Monday miscellany

Around the blogs. There are still three days to vote in the "What content do you want to read in the PatLit weblog?" poll. Click here for details. And a big thanks to those who answered the call for authors for forthcoming articles to be published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP). Only two of the ten topics on offer remain untaken.

If you are one of the small and diminishing minority of people who think that the public at large is in love with the patent system and all that it has achieved, this little piece by Harriet A. Washington in the Huffington Post will soon correct that false impression (thanks, Gareth Williams of Marks & Clerk, for the link). Entitled "Gene Patenting Produces Profits, Not Cures", this article paints a picture of the patent system which is one of the following -- and you can decide for yourselves - (a) completely and utterly true; (b) selectively and misleadingly true; (c) true for the United States only; (d) generally false; (e) completely false. Harriet is author of Deadly Monopolies.

Two little gems have just emerged from the Strategic Advisory Board on Intellectual Property Policy, SABIP. They are a 16-page report of the proceedings of a policy panel debate held last February to discuss the issues raised by the proposed Google Books settlement, together with SABIP's own policy recommendations (here) and a 12-page document, "Attitudes and Behaviours of Consumers in the Digital Age Policy Bulletin" (the IPKat thinks that 'Policy Bulletin' isn't actually part of the name of the report, but who is he to challenge the textual integrity of a media release?). You can download it here. This Kat hasn't read either, since they both disagreed violently with his Google Chrome browser which peppered him with error messages. They both seem, from what he can tell, to contain very little text and a lot of empty space and/or artwork. Personally, especially given the need to trim public expenditure and enhance efficiency, he'd have preferred both documents in boring old Word but maybe a few weeks sooner.

The IPKat has just discovered the joys of Eric E. Johnson's Museum of Intellectual Property (here), on which can be found all sorts of relics of famous intellectual property litigation (which can be inspected in person if you pop across to North Dakota) as well as in online format. While the current collection is still relatively small -- it has just around 80 items -- and US-centric, this Kat is sure that it will grow in size and in spread as it becomes more popular. If you have any candidates for admission to the collection, contact Eric here and let him know. Merpel adds, this museum is not to be confused with Le petit Musée des Marques (here), a living museum or laboratory for the development of perceptive thoughts about all things trade mark and brand-related, by the wonderful Frédéric Glaize.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, July 19, 2010 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Regarding Harriet Washington's article, I'm not sure it's quite justified to infer from anything about the public mood from an anti-capitalist rant by a single author trying to promote her book.

    I have no doubt that the public at large doesn't love the patent system. But I see little evidence that that hate it either. With the exception of pharma lobbyists, liberal academics and a few journalists, I suggest that most people simply aren't interested one way or the other.


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.