Latest JIPLP

The October 2008 issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP), has finally reached its editor, IPKat team member Jeremy, eons after everyone else seems to have got theirs. Topics featured in this issue include
* Alex Batteson (Linklaters) considers the growing importance of the negative declaration as a weapon in IP litigation;

* Hong Kong solicitor Charn Wing Wang examines the provisions that criminalise online piracy in that important jurisdiction;

* Amanda Easey and Rohan Massey (McDermott Will & Emery) review the ECJ's requirement of the IP owner's consent before EU exhaustion of rights kicks in -- and then take a stern look at some difficult UK decisions;

* Daniel Robinson (University of New South Wales) considers liability rules and non-UPOV systems of plant variety protection.
Right: as plant varieties go, the common or garden cat is a most unusual variety ... [pic from Annie in Beziers]

The editorial for this issue, "Just Three Steps, But So Many Criteria", looks at the current state of the Berne Convention's love-it-or-loathe-it "three step test" for legitimate limitations or exceptions to the rights of the copyright owner, applauding the fresh initiative to debate its parameters.

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
Latest JIPLP Latest <i>JIPLP</i> Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, October 19, 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.