Monday Miscellany

Preparing for Christmas! 
On 12 December 2016, the European Digital Rights (EDRi), a non-profit international organisation defending civil and human rights in the digital environment, published a valuable document pool concerning the proposal of the Digital Single Market. Diego Naranjo shared relevant documents (published and leaked) such as consultations, reports, studies, events, analysis and guides. Don't miss taking a look at it!

Professor Lionel Bently of the University of Cambridge, as well other leading scholars in the field of IP, Information Law and Digital Economy, recently responded to the call for views by the UK IPO on modernising the European Copyright framework. The response focused on article 11 of the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled 'Protection of press publications concerning the digital uses'. The signatories concluded that the “proposed right is unnecessary, undesirable, would introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty and be unlikely to achieve anything apart from adding to the complexity and cost of operating in the copyright environment”. Read more on the reasons why here.

IPPRo The Internet reported the response of Angela Mills Wade (executive director of the European Publishers Council) to the opinion of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) regarding the EU proposal for a 20-year right for press publishers and the argument that it will be detrimental to author’s interests. Angela said “strong economic rights benefit publishers and authors alike” and there has been misleading information regarding the so-called 'ancillary copyright', which will not have a negative effect on readers but only on organisations free-riding of links.

In the context of the surprising confirmation made by the UK government regarding the willingness to proceed with preparations to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (already covered on this blog), Katfriend Univ.- Prof. Dr. Thomas Jaeger, LL.M. of Universität Wien has published a discussion paper entitled “Reset and Go: The Unitary Patent System Post Brexit”. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate over the future of the UPC system if the UK will leave the EU. A previous Guest post by Dr. Jaeger on the UPC and Brexit can be read here.

New IP Lawyers is calling for papers for a workshop entitled “Ethics of Intellectual Property Rights: Challenges & Solutions”, which will take place on 17 March 2017 at Bournemouth University with the support of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management. PhD students in all areas of IP Law, students engaged in interdisciplinary research and those examining ethical issues on IP are encouraged to submit an abstract for peer review, a short biography, name and affiliation to before 15 January 2017. More information, here

Save the date for the “12th Baltic AIPPI Conference on IP rights, Globalization and New Technologies” which will take place from 11 to 13 April 2017 in Jurmala, Latvia. The program covers the latest IP trends as addressed by speakers from Switzerland, Germany, United Kingdom, Russia, Finland, Netherlands and Latvia. Among the issues to be discussed are UPC, practical aspects of litigation of standard essential patents, copyright and trademark infringement on the internet, and costs and damages of IPR infringement. Early fee tickets are available until 31 December 2016. Register here.
Monday Miscellany Monday Miscellany Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo on Monday, December 19, 2016 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.