法豆合烧

放送一组母亲节图片

和菜头 — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:57:30 +0800

5月11日，母亲节。

大图

《IPLawg Review：知识产权网络评论》第1卷第4期

(Donnie) — Sun, 04 May 2008 18:09:17 +0800

《IPLawg Review：知识产权网络评论》

第1卷第4期 2008年5月4日（试刊4号）本期编辑：武卓敏

Volume 1, Issue 4. 4 May 2008 Editor: Wu,Zhuomin

=============================================

IPLawg Review是专业的知识产权网络信息综述，欢迎复制转载于您的网站或BLOG，但必须完整清楚地将本文所有内容、包括其中的链接及本段内容予以原样复制。

===========================

4.26的余温未落之际，湖南省2007年知识产权保护状况新鲜出炉，从其中的数据看，确实各方面都在不断加强。重庆也要“扩大开放”搞首个知识产权稽查队，凸显行政保护之“特色”。再往南走，春城昆明中院三审合一审结一案，期待有效提升审判效率，台湾在这方面可以供我们参考。蓬勃的发展鼓舞人心，颇有“做亚洲美国”的抱负，但却无法理解知识产权全球一体化之困。而知识产权这道菜，何时苦尽甘来，还只有从长计议。

米贵、油贵、药也贵，而专利药品的强制许可又不是一条人人都能抓到的救命稻草。监控到期的专利药品也许能够为药厂开辟一条生路。制药企业面对“专利滥诉”，急需政府和行业协会的支撑。印度仿制药公司与美国辉瑞战事连连。专利监控因而不得不成为科研和企业经营关注的重大问题，获取美国干细胞专利情报可以是一种开始和尝试。在干细胞专利问题中，最为敏感的就是胚胎干细胞问题，美国对道德与涉及人类胚胎干细胞的可专利性问题尺度掌握的最宽，有兴趣可以看看这里。

知识产权管理不容易，动的是脑、花的是钱。不管是无知而无畏，还是美丽的“善意忽视”，了解一下美国企业申请专利的战略也是有好处的。。国家知识产权局启动开通三大专利信息服务系统应该是从业者的福音。专利信息系统的完备直接关系到专利数据的分析，专利统计数据的可靠性不容忽视。领导发言式的数据公布方法需要透明化。

跟进世界知识产权潮流的好方法：看看世界知名知识产权研究机构都在研究什么，做些什么。搜索引擎对商标的合理使用问题最近很受关注，比如当搜索引擎拿商标作关键词时。有人问，他人实施保密的专利技术是否侵权？在俄罗斯新专利法中寻却得一解。

来点轻松的，到KTV唱正版歌，钱柜掏出1200万支付版权使用费；一名美国人设计商标讽刺沃尔玛，遭来事端。做网站可以先了解一下经营性或非经营性网站的界定。

IPLawg Review 的运作方式：通过“在叙述中链接”的方式，将近期出现的专业知识产权日志、重要的知识产权新闻和资讯集中聚合于一期IPLawg Review中，然后在所有参与者自己的站点上同时刊载该期内容。这种“集中编辑＋分散发布”的模式，可以结合“专业人肉编辑”和“网络草根媒体”的优点，让新鲜专业的资讯迅速进入读者（同时也是写者）的视线，并逐渐形成一个开放的知识产权Blogger联盟。

推荐信息源：site@iplawg.org（我们只引用非营利性的专业IP站点和个人BLOG），此外您还可在自己的网志文章或TAGS中添加“forIPLawg”，帮助我们找到你的文章。

IPLawg Union 成员列表：

| 知识产权实验室 RSS | 生物技术知识产权C.O.M.平台. RSS | 法豆 RSS |

| 网络法博客 RSS | 法大知识产权研究中心 RSS | 江流婉转 RSS |

欢迎迎加入IPlawg Union！ 您的精彩内容将更快地被我们收录引用。

加盟者致信 union@iplawg.org，信中包括姓名（昵称也可）、网址、网站名称、RSS地址（如果愿意的话还可介绍一下自己）。加入后，除可第一时间获得本刊外，IPLawg Review 编辑部还会将您添加到成员列表，利用IPlawg Review 的网聚力量分享、推广你的文章/日志。联盟成员的义务仅限于转载每期IPLawg Review，这也可以丰富您的网站内容。不再转载本刊视为自动退出联盟，从成员列表中除名。

========================================

======================

全球知识产权研究机构纵览

(法豆) — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:46:11 +0800

本文按区域对全球知识产权研究机构作出链接。本文将不断更新，请持续关注。
=================================================================

