Latest JIPLP

The September 2008 issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP), has now hit the streets (the online version has, as usual, been available well in advance). Topics tackled in this issue include
* Dawn Osborne (Rouse Legal) writes on user-generated content, looking at crucial copyright and trade mark infringement issues;
* "Intangible assets for intangible deliverables: trade marks at your service" by Aarhus Business School's Matthew Elsmore, a thoughtful discussion of the present and prospects for trade marks in the service sectors;
* "Unfair competition and the financing of public-knowledge goods: the problem of test data protection" by WIPO global IP policy guru Antony Taubman;
* Scandinavian scholar Rosa Maria Ballardini looks at software patents in Europe and the 'technical requirement' dilemma.
The editorial for this issue, "The Impossible Nightmare? IP in Recession", considers the argument that, if you are going to be involved in any area of the economy, it may as well be the intellectual property sector which has outperformed the market during previous recessions and may be expected to do the same again. You can read this editorial in full, and at no cost, here.

Read all the editorials of the past twelve months here
Full contents of this issue here
For free sample, click here; to subscribe, click here; to write, click here
50 most-read JIPLP features over the past month here.
Latest JIPLP Latest <i>JIPLP</i> Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. Were they rationing verbs when you wrote the editorial? You've put "that what damage to one element" and "if nothing about it", plus I can't find the verb for "chances of survival".

  2. Dear anonymous -- no, they weren't rationing verbs. This was a somewhat imperfect attempt to precis the piece I wrote, in order to get it to fit the page. The verbs are still lying on the sub-editor's floor ...

  3. To the previous Anonymous:

    Were they overdosing sarcasm and ingratitude at your institution when you wrote your comment?

    It is after all a free read and I for one know how difficult (impossible?) it is to get everything right. The editorial makes sense as a whole and reads well; it does not take much to fill in the missing words.

    Whatever happened to purposive construction?

  4. Sorry - that was a bit unkind of me. I was rather surprised to see such errors in a prestigious published journal - they stuck out straight away when I read it. I'd have thought they would be picked up easily on proof-reading - I personally wouldn't class this as particularly difficult (for a native English speaker, as I presume Jeremy is) to get right. And sadly, yes, cynicism is rife at my institute. Fortunately Jeremy does not appear to have taken as much offence as Dr Khoo did.

    By way of balance - errors apart, it was a well written article and made an interesting point. Only time will tell whether things do pan out as you predict, but it looks plausible. Of course, while patent agents may be kept busy, patent offices may find themselves with less to do, if companies concentrate on asserting their existing rights rather than acquiring new ones. And academics may also lose out, if there is more desire to use rather than to change the system.

  5. In the context of one of the Papers in this month's issue, I'm interested in the "peer review" assurance. Would the Editor like to post a comment on the rigor of the JIPLP peer review process?

  6. Maxdrei: thanks for taking the trouble to write. Some articles are peered by members of the editorial panels, others by people from a list of volunteers. Some are academics, others are practitioners.

    Peer reviewers are asked to give an opinion as to whether, in their opinion, the article under review is (i) cogent in intellectual terms, (ii) interesting/topical and (iii) plausible in legal terms.

    Peer reviewers are not asked to comment on spelling and grammar; nor are they asked whether they agree with the conclusions of the authors.

    Sometimes it can be difficult finding a suitable peer reviewer, where either the subject-matter or the jurisdiction are not specifically covered by anyone on my lists, but we do our best.

    If you have issues regarding a specific article, please feel free to write to me in confidence on and I'll take up your points. If there is substance to them. I will take them up with ther referee concerned. Also, if you'd like to do some peer reviewing, please let me know.


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.