Ten days, four pages, one final fling?

The IPKat has learned that the UK House of Commons' All-Party Intellectual Property Group has announced that it is to conduct an inquiry into the role of Government in protecting and promoting intellectual property. According to this information put out on its behalf,
"The Group has decided to look at this important issue because responsibility for development and enforcement of IP policy sits across many Government departments and agencies [This is certainly true. Plant varieties and geographical indications, for example, lie outside the control of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and, while the IPO has some input on copyright and media matters, these topics are also allocated elsewhere]. There have been numerous reviews into IP policy in the last ten years but the decision-making framework within which policy is developed and agreed has not been sufficiently examined.
The Group will seek to unpick the tangled web of cross-departmental responsibilities in this area by considering how policy has been developed, the effectiveness of the current approach, and whether the machinery of government can be improved for better policy formulation" [Can Merpel hear the growing rumble of discontent from various quarters about the handling of the issues leading up to and then beyond the Hargreaves Review?].
The All-Party Group seems to have set itself a very tight timetable because it wants to feed its findings into the White Paper due in early summer. Submissions responding to the following six questions must be submitted by 30 March. There is a limit of four pages, so massive detail is not required, but examples or evidence supporting comments will be helpful.
(1) What should the objective of IP policy be?

(2) How well coordinated is the development of IP policy across Government? Is IP policy
functioning effectively on a cross-departmental basis? What changes to the machinery of
government do you believe would deliver better IP policy outcomes?

(3) There have been numerous attempts to update the IP framework in the light of changes brought about by the digital environment. How successful have these been and what lessons can be learnt from these for policy developments?

(4) How effective is the Intellectual Property Office and what should its priorities be?

(5) UK IP policy sits within European and supranational agreements. How should the UK
government coordinate its policy at an international level and what should it do to promote
IP abroad to encourage economic growth? Do you have examples of good and poor practice
in this area?

(6) Protecting, and enforcement of, the IP framework often sits in very different departments to
those that develop IP policy and those that have responsibility for the industries most affected. What impact does this have and how can it be improved?
Four pages isn't very much -- it's hardly even a student assignment -- so do take up the challenge, says the IPKat. It might be your last chance to make a point or two while at least some British Parliamentarians are keen to hear it.

Ten Days That Shook the World here

A katpat goes to Serena Tierney for bringing this to the Kats' attention
Ten days, four pages, one final fling? Ten days, four pages, one final fling? Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 Rating: 5


  1. Clicking the "information" link takes me to a BT/Yahoo log-in page with an advert for a credit report trial.

  2. Thanks, Anonymous. I've repaired and tested the replacement link.

  3. Secretariat provided by the Alliance Against IP Theft.

    So we're expecting a wholly open-minded and non-biased inquiry then?


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.