欧洲：

[英国信息政策研究基金]
[剑桥知识产权与信息法研究中心]
[知识产权研究所]
[牛津IP研究中心 | 牛津互联网中心]
[伦敦大学玛丽女王学院IP研究所]
[爱丁堡大学IP和科技法律研究中心]
[伦敦伯克贝克(BBK)大学版权研究网络]
[谢菲尔德大学生物技术法律与伦理研究中心]

[德国版权与媒体法研究所]
[德国明斯特(Münster)大学信息、通讯和媒体法中心]
[马克斯-普朗克知识产权法-竞争法-税法研究所]
[慕尼黑知识产权法中心]

[法国Paul Roubier IP法中心]
[法国Henri Desbois IP研究中心]
[法国Pierre Mendès大学IP教研中心]
[法国Pantheon-Assas大学知识产权中心 | 多媒体法律中心]
[法国Robert Schuman大学国际工业产权研究中心]
[巴黎Sud大学无形财产研究中心]

[欧洲专利学院]
[阿姆斯特丹大学信息法律研究所]
[荷兰乌得勒支大学IP中心]
[挪威计算机与法律研究中心(Oslo)]
[瑞典Göteborg和Chalmers大学IP研究中心]
[比利时鲁汶大学(Katholieke)IP中心]
[比利时Notre-Dame de la Paix大学计算机与法律研究中心]
[西班牙圣地亚哥大学工业产权法研究所]
[巴塞罗那大学专利研究所]

美洲：

[哈佛贝克曼互联网与社会研究中心]
[耶鲁法学院信息社会项目组]
[华盛顿大学施德勒法律、商业与技术研究中心 | IP法研究中心]
[斯坦福大学互联网与社会研究中心 | 跨太平洋科技法论坛]
[保罗(DePaul)大学IP&IT法中心]
[John Marshall法学院IP法中心]
[康耐尔大学法律信息研究所]
[纽约大学Engelberg创新法律政策研究中心]
[达尔豪斯(Dalhousie)法律与技术研究所]
[伯克利法律与技术研究中心]
[马里兰大学IP研究中心]
[杜克大学公共领域研究中心]
[芝加哥肯特法学院科技法研究所]
[休斯顿大学IP研究所]
[哥伦比亚大学法学院Kernochan法律、媒体与艺术研究中心]
[梅森大学(George Mason)国家科技法研究中心]
[乔治华盛顿大学IP中心]
[多伦多大学创新法律与政策研究中心]
[McGill法学院IP政策研究中心]
[皮尔斯(Pierce)法律中心]
[Fordham知识产权法与政策年会]

亚太及大中华区：

[日本知识产权研究所]
[日本著作权信息研究中心]
[日本发明协会]
[日本知识产权学会]
[日本亚太工业产权研究中心]
[日本软件信息研究中心]
[东京大学知识产权系]

[澳大利亚默多克大学亚太知识产权法研究所]
[新威尔士大学网络法律与政策研究中心]
[澳大利亚农业知识产权中心]
[澳大利亚知识产权研究所(墨尔本大学)]
[印度国家法律学院知识产权研究与促进中心]
[墨尔本媒体与通信法中心]

[新加坡知识产权学院]
[香港大学信息科技与法律研究中心 | HKLII]
[新加坡国立大学亚洲法律研究所]
[台湾智慧財產培訓學院]
[交通大学(台湾)科技法律研究所]
[政治大学智慧财产研究所]
[台灣大學科際整合法律研究所]
[清华大学(台湾)科技法律研究所]
[高雄第一科技大学科技法律研究所]

[中国政法大学知识产权研究中心] [中南财经政法大学知识产权研究中心]
[中国社会科学院知识产权研究中心] [华东政法大学知识产权研究中心]
[北京大学知识产权学院] [上海交通大学知识产权研究中心] [暨南大学知识产权学院]
[同济大学知识产权学院] [上海大学知识产权学院] [西北大学知识产权学院]
[华东政法大学知识产权学院] [华南理工大学知识产权学院]

cf89e13f

美国2008年度“特别301”报告

(法豆) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:36:35 +0800

4月25日，美国2008年度“特别301报告”出炉，在这份与去年差别不大，甚至许多地方完全相同的报告中（美国的官人也很懒啊），中国继续被列为最优先关注的国家。51页的报告中有14页是专门的中国部分。此外，在综述部分的大部分段落中也都提到了中国，具体内容点这里看报告原文。这里说几个比较有意思的地方。

