Friday fiddlings

Don't forget to check for Forthcoming Events in the IPKat's left-hand side-bar. As usual, FREE events are listed in BLUE. Right now the total number of events listed stands at 41.

Last week the IPKat, astonished that an appeal to IP Finance weblog readers produced a zero response, asked readers if they knew of any people who specialised in, or at least worked in the field of, IP insolvency in the UK. This appeal has borne fruit. Thanks, those of you who responded. A feature on IP insolvency practitioners can now be read here.

IPKat reader Sangwani J. Nkhwazi (Mancunium Intellectual Property Ltd) has reminded him that the gnashing of teeth over the proliferation of generic top level domains (TLDs) is not just the prerogative of brand owners. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is grinding its teeth in sympathy. From this news item it can be seen that safeguarding the interests of brand owners is recognised as a matter of importance -- but it's safety at a cost.

News from New Zealand comes via the ever-vigilant Howard ("Excess Copyright") Knopf, who has furnished the IPKat with a link suggesting that the NZ government is prepared to repeal its controversial "three strikes" legislation for dealing with copyright-infringing internet users even before that provision comes into force (see here for earlier IPKat post). Off subject, Howard has also sent the IPKat this well-worth-watching (if you're a cat-lover) Capitol Cat Cam clip.

A new blog on the block is the weblog of Singapore IP practice Ravindran Associates. A team blog, it looks quite promising at this early stage of its existence. Here's a neat note on the 137-page judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal in the Rooster brand case in which the firm participated.

On the subject of blogs, people often ask IPKat team blogger Jeremy how many intellectual property blogs he's actually involved in.  To this end, he has compiled a little blogroll here, which lists most of his blogs and gives a potted description and URL of each of them.  Not on the list, because it's a case of false pretences, is the Solo IP blog: it's really for practitioners and he isn't one -- though he very much supports the cause.

Some of us have intellectual property literally coming out of our ears. But for those who prefer their IP to travel in the other direction, here's news of Professor Doug Lichtman's Intellectual Property Colloquium podcasts. Says Doug:
"... each month we post an hour-long conversation about an important patent, copyright, or technology topic. ...  typically the show is built around one or several conversations between me and relevant guests. ...

One charm of the site is that we offer completely free CLE credit to lawyers who listen. All of our previous shows qualify in New York, California, Texas, Illinois, and Washington, and we plan to add more states later this year. That's not itself a reason to listen, obviously, but it is an added perk for lawyers who might need that extra nudge in order to justify spending the time".

Issue two of the European Copyright and Design Reports, published six times a year by Sweet & Maxwell, has just been published.  Cases reported in this issue include the European Court of Human Rights decision in Balan v Moldova, where the uncompensated appropriation of Balan's photo of Soroca Castle for use on official Moldovan identity cards was held to breach Balan's human rights. For a free inspection copy of the ECDR email Jo Slinn, who will be delighted to send you one.
Friday fiddlings Friday fiddlings Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, March 20, 2009 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.