Wednesday whimsies

Of all the polls the IPKat and his friends have ever run, none has generated so very little interest as the IP Finance poll to find the best IP begging letter -- the sort of thing you might very well find in your spam box if it had not been lovingly crafted by, well, one of us ... It's still not too late to read these masterpieces here and to indicate your preference at the top of the IP Finance weblog sidebar.

Something else you'll find on the same blog is Jackie Maguire's "Best Practices in Valuing IP: an Eye-Witness Account", this being a short account of Jackie's participation in a recent Summit on the topic. You can read all about it here.
One log that is earnestly looking for more writers is the patent litigation weblog PatLit.  Previous team members have provided some welcome support, but right now IPKat team member Jeremy is doing it all himself.  If you are (i) seriously interested in regularly writing for a blog of good standing and high standards, (ii) thick-skinned enough to cope with criticism from readers and colleagues, (iii) very competent in terms of literacy, (iv) closely enough involved in patent dispute resolution to have something to say on a frequent basis and (v) based in a major patent litigating jurisdiction other than the United Kingdom, please email Jeremy here (subject line "PatLit") and establish your credentials.

Staying on the topic of patents, the "How to Pronounce the P-word" poll closed with the following votes cast: 421 (that's 81%) said "patent" with a short "a" as in "apple"; 56 (10%) opted for "pay-tent" and 40 (7%) preferred "pie-tent".  Quite how 2% of the voters can disappear in an electronic poll is not known to this Kat. Anyway, it was all good fun.  The original post threw up 30 comments, some of which were remarkably enlightening ...

The UK Intellectual Property Office's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) page was refreshed yesterday. The negotiating parties are committed to issuing in the very near future the version of the ACTA text which has emerged from the conclusion of the 11th round, it seems.

IPKat team member Jeremy is known to be a keen supporter of MARQUES, the association of European trade mark owners, practitioners and people who really appreciate a decent social programme when they see one.  Anyway, since MARQUES has looked after its feline followers so well, they are more than happy to do MARQUES a favour in return.  The organisation has established a Facebook presence here, but the address is far from sexy.  What we need is 25 readers of this blog to "like" its page by clicking the "Like" button next to the word "MARQUES" near the top of the page.  Once this has been done, MARQUES can ask for the incredibly attractive url -- where it will soon be posting its Berlin holiday conference piccies. Thank you!

Talking of partying and social programmes, the IPKat's friend Abida Chaudri (IP Consultant, Museum of Brands), tells him that members of the IP fraternity will be ever so welcome if they consider booking an unusual and enjoyably nostalgic retro-themed Christmas function at the Museum's cosy Notting Hill premises.  The Museum has produced an invitation to that end which you can access here. Enquiries should be directed to Francesca (as set out in the link), citing "IPKat" as their source.

The UK's Intellectual Property Office has launched a new dedicated web-page for research here. The IPO's Economics, Research and Evidence Team consists of Tony Clayton, Benjamin Mitra-Kahn, David Humphries, Grace Edgar, Peter Evans, Rose Geeson and Tony Creaton, at least a couple of whom seem to be quite Kat-friendly.  This page is also the gateway to the mortal remains of SABIP, the Ozymandias of British IP -- concerning which, Merpel asks: "whatever happened to the SABIP-commissioned project on "Intellectual property enforcement in smaller UK firms"?

Two books on IP in China have recently fallen the IPKat's way.  One is a recent title, Imitation to Innovation in China, by University of Hong Kong's Professor Yahong Li. In this timely tome the author argues for a stronger patent regime, following an analysis of China’s increasingly original biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Subtitled "The Role of Patents in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries", the text supports the theory that, as countries become more innovative, they both have more to gain from patent protection and more to lose from its absence. More information on Professor Li's book can be found on the Edward Elgar website here. The other, published in 2008, is Rebecca Ordish and Alan Adcock's China Intellectual Property Challenges and Solutions (Wiley, details here). In contrast with Professor Li's patient and scholarly analysis, Ordish and Adcock offer a more practical, functional "this-is-how-you-do-it" sort of work, that braces IP-based businesses for the sort of bumpy ride they can expect in the only recently tilled but fertile terrain that is the Chinese market -- and they offer a little future-gazing too.  The Kat is pleased to say that both these titles have enhanced the value and the utility of his collection of China IP books: the combination of good English and an understanding of what readers are concerned is now available at an affordable price.   Merpel adds, China watchers should also take note of Thomson Reuters' Patented in China II: The Present and Future State of Innovation in China, just out and available free of charge if you register for it here.
Wednesday whimsies Wednesday whimsies Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. The less than perfect democracy is caused by rounding errors: 421 is 81.43%, 56 is 10.83%, 40 is 7.74%. They have all been rounded down.


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.