一是在“臭名昭著的市场”（notorious markets）部分中所提及的中国市场（包括虚拟的和真实的两类市场）中，除了延续去年报告，对百度网站（mp3）、秀水街、义乌小商品市场进行点名外，今年在虚拟市场中增加了以阿里巴巴和淘宝为代表的B2B和B2C网站（第7-8页）。与此相关，今年报告还提到瑞典网站PirateBay，美国产业界认为它是世界上最大的BT网站之一，也是最大的非法电影和音乐文件交换地。

二是有关“夏至行动”。报告提到了2007年7月6日中美合作开展的反盗版抓捕行动。这个事在今年4月26日的“今日说法”中刚播放过，点这里可察看（视频）。

三是有关台湾的部分。报告中说，将在今年启动一个评估程序，考虑是否将台湾排除在特别301的“观察目录”（Watch List）之外。

想查看2007年和历年“特别301报告”，请点这里。

【检察日报】法学院：关注“第三种教学模式”（一）、（二）

(author unknown) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:21:03 +0800

知识产权许可之反垄断指导原则

(author unknown) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:39:00 +0800

《IPLawg Review：知识产权网络评论》第1卷第3期

(法豆) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:51:59 +0800

《IPLawg Review：知识产权网络评论》
第1卷第3期 2008年4月27日（试刊3号）本期编辑：董皓
Vol. 1, Issue 3. 27 April 2008 Editor: Donnie Dong

=============================================

IPLawg Review是专业的知识产权网络信息综述，欢迎复制转载于您的网站或BLOG，但必须完整清楚地将本文所有内容、包括其中的链接及本段内容予以原样复制。

=============================================

昨天是世界知识产权日，各种“十大……”纷纷出台，其实小编也私下总结过“2007网络法制十大关键词”，不过这不算什么，点这里你可以看到二十多组200多个“知识产权十大案例”，足够教知识产权的老师用好几学期了。知识产权日的知识产权集会当然多，北京人民大会堂开了“知识产权与改革开放30周年座谈会”，武汉隆重召开“2008知识产权南湖论坛国际学术研讨会”，济南有大型的知识产权宣传活动。

开会很热闹，考试很苦恼。如果你想当专利代理人，别忘了5月12日至6月10日是报名时间。如果你已经是业内人士，点这里看看几十个常用的专利网站，此外英国新的免费在线专利期刊服务对你可能也有用。技术层面的知识掌握后，还可以学习一下希区柯克式的企业专利申请战略，不过如果弄得太过份成了Patent Troll（专利妖），可别怪小编没提醒过你。

美国的年度“特别301报告”出炉了，照例把中国和俄国作为最大的批评对象，点这里可以下载PDF版。其实近年来中外知识产权互动日趋紧密，中美警方去年合作了全球最大规模的联合反盗版抓捕行动（视频），前几天又刚刚召开了传统知识和遗传资源研讨会，中国和欧盟也刚刚启动新的知识产权合作计划。

大学生电影节上有个“反盗版公益短片”环节，21岁的得奖者将在美国人资助下游览好莱坞，一位在中国工作的美国律师对此不以为然，认为反盗版还得靠重典。小编倒觉得重典用处不大，最重要可能还是法律体制的系统性完善，否则小企业反盗版的枪响打不过垄断的力量——民营企业其实都挺难，不信你可以学习一下《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》，不过上海的视频网站积极参加版权联盟终究不是一件坏事。对了，这个电影节上的大奖得主是《集结号》，它的“构思”被人主张侵权其实挺没道理的。

之所以IPLawg Review 高密度地试刊，除了向你提供及时的专业资讯外，还有规整格式，便于今后更大规模传播、更详尽挖掘、更专业分析的目的——比一比第1期和第2期，你一定能发现我们的进步。希望这个小创新能让各位喜欢，更希望专业的你参与到我们的联盟中，请阅读下面的介绍。

推荐信息源：site[at]iplawg.org（[at]=@，我们只引用非营利性的专业IP站点和个人BLOG），此外您还可在自己的网志文章或TAGS中添加“forIPLawg”，帮助我们找到你的文章。

IPLawg Union 成员列表：

欢迎迎加入IPlawg Union！ 您的精彩内容将更快地被我们收录引用。
加盟者致信union[at]iplawg.org（[at]=@），信中包括姓名（昵称也可）、网址、网站名称、RSS地址（如果愿意的话还可介绍一下自己）。加入后，除可第一时间获得本刊外，IPLawg Review 编辑部还会将您添加到成员列表，利用IPlawg Review 的网聚力量分享、推广你的文章/日志。联盟成员的义务仅限于转载每期IPLawg Review，这也可以丰富您的网站内容。不再转载本刊视为自动退出联盟，从成员列表中除名。

