Wednesday whimsies

Have you noticed how attentive Australians are to each other's intellectual creativity?  Only a few days ago this weblog's own genuine Aussie, Cat the Kat, posted this piece on the Church of Kopimism. It was swiftly capped by fellow down-underer (?) Dr Mark Summerfield, who posted as a comment the following lyrics, which were far too enjoyable to leave as a subscript to the original post: (to the tune of "All Things Bright and Beautiful'):
"All things quite down-load-a-ble ..."
"All things quite downloadable,
All content far and near,
Decrypted, ripped and shareable,
BitTorrent brought them here! 
Each e-book we are reading,
Each HD film we see,
No DRM will stop us,
Set information free! 
All things out of copyright,
(And also stuff that's not),
We'll never cease our sacred fight,
To duplicate the lot!"

Not actually a Cat, though she rhymes with one, is Pat: the IPKat's friend Pat Treacy, that is.  Pat, who spearheads some pretty clever work at Bristows LLP at that delicate place where IP meets competition law, begs to remind readers that tomorrow is a Big Day in Luxembourg.  She explains:
“The European Court of Justice will hear arguments in an appeal concerning the European Commission’s decision [noted by the IPKat here, all 920 paragraphs of it...] that found that AstraZeneca had breached competition rules by exercising certain regulatory rights and making certain representations to patent authorities. In particular, AstraZeneca was criticised for a ‘lack of transparency’ in its dealings with the authorities. AstraZeneca had failed to explain that certain submissions had been premised on a particular interpretation of an ambiguous supplementary protection certificate (SPC) regulation provision. This interpretation was later held to be incorrect. 
The Commission’s decision to fine AstraZeneca remains highly controversial; the case raises issues of fundamental importance and may define the scope of competition law and its interaction with other areas of law. The General Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, although the fine imposed was reduced from €60m to €52.5m. AstraZeneca will argue that the Commission’s decision was incorrect and that the lower court’s judgment should be overturned. In particular, AstraZeneca argues that there should be no finding of abuse without a finding of deliberate fraud or deceit against the patent authorities. The outcome of the case is greatly anticipated, although a final judgment may not be delivered until early next year.”
The IPKat hopes to provide at least a little news from the Duchy tomorrow.

Here's a good debating point.  A reader asks whether the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) might be suitable to be nominated as the applicable law to govern a contractual undertaking? She observes:
The IPKat and Merpel exchange
views over the finer points of choice
of law in the European Union
"I would not have thought so because, while Article 96 of the CTMR gives jurisdiction over infringement and validity of a trade mark, the CTMR and its Implementing Regulations do not directly govern contracts between parties in different jurisdictions. Also, Article 106 states that any “other disputes concerning Community trade marks” for which no court has jurisdiction may be heard before the courts of the Member State in which the Office has its seat- i.e. Spain".
This Kat can't imagine that this is conclusion is wrong, but is curious to hear opinions to the contrary. Merpel wants to know if anyone has personal experience of any contract being stated to be governed by the Regulation rather than by the law of a Member State.

A small online document from the Council of the European Union provides evidence of continued action to crystallise the new European unitary patent system. It's from the General Secretariat and it concerns a meeting of the Jurist/Linguists Group which will be held on 26 January, in order to finalize the texts of the Regulation for the creation of unitary patent protection. However, "During the meeting, only the text of the base language is discussed and finalised. On that basis, and taking into account the accepted comments, the other languages are aligned". You can read the document here.  Merpel says, "Gosh, I don't think that even I have seen the finalised text. Or, if I have, I might not have known that it was the finalised text. I do wish I were one of those lucky translators!"
Wednesday whimsies Wednesday whimsies Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Talking about the Church of Kopimism... Who suffered a blow today with a Dutch court ordering two internet providers to block access to The Pirate Bay.


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.