Current JIPLAP

The August 2009 issue of Oxford University's flagship monthly IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLAP), has been out for nearly a fortnight, but the personal copy of IPKat team member Jeremy, who edits it, has only just reached him. Items in this issue include the following:
* Lukasz Zelechowski (LDS Lazewski Depo & Partners, Warsaw) looks at current Polish law and practice on the securitising of patents and trade marks;
* "Reasonable royalties and the sale of patent rights", by Alan Shampine (Compass Lexecon) considers how far the price an unlicensed patent is sold for is a pointer as to its value for licensing;
* Nilanjana Sensarkar (Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, London) wonders whether the Indian entertainment industry is ready to tackle the challenges posed by Web 2.0;
* P. Sean Morris (University of Helsinki) considers the application of Article 82 EC and the principles of European competition law to the operations of copyright collecting societies.
The Editorial, "'Three Strikes' ... and then?", takes a dim view of the feasibilitiy of severing file-sharers from the internet. You can read it for free here.

List of editorial board panellists here
Full contents of this issue here
Free sample copy of JIPLAP here
Guidance for authors here
Read all of the past year's editorials at no cost here
Current JIPLAP Current JIPLAP Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, August 14, 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.