The OFT "embraces" IP?

Thanks to the IPkat for details of this decision of the UK OFT. In considering a proposed merger involving cheese making technologies (will refrain from obvious remarks), the OFT accepted exclusive irrevocable licensing of IP as a means of addressing concerns. Although this is some way from the OFT requiring licensing in an article 82/section 18 abuse of dominance situation, the OFT is rather proudly announcing that this is the first time there had been such an approach in a merger case.

This does suggest that if an IMS or Magill scenario were to arise in the UK, the OFT (as well as the EC Commission) might be interested in investigating any complaint. What about allegedly spurious patent infringment actions? Promedia and Noerr Pennington a la UK anyone?

More TRIPS PLUS

Thanks to IP-Watch for details of the US-Russia bilateral trade agreement, which seems to require measures introduced in excess of those required by TRIPS. Early data disclosure, to facilitate manufacture of generics, is under particular attack - which may well have public health and human rights implications. Another reminder that reviews of Doha, and workshops to help explore its opportunities (see http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news06_e/trips_wp_27nov06_e.htm) are, in themselves, potentially rather pointless.

Private copying? Sign up here

From Open Rights Group, petition to Downing Street. Thanks Lilian/Pangloss for link!

Image and Trust; publishing - and IP?

I was delighted to participate in the VARIE (Visual Arts Research Institute of Edinburgh) seminar series "Image and Trust". This is a most amazing interdisciplinary venture - speakers last time were a mathematician on forms of teaching logic, and an artist. My topic was "Creativity and reputation - law's inadequacies?" - on the basis that this was as close as law got to Image and Trust. It was a fascinating opportunity to explore the usual suspects - individual and economic focus, problems of getting clearance, the extent of any right to privacy - and (to me) more unusual questions such as the impact of law on cultural studies projects, and the links between what is a substantial reproduction, likelihood of confusion, and evolving perceptions. Human rights, legal and theoretical, were a common theme, and the impact of competition law as a fetter to abuses of power also touched upon.

Similar themes came out at my (becoming annual) seminar at the Centre of Publishing Studies at Stirling University, to MSc and MLitt students, ably organised by Andrew Wheatcroft. A focus on the basics of copyright, and how publishers should, from their perspective, secure everything they can, moved quickly to the impact of this on creativity and the societal messages it sent, and the need, both ethical and financial, for fair business deals.

Both events a healthy reminder that IP is only part of a broader framework - and for most exists around the edges .

Whither Doha, IP and health

Thanks to the IP Watch for comprehensive commentary on developments and review in respect of Doha, IP and accessing medicines. Not entirely surprisingly, there seems to be a range of views....although most interesting is the reference to a critical Oxfam report.

Against this same backdrop was discussion in the EC about research (and its funding) into neglected diseases. Focus on this (http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=451&res=800&print=0) has noted the absence of IP from the debate and has seen this as largely positive, as it was taking place outside the market framework. I am rather sceptical about this - whatever one thinks about IP, it exists. It is not sensible to ignore it - other regimes and principles, such as competition and human rights, must either work within or around IP or prevail over it.

VITA standards

Thanks to Bill Heinze for details of ex ante approval given by the US Department of Justice to a new standard setting process. The details provided sound reasonably normal - search and disclosure in respect of essential patents (although as we know from the US Nokia litigation, there is scope for debate about what that might mean...). The DoJ has noted that the standard setting process is an attempt to promote competition and increase the prospects of the standard operating successfully without it being held to ransom in the future.

All very sensible - IP and competition working well together towards a broad objective. Just hope the standard setting process works as planned and disclosures are forthcoming.

The IGF

Well, it's over but it does look like the start of something. I found Kieran McCarthy's regular Register posts entertaining and informative as ever (see also blog http://igf2006.intgovforum.org/); and even the possiblity of openness and dynamic coalitions suggest a new contributor to the future of debate over the internet, power, and control - again, all important to our project. Roll on Brazil.