Monday miscellany

Responses to the IPKat's latest poll have been a bit sluggish, what with this being a public holiday weekend in some jurisdictions, but he's pleased to see that at least some of his readers have not allowed their personal pleasures to get in the way of their civic duty to vote. This poll deals with a matter of great importance to those with sensitive ears or weak voices -- the existence and also the volume of background music at IP social events. If you're fed up having to shout over loud music, or pleased you don't have to say anything because you know you won't be able to make yourself heard, this poll is for you! The poll can be found at the top of the IPKat's side bar. At present it's a race between people who want music banned outright and those who are happy to have it after they've done their social and networking things -- but there's still plenty of time for the other options to creep up on them.

Are you based in the European Union? Does your country have a view on the legality of the proposed Unified Patent Litigation System? Do you know or care? Take a quick peek here at PatLit if you want to know more.

One of the IPKat's friends has written to ask him if he can recommend any recent published research that evaluates the effectiveness of multi-tier innovation systems (eg patents plus (i) petty patents, (ii) utility model rights and/or (iii) the gebrauchsmuster. Ideally such studies will offer some sort of comparison with systems that offer no alternative to the patent. If possible they should have some hard data in them, rather than mere speculation. If you can make any recommendation, please post it below or email the IPKat here.

Is there life after death? The IPKat has previously reported on a British copyright infringement ruling that was pretty catastrophic for Usenet site Newzbin (here). Now Torrentfreak reports on that service's planned comeback via Team R Dogs. The plan is to operate a fast-running, shape-shifting model based on The Pirate Bay. The Kats will be watching future developments.

The IPKat thanks the many readers who were kind enough to send him links to the recent spat between retail emporium Harrods ("Anything from a pin to an elephant") and Hollands Cafe Lounge, of Rivenhall, Essex. According to The Daily Mail (a newspaper not normally known for its intellectual property coverage) the Knightsbridge store is alleging infringement of the copyright in its logo (left). The accompanying article however refers to Harrods' request that Hollands also change its name on the basis of its being too similar, which would suggest that there is a trade mark or passing-off basis to the claim. The proprietors of Hollands Cafe, Nigel and Leyla Holland, say it would cost them £14,000 to comply with the demand, which could put them out of business -- and that sort of cash would buy an awful lot of bacon butties.

The UK's Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP) may be about to fall on hard times, since many have tipped it for pruning -- or worse -- in the imminent round of public sector austerity cuts. However, its pre-election labours are still bearing fruit.

Right: the economics of digitisation -- child's play, or is it for adults only?

Last Wednesday, while most good Brits were contemplating the prospect of a holiday weekend, SABIP published a report, "The Economics of Copyright and Digitisation: A Report on the Literature and the Need for Further Research", put together by Christian Handke (Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands). The 1709 Blog will be digesting this opus and indeed opining on it in due course. Meanwhile, you can access the executive summary here (11 pages, inclusive of ample artwork), while the full report can be downloaded here (103 pages). Click here to impart your very own feedback.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, May 31, 2010 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.