Looking for something? Last week's Katposts

"Looking for something?"  This post gives you a chance to check what you've missed on this weblogs (apart from the usual Monday, Wednesday and Friday features, that is). There's a poll on the IPKat's home page side bar in which you can express your view of this feature before it either becomes permanent or is consigned to history.
* "Hacking, raspberry jam and the power of PSI: on the deeper meaning of IP", here. This guest piece from University of Kent academic Alan McKenna reviews a recent British decision on the meaning of "intellectual property", its application to personal information and a possible market for trade in private facts;

* ""Is it a Birss, is it a plane ...?" Skydive litigants crash-land in court", here, this being a case note on a copyright scrap over the ownership of a jointly owned film;

* "Google and the Law", here -- announcing the publication of a new book, with two Kat contributions, on Google's various business operations and their legality;

* "Patents: dead, broken -- or just not working perfectly?", here, this being announcement of the latest WIPO filing statistics and a wind-up for many readers that suggested there must be some virtue left in the patent system if more people than ever were apparently using it;

* "Are Nominet decisions the last word in domain name disputes?", here. This is a note on a fascinating ruling that domain name dispute determinations by Nominet's panellists were not in general open to judicial review;

* "Same sentence, different meaning", here, in which guest blogger Norman reflects on the extent to which the meaning of a patent claim depends on either its text or its context;

* "It may not be elegant but at least it's legal: appeal court rules on wash-up Act", here, this being Cat the Kat's take on the last word -- until the next last word -- on the legality of the UK's Digital Economy Act, following a challenge brought by two internet service providers;

* "Can there be a performance right in a graph?", here. Not the sort of question you get asked every day but, then, Neil is not an everyday blogger;

* "The Highway opens up to more traffic, but where does it lead?", here. A blockbuster from David on the choice of strategies open for anyone planning to argue inventive step before the European Patent Office -- and speculation as to where each might end up;

* "The Cost of Knowledge", here, in which guest Kat Darren considers access to scholarship, the Elsevier boycott and the roles of peer-reviewed commercial and institutional publications;

* "4-methylimidazole and Killer Cola: all right for you, but not -4-MEI?", here. The IPKat knew that the localised change of Coca-Cola's formula was going to generate some heat but he assumed it would be in branding circles only;

* "No more indulgence for mess-about defendants, says Court of Appeal", here. This post reviews Fred Perry's struggle to close a case against an initially inert and subsequently non-co-operative infringer;

* "The Ultimate watchmakers case: passing off leads to a ticking off", here, in which a trade mark owner's initial decision to tolerate a near-identical brand competitor leads not to tears but to unnecessary complications on the road to victory.
Illustration from the templates.com blog
Looking for something? Last week's Katposts Looking for something? Last week's Katposts Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, March 12, 2012 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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.