Friday fantasies

Don't forget to check the IPKat's Forthcoming Events page: the Kat has uploaded quite a few new conferences and seminars of late, and he's sure you don't want to miss anything.

Katnote: blog team member Jeremy has recently been receiving in excess of 300 emails a day. Fortunately most of them do not require a great degree of attention in answering, but he still has to get through them all in order to see which ones need to be dealt with or not.  If you are awaiting a response from him, please be patient -- and please don't keep sending follow-ups to ask him if he got your earlier email.

"Should Live Tweeting Be Protected Like Broadcast Rights?" That's the question posed by Sam Laird on Mashable here.  Although the piece turned out to address the right to tweet as an exercise of the right to communicate rather than (as this Kat optimistically hoped when he saw the word 'protected' in the title) as an IP topic, it reflects the continuing growth of serious discussion of social-media related legal and commercial issues.

This Kat's charming, erudite and seemingly indefatiguable Enrico Bonadio has recently published an article in the European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR), "Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products under EU Intellectual Property Law", which he has also posted on SSRN so that all may read and enjoy it here. Since Enrico's article is all about plain packaging, and since he owes the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) at least one article, if not two, the IPKat has decided to treat readers to a plain package Abstract of Enrico's article, which you can peruse at your peril here.

A sock with no peer
From Guardian-hosted Architecture and Design Blogger Oliver Wainright comes this short and sweet report on this Wednesday's House of Lords debate when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (on which, see here) had its Second Reading.  This Kat has been hearing grim rumours that the UK's latest Minister for Intellectual Property, Lord Marland of Oddsock, refused any IP briefing before the debate. This Kat wonders whether his Lordship is going to disappoint the intellectual property community right from the very start, or whether this item comes further down in his list of priorities.  Merpel adds, like any government which holds itself out as being IP-friendly, the UK can benefit from the appointment of Ministers of peerless quality.  Alas, the UK's choices seem to be remarkably peerful.  Of the five Ministers who have taken responsibility (or should that be "responsibility") for intellectual property since the idea of having a Minister was put into practice in 2007, two were Lords and two were Baronesses ...

Friday fantasies Friday fantasies Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, November 16, 2012 Rating: 5


  1. IPKat seems to have frequent complaints against UK government attitudes and actions on IP issues. I get the impression that in the US active lobbying by the innovation industry is a normal part of how government knows how to help industries that rely on IP. I don't see much lobbying of the UK or EPO happening, and that's why I think we don't get the responsiveness from either that we would need to have much better IP systems.

  2. Anonymous of 12.12pm:
    I don't think the IPKat has many complaints against the UK's government in terms of substantive IP law: the Kat does however have a number of objections to the procedures and mechanisms by which IP attitudes are ascertained and policies implemented. The appointment of very junior ministers who have many other areas to cover, and who manifest little interest in IP, is one such item; the provision of overbrief periods for consultation and an arbitrary policy as to what sort of "evidenced-based" submissions it is prepared to entertain is another; an apparent lack of synchronicity between its IP reform agenda and that of the other 26 countries with whom it shares a single, barrier-free market is a third.


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.