Dead King still enjoys royalty perks, but Schulz earns Peanuts. While it has been established since the days of Lewis Carroll (deceased) that a Kat may look at a king, it is plain that he is unlikely to earn as much. The BBC is among many media outlets that
report the Forbes dead celebrity survey findings that the King of Pop (as Michael Jackson is apparently known) earned a whopping $275m (£173m) last year. This puts him ahead of any other celebrity, dead or alive, except Oprah Winfrey. Another moneyed monarch, His Majesty the King of Rock and Roll (a.k.a. Elvis Presley) crept in a distant second, making $60m (£38m), followed by a commoner, JRR Tolkien. In comparison, what Charles Schulz raked in might be described as Peanuts $33m (£21m), with Working Class Hero John Lennon trailing in fifth with a paltry $17m (£11m)
[The celebrities listed here may be dead, but copyright isn't, notes Merpel: Jackson's album sales and radio airplay accounted for $50m, while sales of a video game, memorabilia and a re-released autobiography were worth another $50m]. |
Antonio, looking
very serious |
Around the blogs. New PatLit team member
Antonio Selas is now posting: you can see his first piece, on Veteri's patent infringement suit against Google,
here. On the subject of PatLit, the third in its PPC Pages series ("The biter bitten") on the revamped Patents County Court (PCC) for England and Wales has now been published
here (this episode deals with pitfalls at the pre-action stage and how to avoid, or sidestep, them
) and a very helpful chart contrasting the PCC and Patents Court options appears
here.
 |
| A little bit of Laetitia |
Another new team member, this time for the MARQUES
Class 46 weblog, is
Laetitia Lagarde (Jacobacci), who will be monitoring General Court decisions on Community trade marks and applications for that busy blog. Laetitia, it should be known, has worked as an Examiner in OHIM's Trade Marks Department and as a Legal Assistant to the Boards of Appeal. She tells the IPKat that her old colleagues at Alicante will be curious to see where she has ended up ...
 |
Brains = Money?
Wrong equation ... |
Intelligence seeks vacant head. If you fancy a change of career (unless you're already doing this work, of course), the UK's Intellectual Property Office is looking for a Head of Intelligence Hub, Copyright & IP Enforcement Directorate. From the details
here you will notice that all sorts of skills and talents are demanded of the lucky appointee, but the salary range, in keeping with current public sector austerity, is just £42,250 to £53,478. That's more than a Magic Circle trainee solicitor earns, but less than he or she would receive on qualification.
Recently published. Oh dear, October is ebbing away and the Kat plumb forgot to mention this month's
Intellectual Property Magazine (
here). This issue focuses on food and drink with reviews of (i) food 'n' drink brand extensions, (ii) protection of recipes, (iii) European GIs, (iv) brand bios of The Pure Package and Horlicks. Lots of pretty pictures, not too much to tax the reader's resources. Meanwhile, the IPKat has just received his November 2010 issue of the
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (
JIPLP): contents
here, editorial ("IP and the moral maze")
here; a reader's rejoinder
here.
Editorial, advertorial? The UK Intellectual Property Office's IP Insight online newsletter carries a fair amount of content that is not created by the Office itself. For example, the current issue carries "Royalty Calculator" by Christi Mitchell of Highbury Ltd, "IP Enforcement in UK: Cheaper and Simpler New Procedure" from Marks & Clerk and "Have You Protected Your Brand Name?" by Amanda Jackson (Tigerfish PR). This has led to more than one reader of this weblog asking how he or she can get the answers to the following questions:
(i) does the IPO pay for its outside-generated content or, on the contrary, is it paid to carry it? (ii) is the facility for this wonderful opportunity for publicity open only to UK contributors and (iii) how can one apply or volunteer to have one's own editorial/advertorial content promoted in IP Insight?
The IPKat doesn't know the answer to any of these questions and hopes that one of his kind readers from the IPO -- or one of the contributors to IP Insight -- will come to his aid. Merpel says, IP Insight isn't very transparent: its
home page carries no details of editorial policy and there's no obvious point of contact for would-be contributors. Merpel says, the IP Insight 'Fast Facts' balloon carries the following information: "IP Insight currently has a customer base of over 5,500 subscribers". This is the sort of data that is usually of more use to paying advertisers than to readers or to anyone who is not concerned with marketing and promotional prospects.
