Friday fantasies

Friday comes round at regular intervals, according to some opinions. But from this weblog's standpoint we seem to hit Friday increasingly often as the pace of life on the IP blogosphere continues to accelerate.  Never mind: take a break from the frenetic pace of life and attend an IP event or two; indulge in a little networking (a synonym for notworking, Merpel wonders) and generally enjoy yourself.  The IPKat's Forthcoming Events page is here.

RIPL makes a ripple.  The fourth and final issue of the tenth volume of the John Marshall Law School's Review of Intellectual Property Law (RIPL) has now been published. You can check out the contents here. For those in pursuit of a happy blend of real law and philosophical speculation, Emir Aly Crowne has penned this intriguing piece on patent-eligibility, Locke and utilitarianism.   Ian Rubenstrunk's analysis of the Stephanie Lenz You-Tube take-down case noted by the IPKat here) and his argument that the courts should reject a narrow interpretation of 17 USC s.512(f) is also worth a read (but that's not to say that the other articles and case notes aren't!)

You can often find very interesting IP articles hidden away in titles that aren't generally known for their in-depth IP coverage, as this Kat has occasionally mentioned. Another classic example of this phenomenon can be found in Sweet & Maxwell's Journal of Business Law (JBL), issue 4, 2011, in which avid readers are treated to "Attempts to Jettison the Intellectual Property Creator Using Corporate Structures and External Administration" by the excellent Mary Wyburn (Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney Business School). This valuable article, which will be of interest and concern to those on both sides of the employer/employee divide, has an Australian flavour which is about as strong as Vegemite, which makes its appearance under the heading 'British Business Law'  little surprising.

Just one year ago, this was an arrestable offence ...
Around the blogs. The IP Finance weblog, noting a recent piece from UNCITRAL's Spiros Bazinas and an update on that organisation's current position on security interests in IP, recalls that it was this very topic which caused the blog -- which now has 929 subscribers -- into existence less than 30 months ago. A year on from the arrest of the Bavaria Babes, Afro-IP's Darren Olivier reflects on anti-ambush marketing laws and wonders whether making ambush marketing an arrestable offence is about as effective as trying to douse a fire with paraffin.  This week's PatLit PCC Page deals with prospects of a patent litigant getting security for costs against a foe who may not have much cash in hand.  Simone Blakeney in Art & Artifice notes the settlement of the Hangover Tattoo copyright dispute, while a current intelligence review by Andrew Clay, hosted on the jiplp weblog, explains the effect that an earlier unappealed OHIM Board of Appeal decision can have upon the General Court's power to review a later decision in respect of the identical trade mark. 

Another day, another consultation -- but this time it's from Ireland. Naoise Gaffney (Tomkins) and barrister Gemma O'Farrell have both sent the IPKat news of the latest consultation paper that has come out of the Irish Department of Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation. Naoise explains: 
It's in response to the recent case [EMI v UPC, here] in which the Irish courts took the view that they were not fully compliant with the Copyright/Infosoc Directive and the Enforcement Directive. While this proposed amendment to the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act proposes to address this perceived shortcoming, perhaps of greater interest is some of the accompanying commentary from the Department:
"It must be emphasised that this proposed amendment is not about the introduction of a statutory regulatory regime in relation to copyright infringement such as the French “Hadopi” system or the “Three strikes” regime set out in the Digital Economy Act in the United Kingdom.  
In proposing to amend the legislation, the Department is particularly conscious of the importance of online content and digital businesses in the Irish context and, accordingly, is simply seeking to ensure Ireland’s continued compliance with its obligations under the relevant EU Directives following the decision of the High Court in the aforementioned UPC case".
Early call for papers.  The First International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property Rights and Strategy, "MIPS 2012", takes place next  2 to 5 February 2012 and its theme is "IP for Development:: The emerging Paradigm". The venue is the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB), India. If you want to give a paper, your first port of call is here.

Intellectual Property Watch is a much-valued service to the IP community worldwide -- but it's not sufficiently valued for people to give it adequate funding.  There's an urgent plea for funding here.  Do please help to keep this precious service going!
Friday fantasies Friday fantasies Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, June 24, 2011 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.