========================================

IPLawg Review是专业的知识产权网络信息综述，欢迎复制转载于您的网站或BLOG，但必须完整清楚地将本文所有内容、包括其中的链接及本段内容予以原样复制。

========================================

World IP Day: From "Faith" Based IP to "Fact" Based IP

Shamnad Basheer — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:51:00 +0800

As many of our readers know, today is the World Intellectual Property Day, a day that was first marked 8 years ago by WIPO as an occasion to commemorate and celebrate "not only the enormous power of human creativity, but also the intellectual property rights that help to fuel and channel it, making it such an important driving force for economic, cultural and social development."

SpicyIP wishes to celebrate this special day with all its readers, who have done so much to participate in our mission to debate IP events/cases/policy in a dispassionate and objective manner (at least as best as we can).

Comments (both public and personal) have really helped enhance our understanding and appreciation for the complex IP issues that continue to challenge India. And contributed in no small way to our desire to increase the level of transparency in intellectual property debates in India.

To commemorate this special day, SpicyIP wishes once again to reiterate its call to the government of India and the various IP stakeholders in India (including the public at large) to move away from a rhetorical and "faith" based IP model to a "fact" based IP model.

We had already touched on this theme in some of our posts, most noteably the Bayh Dole post, where the government mission to blindly transplant the Bayh Dole Act from the US seemed more a "faith" based mission than a "fact" based one. There were no studies conducted to determine the current nature of university research, university IP policies, university-industry interactions etc.

Let me stress again that we are not opposed to the noble intent underlying this bill i.e. to help move technology and research from the university to the market. However, the complete lack of transparency with which this is being pushed forward in what is supposedly the world's "largest democracy" is shocking, to say the least.

Once again, on this "World IP" day, we appeal to the government to open this bill up for healthy public discussion and debate. And to make available a copy of this bill for public comments at the earliest.

In order to commemorate the World IP Day, OPPI, along with Nasscom, organised an IP event in New Delhi yesterday, where I spoke.

This workshop saw some wonderful presentations from some very big names in the field. Ranga Iyer (President, OPPI and Managing Director, Wyeth) and Tapan Ray (Director General, OPPI) set the tone for the papers to follow by stressing on the importance of incremental innovations. Ranga effectively demonstrated how we cannot rubbish all incremental inventions as mere "evergreened" products and cited real world examples of incremental inventions that provide tremendous value to society.

Naresh Nandan Prasad, Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (clearly one of the most well read and sophisticated government officials on intellectual property) stressed that one cannot assess the success or failure of the new Indian patent regime--as it is too soon to tell. The regime changed to grant pharma product patents only in 2005, and the first spate of patents are just beginning to be granted and litigated. We ought to therefore give it some time before being generous with our doling out of bouquets and brickbats.

DG Shah, Secretary General, IPA (Indian Pharma Alliance) had some very impressive slides on "facts", figures and numbers on drug patents, sales, pricing etc. He stressed that the most patent friendly nation in the world, the United States is now re-calibrating its approach to ever increasing IP protection. He noted that a book by Adam Jaffe and Josh Lerner titled "Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress" was in some way responsible for this new thinking in the US.

I brought to his attention a more recent book on this theme, by James Bessen and Michael Meurer titled "Patent Failure", that is more well researched in terms of the numbers and data. For those interested in a preview version of their book and its key conclusions, see this post in the world renowned "Patently O" blog. Whether or not we agree with their figures and conclusions, SpicyIP welcomes the introduction of more numbers, figures and facts into this debate. Certainly a better footing upon which to frame policy than to rely on blind "faith" or "common sense".

Swati Piramal, Director, Nicholas Piramal, and one of the most creative users of multimedia, showed a video of an interview in 2005, where Yusuf Hamied of CIPLA emphatically stressed to Karan Thapar of CNBC that the Indian patent regime would result in a "genocide" within the next couple of years!! She ended her presentation by asking whether India had seen any "genocide" as predicted. I am trying to get my hands on this video and will post it soon.

Prabuddha Ganguly (of Vision IPR), a noted patent expert from India spoke of the various knotty issues in our patent regime. He argued persuasively that we need to iron out some of the drafting creased in India's new patent regime in order to make it work more smoothly.

