Please don't forget to check out the list of forthcoming events on the IPKat's little list. You'll find a selection of fascinating seminars, talks and conferences
here. On the subject of forthcoming events, the IPKat's seminar on "IP Enforcement in the UK: appraising the new American model" (initial details
here) is nearly booked out -- but we're going to open a 'reserve list' so that, if anyone drops out, someone else will be able to come instead. The discussion panel has now been augmented by Pete Wishart MP, who is Vice-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group, and Nick Munn (Deputy Director, IPO Copyright Enforcement). The IPKat hopes to publish the final version of this exciting programme early next week.
Around the blogs 1. The question whether video games in the Netherlands are protected by copyright as "computer software" or "works in general" was discussed earlier this year by the Hague Court of First Instance in
Nintendo Co. Ltd and others v Snip Webwinkels and others. A note on this ruling, by Willem Leppink and Jeremy Schutte, is carried on the jiplp weblog
here. Meanwhile,
IP Tango has finally crept up to the 300 email-subscriber mark: this unusual bilingual IP blog might even go trilingual if it gets Portuguese posts on IP in Brazil. And now let's welcome a new blog on the block: UK law firm Lawrence Graham LLP has gone public with
LG blogs IP, Powered by a five-lawyer team and with an archive back to April, this looks like a fun product. Good luck, says the Kat!
Around the blogs 2. New Patents County Court (England and Wales) judge Colin Birss QC has wasted no time in showing his mettle, giving some genuinely helpful guidance on which rules govern "old" patent litigation in England and Wales after the new rules come into effect, where there are no transitional provisions: you can read his position on PatLit
here. Another judgment from the same judge, same court, is discussed on the IP Finance blog
here: it's
Nike International v Bateman on costs orders where a tiny infringement by a small defendant is unnecessarily defended by an IP owner who should have pressed for a consent order rather than summary judgment.
Nice one, CIPIL. Although 26 October is only a few short days away, it's not too late to cancel all your work engagements and pitch up to Emmanuel College, Cambridge (England) for the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law's rescheduled Fifth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (full details
here; email
here to reserve your space. The speaker is Professor Graeme W Austin (J. Byron McCormick Professor of Law at the University of Arizona) and the title of the lecture is "Copyright's Private Domain".
A little bit "unhenged". From Dave Woolf comes
this link to fotoLIBRA blog's "Stonewalling Stonehenge". For the benefit of non-Brits, and indeed anyone who lives in England and who has recently experienced what jokingly passes for education,
Stonehenge is an ancient site of great historical, cultural and technological interest, a bit like the Pyramids in Egypt only a rather different shape. Anyway, fotoLIBRA apparently received the following missive:
"We are sending you an email regarding images of Stonehenge in your fotoLibra website. Please be aware that any images of Stonehenge can not be used for any commercial interest, all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage".
The IPKat is not aware of any legal basis upon which English Heritage can claim a monopoly in the use of images of Stonehenge and would be grateful if his more learned friends and colleagues could advise him if he is wrong. Meanwhile, here's an image of Stonehenge of made of LEGO bricks. The IPKat advises English Heritage to team up with Lego, since both seem to be quite good these days at asserting the right to control things that aren't theirs (on Lego, click
here).
