Project report on Intellectual Property Training Program for Eastern Africa, held on 11th June – 29th June 2007, with a follow-up on 30th August-31st August 2007 at International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya

The purpose is to build local capacity in Intellectual Property practices (IP) for business and research communities in the health and agricultural biotechnology sectors in Eastern Africa. 26 trainees from diverse sectors, which included universities; public research institutions in the fields of Health, Agriculture and Industrial Research; the private sector; and Government Agencies, examined the type of IP issues that their institutions regularly confront and how to deal with them. Following the audit, the trainees reported back to each other and the trainers and prepared reports for submission to their institutions with their findings

The IP Law Book Review, v.10 #1

LANDMARK CASES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, edited by Jose Bellido. Reviewed by Maurizio Borghi, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM), Bournemouth University. UNITED STATES V. APPLE: COMPETITION IN AMERICA by Chris Sagers. Reviewed by Shubha Ghosh, Syracuse University College of Law. A response is given by Professor Sagers following the review. PATENT REMEDIES AND COMPLEX PRODUCTS: TOWARD A GLOBAL CONSENSUS, edited by C. Bradford Biddle, Jorge. L. Contreras, Brian J. Love, and Norman V. Siebrasse. Reviewed by Bernard Chao, University of Denver Sturm College of Law

“Kickin’ The Clouds Away”: A rights-based approach for mesh networks as community media

In the latest post in our Alternative Internet(s) series, Argyro Karanasiou, Lecturer in IT & Media Law for the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University argues that policymakers must embrace decentralised Internet architectures as a way of breaking online informational monopolies

Intellectual Property Law and Entertainment Law Issues

The University of Georgia School of Law\u27s Dean Rusk Center hosted an intellectual property law lecture featuring Martin Kretschmer, professor of information jurisprudence and director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management at Bournemouth University, U.K. Kretschmer discussed his groundbreaking work in artist compensation in the European Union as well as the contractual structures that drive creative industries on April 6 at 1:30 p.m. in the Larry Walker Room of Dean Rusk Hall. His lecture was followed by comments from W. Bruce Burch, UGA director of Interdisciplinary Certificate in Music Business; Bertis E. Downs IV, Georgia Law adjunct professor and general counsel for the music group R.E.M.; and John L. Turner, UGA Terry College of Business associate professor

Powers to disconnect internet users should not be lightly delegated. (Letter)

From Prof Martin Kretschmer. Sir, Peter Mandelson’s digital economy bill (report, November 20) contains major legislative innovations in the treatment of copyright law. For the first time, a regulatory rather than a property rights approach is used, both for enforcement and access issues in the digital environment. Under the traditional approach, the state grants copyright as a property right but then leaves transaction and enforcement to private parties. Under the regulatory approach (commonly used for utilities) market access, price control and contractual supervision remain prevalent long after a franchise has been awarded. The digital economy bill gives the communications regulator Ofcom and civil servants (under delegated powers to the secretary of state) an unprecedented role in copyright law, in determining whether copyright infringers will be subject to internet speed limits or even disconnection, and in regulating the use of copyright works whose owners cannot be traced (so-called “orphan works”). This is a significant conceptual innovation, and a welcome recognition that intellectual property rights shape the infrastructure of a knowledge-based society. If a regulatory approach is used, however, it is imperative to create a truly independent basis for regulation, using verifiable evidence. Here, the record of the New Labour government is dismal. Certain sectors of the entertainment industry appear to have privileged access to ministers. This has led to proposals for tackling downloads and file-sharing that affect fundamental rights, and are likely to have anti-innovative consequences (for example in driving traffic further underground, throttling legitimate streaming services, and imposing costs on internet service providers). Powers to disconnect internet users should not be lightly delegated, certainly not in the sweeping manner of the digital economy bill that will allow future ministers to change the scope of copyright law without proper scrutiny. Martin Kretschmer, Professor of Information Jurisprudence, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management, The Business School, Bournemouth University, U

Introduction: Legal Form and Cultural Symbol – Music, Copyright and Information Studies

Writers in information and communication studies often assume the stability of objects under investigation: network nodes, databases, information. Legal writers in the intellectual property tradition often assume that cultural artefacts exist as objects prior to being governed by copyright law. Both assumptions are fallacious. This introduction conceptualises the relationship of legal form and cultural symbol. Starting from an understanding of copyright law as part of systems of production (in the sense of Peterson 1976), it is argued that copyright law constructs the artefacts it seeks to regulate as objects that can be bought and sold. In doing so, the legal and aesthetic logic of cultural symbols may clash, as in the case of digital music (the central focus of this special issue)