIT's blinding white is the gleaming black of Butterworths' Intellectual Property & Technology Cases law reports. The July 2008 issue, which has just reached the IPKat, contains reports on four cases: the European Court of Justice ruling in case C-275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espagna SAU, as well as three British cases of which one -- the decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in the controversial Procter & Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser design air freshener design dispute (see IPKat note here), is likely to be the most heavily-thumbed by anxious readers.

Whoops, the IPKat almost forgot the July/August issue of Patent World (ten times a year, from Informa). The cover story, by veteran Aussie IP trooper Michael Dowling (Allens Arthur Robinson), looks at May's WIPO-AIPPI conference on client privilege in communications with IP professional advisers. Says the IPKat, with the INTA giving over a chunk of one of its sessions at next year's Seattle Meeting to client-attorney privilege and reviewing the WIPO/AIPPI scenario, this subject is one which is going to run and run. You can read all about Patent World and the contents of this issue here.

Recent periodicals Recent periodicals Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 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.