Monday miscellany

IP securitisation: calling all stakeholders! Late on Friday afternoon the IP Finance weblog circulated an urgent request from the Intellectual Property Office in the UK for comments by everyone who is interested in IP securitisation on the UNCITRAL proposals for dealing with securitised interests in IP. The deadline for receiving comments is 30 October, since the IPO has to digest them very quickly: the next round of negotiations begins on 2 November. For further details and IPO contact details click here.

Pick on someone your own size? Internet technology provider Eolas Technologies Inc. is hunting for some pretty big game, if the list of defendants in its forthcoming patent infringement action is anything to go by. The list's so long that the IPKat doubts there will be many spare hotel rooms in Tyler, East Texas -- but if you do check in, you'll find yourself jostling for the meusli in the morning with the guys and gals from Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Blockbuster, eBay, Frito-Lay, PepsiCo, Google, JC Penney, JP Morgan Chase, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo! and YouTube -- among others. If you want to follow this event, it's Eolas Technologies Inc. v Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 6:09-cv-446. Eolas is striking an upbeat note since the patent in question has already been ruled valid by the USPTO on three occasions. For more details, click here and here. Thanks, Guy Warner (Unilever) for letting the Kats know ...

Not that it can't make up its mind ... but the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice has been oscillating for a while between the acronyms "JIPLP" and "JIPLAP". Last week a solemn conclave in Oxford decided that, to end the controversy and dispel all future doubt, the journal would stick to "JIPLP" (pronounced "jip-lip", with the emphasis on the first syllable). So now you know.

Talking of journals, all eyes are turned towards the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) right now. The October issue of the WIPO Magazine has been published, with some fairly positive things to say about IP in the world of visual disability, music therapy and design for the disabled (you can read the full contents list, and click through to each article, here). The really good news is that IP owners, consumers, their competitors have all been abolished and replaced by a single category, 'stakeholders'. If that doesn't help to stem economic and political sectarianism as they apply to IP, nothing will.

Even more exciting is the fact that WIPO will soon have its own heavyweight intellectual property title, the peer-reviewed WIPO Journal, published by Thomson Reuters with a launch this coming November (that's less than a fortnight away). The IPKat is bursting with curiosity as to what it will contain.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, October 19, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. I heartily agree with the solemn conclave; JIPLAP always sounded to me like a slap round the face, and was in danger of being rhymed with KATFLAP in some IPKat limeric competition. [And I'm sure there must be some OUP rule against aggrandising the "&" in a journal title to give it an "A" in the acronym.]

    JIPLP is far more dignified, although one must guard against JI-PLIP/JI-PLOP.


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.