| December 1, 2015
Alice 101: Patenting Software and Business Methods in the US
A Toronto Intellectual Property Group event. Click for details. December 8, 2015
Innovation Information Forum
ventureLAB event. Learn what the Government of Canada is doing to bolster innovation and what programs and services are available to help your business. Click for details.
January 20, 2016
IP Osgoode Speaks Series featuring Jerry Agar
Save the date! 12:30 – 2:30 pm at Osgoode Hall Law School. More details to come.
February 18-20, 2016
“East Meets West”
University of Washington School hosts Fourth Asia Pacific IP Forum in conjunction with 13th Annual WIPIP Colloquium. Click for details.
February 19-20, 2016
7th Annual Fox IP Moot
Click for details.
February 26-27, 2016
International Patent Drafting Competition
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and Windsor Law event. Click for competition rules.
March 2, 2016
IP Osgoode Speaks Series featuring Prof. Abraham Drassinower
Save the date! 12:30 – 2:30 pm at Osgoode Hall Law School. More details to come.
March 17-19, 2016
The 14th Oxford International Intellectual Property Moot
Taking place at Pembroke College, University of Oxford. Click for details.
| |
|
Intellectual Property Journal
Call for Submissions Submissions are welcomed to be considered for inclusion in the Intellectual Property Journal (IPJ). Click for details.
| |
|
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in furtherance of the Global Dossier Initiative launched the first service for Global Dossier – Dossier Access. Dossier Access is a user-friendly online interface, which will make it easier for patent applicants to quickly and easily view, monitor, and manage intellectual property (IP) protection around the world by providing access to the dossiers of related applications filed at participating offices.
| |
|
| The IPIGRAM (30 November 2015)
Feature Posts
| |
|
Copyright, Disability and Social Inclusion: the Marrakesh Treaty and the Role of Non-signatories
November 25, 2015 by Dr. Lior Zemer and Aviv Gaon
Of Rights and Reservations
Access to knowledge has always been at the forefront of the international discourse on intellectual property.[1] The idea that a system designed to encourage creativity and foster innovation must allocate exclusive rights to authors and artists is as old as the Statute of Anne.[2] The same statute, however, provides that this allocation is not without limits, and mandates access to knowledge as a pre-condition to any such allocation.[3] Internationally, since the adoption of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (‘Berne Convention’), legal regimes have become more attentive to the limits that copyright systems must endorse in order to protect the public interest and the needs of different users.[4] As Numa Droz, the President of the first Berne Diplomatic Conference in 1884, stated:
Consideration also had to be given to the fact that limitations on absolute protection are dictated, rightly in my opinion, by the public interest. The ever-growing need for mass instruction could be met if there were no reservation of certain reproduction facilities, which at the same time should not degenerate into abuses.[5]
| |
|
The re-posting of this article is part of a cross-posting agreement with CyberLex.
The Internet of Things (IoT) has been identified as a disruptive technology, bringing with it both the promise of seamless interconnectivity of devices and, the flip side of that interconnectivity, single-point vulnerability of multiple systems. While businesses rush to embrace the technology, the regulators have begun considering the issues raised by it.
| | | |
| | |
IP Osgoode Speaks Series Video: Dr. Matthew Rimmer
November 27, 2015 by IP Osgoode
IP Osgoode would like to thank everyone who attended Dr. Matthew Rimmer’s lecture entitled “The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom” on October 8, 2015 at Osgoode Hall Law School. The audio-recording of the lecture is available here.
To read the IPilogue’s blog and commentary about the lecture, click here.
| | |
| Recent Posts
Small Claims Court Makes Some Big Decisions about Fair Dealing and TPMs
November 25, 2015 by Andrew Hunter
In the recently released decision 1395804 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Blacklock’s Reporter v Canadian Vintners Association, the Ottawa small claims court ruled in an interesting way on fair dealing that might have some far-reaching implications if nothing overrules it. Reading a strict interpretation of CCH and the Copyright Act, deputy judge Lyon Gilbert reached the conclusion that circumventing technological protection measures (TPM) precluded any possibility of fair dealing, creating the bizarre legal scenario that any copyright owner might be able to prevent fair dealing from ever taking place by setting up paywalls and restrictive terms and conditions.
US: Safe Harbour No Longer
November 25, 2015 by Lisa Hartman
On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice declared that the Safe Harbour program – a framework which allowed efficient transfer of personal data between European Union (EU) member states and the US – was invalid. Over 4,000 companies, including data giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google, relied on the Safe Harbour program to conduct business in the EU.
Read more
ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees Review: Should Partial Rights Withdrawals be Allowed?
November 25, 2015 by Alexandra Grishanova
Last year the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was opening a review of antitrust consent decrees that govern the activities of two major US performing rights organizations (PROs): the American Society of Composers and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI). The organizations administer public performance rights and collect royalties on behalf of over 90% of US songwriters and music publishers. As natural monopolies who possess enormous bargaining power through controlling the rights over the vast majority of the US music works, both PROs have been subject to antitrust lawsuits. As a result, since 1941 ASCAP and BMI have been governed by antitrust consent decrees, which limit their licensing practices in a number of important ways. For example, both PROs must grant blanket public performance licences over their entire repertoires to any user who asks for one. If a user and a PRO are unable to come to an agreement on a licence fee, the decrees specify that a reasonable rate should be set by a “rate court”. In addition, the PROs are prohibited from discriminating against similarly situated users. This provision, recently interpreted by the US courts as requiring publishers to either use PROs for administering their public performing rights for all purposes or for none at all,[1] is one of the main reasons behind the present review.
Read more
| |
|
