For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Friday, 1 June 2012

Friday fantasies

Can't keep up with just
these little legs ...
Armed with only little legs, as it were, the IPKat is at a disadvantage as he runs frantically along in the wake of the continuing developments surrounding the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA negotiation process. Further documents have emerged which, together with an acerbic commentary from European umbrella pressure-group EDRi, can be perused here. The documents in question are the reports-back to the Commission from the secret negotiation rounds which were held in Paris 2008, Rabat 2009, Seoul 2009 and Guadalajara 2010. Collectively they offer a fascinating perspective on the conduct of clandestine discussion between parties that were not altogether familiar with the status quo which they were setting out to change. It now appears that all three relevant EU Parliament committees have voted to recommend summary rejection (see The Inquirer here) -- even the legal affairs committee JURI, "home of the copyright talibans". Despite the pleasant summer weather, further developments are expected soon.


Unconventional, yes, but
we'd never let such secrets
out of the bag ...
It pays to be unconventional in your breeding habits if you want to patent them, if the title of recent Intellectual Property Watch article is anything to go by: it's "EU Parliament Advises No Patent On Conventional Breeding" and you can read it here. A katpat for Chris Torrero for this link, which is actually to quite an important feature on the decision of the European Parliament to adopt a resolution on the patenting of essential biological processes that "calls on the EPO [European Patent Office] also to exclude from patenting products derived from conventional breeding and all conventional breeding methods".


Not just any moth, but
a high-tech behemoth ...
Conventional breeding methods may not be sufficient to save Innovation, which is (according to the New Tork Times) a bit of an endangered species. Its natural habitat is presumably coming under threat from litigants or even judges, since the piece's title is "Tech suits Endanger Innovation". The article reports that
"High-tech behemoths in a range of businesses like mobile computing and search and social networking have been suing one another to protect their intellectual property from what they see as the blatant copying and cloning by their rivals. Regardless of the legitimacy of their claims, the aggressive litigation could have a devastating effect on society as a whole, short-circuiting innovation." 
There's plenty more in the same vein.  This Kat is fascinated: he thought all this litigation was caused by innovation in the first place.  A katpat goes to Dr.Tim Ward for the link.


Law offices in France are generally
more spacious than those in London ...
This Kat has just acquired a new French colleague at Olswang LLP, where he holds his IP Consultancy. The colleague in question, Jean-Frédéric Gaultier [not to be confused with another Gaultier who has no accents in his middle name at all, notes Merpel], will be heading the firm's Paris IP practice.  Jean-Frédéric, who comes via Clifford Chance and has a CV full of achievements that would fill a Kindle, has one great asset in particular: he speaks French.  This linguistically-challenged blogger wonders how long he can give his new colleague to settle in before he summons up the courage to ask him to verify the accuracy of a paragraph or two that has emerged from Google Translate, or help him spot the reasoning in any decisions of the Cour d'appel de Paris ...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The European Parliament should not call on the EPO, it should just pass a law.

EPO is the executive, but the European Parliament is not the legislator.

Anonymous said...

I think first anonymous may be misunderstanding. The EPO was set up by an international agreement called the European Patent Convention (EPC), which is almost entirely separate from the European Union. The EPO is, as far as I'm aware, not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the EU institutions, nor of any national parliament or government.

Department of Minuscule Emendations said...

Anonymous at 11:59:00 AM - we think you made an error. If you leave out "not", your second sentence makes sense (though it's still wrong).

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':