Speakers from abroad, including Jon Santamauro (counsel, Sidley Austin) and Heinz Hamann (BI, Germany) spoke on data exclusivity. The drug controller, Dr Surinder Singh, spoke on the challenges facing the drug regulatory machinery in India.

The last session had Dr Stephen Smith (of Nupharm), a patent expert from the UK, and me speaking on "challenges and dilemmas on IPR". Steve had a very interesting presentation that pointed to some of the most thorny interpretative issues in the current Indian patent regime. I've interacted with Steve in the past and know him as one of the most moderate faces from industry. Importantly, Steve is also a big fan of "evidence" or "fact" based IP research.

During the course of my presentation, I stressed upon the fact that we ought to move away from a "faith" based IP model to a "fact" based one. To illustrate my point further, I used two of the most controversial patent cases in India today, the Novartis (Glivec litigation) and the Roche vs CIPLA litigation. While the Novartis case saw headlines from one camp that could best be characterised as shrill rhetoric, ranging from "patents would kill" to "we will defy patents to save lives", the Roche case saw similar emotional rhetoric from the other camp that ev0ked misleading terms such as "patent busting" and "patent theft" to describe the judgment.

I argued that in a "fact" driven world, we have to appreciate that the Novartis case involves a very technical patent question: is the new polymorph patentable or not? If it is patentable under our current patentability standards, then we must grant it a patent, irrespective of how the patent is likely to be used. At the stage of granting a patent, there is likely to be no product at hand, and one is not certain whether not the grant is likely to result in a proper use or an abuse of the patent in question.

Much like a knife which could either be used for cutting an apple or for killing someone, a patent could be either put to good use or bad. If perchance a patent right is "abused", such as the patentee charging excessively high prices, there are safeguards in our legal regime to guard against this, such as compulsory licensing, price controls etc. But to deny the grant of a patent to an invention worthy of protection on the ground that it is likely to misused is flawed policy--on that count, the argument could be reduced ad absurdum to suggest that India ought not to grant patents to any invention at all--in much the same way as arguing that the sale of knives should be banned altogether!!

SpicyIP had earlier reported on a news item, which stated that the Drug Action Forum in Karnataka was calling for a boycott of Novartis, unless they withdrew their case!! SpicyIP responded to this call for boycott by noting that:

"Shouldn’t the case be permitted to run its course? What credibility would we have left as a country if we introduce terms such as “efficacy”, not known to any other patent regime, and then expect interested stakeholders to desist from taking up the issue before courts in the hope of gaining some clarity on how such terms are to be interpreted?"

In other words, the Glivec case involves a very technical patentability issue, centering around section 3(d)--a statutory provision that is new to India and the world. How can we expect a patent applicant to refrain from challenging what is essentially a non speaking patent office order that does not bother to spell out as to how Novartis fails the test under section 3.d?

Similarly, in the Roche case, the assumption that patents are sacrosanct property rights that cannot be derogated from, is completely misplaced. Readers will recollect an earlier post reproducing excerpts from an article in the Indian Express, where I concluded by suggesting:

"....one is not certain at this stage if the Roche patent over Tarceva is a valid one or not. Prior to a final decision on this count, deploying adjectives such as “patent busting” or “patent breaking” to describe the Delhi High Court order smacks of ignorance. If at all anything has been “busted”, it is the notion that patents are sacrosanct monopolies that cannot be derogated from. Most patent scholars today readily agree that patents are nothing more than a statutorily granted right by the state in exchange for the useful disclosure of scientific information. As with other statutory rights, they can be derogated from, when “public interest” so demands. Sophisticated patent policy requires a careful balancing of innovation imperatives through patents against other competing and perhaps more important interests, such as the right to health. And it is this delicate balance that Justice Bhat strives for and achieves in his judgment — a judgment that will no doubt go down in the annals of history as representing a milestone in Indian patent jurisprudence."

To conclude this note, the main purpose of which is to commemorate the World IP day, SpicyIP wishes to reiterate its call to move away from rhetoric and demand more "facts" and numbers. Certainly a better way to build IP policy around than to rely on our innate sense of what is right or wrong. Or to rely on a much bandied about term: "common sense".

Some of the best literature on intellectual property challenged prevailing notions of "common sense". Interestingly, in a landmark decision (Harvard College v Commissioner of Patents (2002) SCC 76), which denied the grant of a patent to a genetically engineered mouse, the Canadian Supreme Court relied on common sense to draw the line between higher life form patents (such as mice) and lower life forms (bacteria, microbes etc). In other words, they fell back on "common sense" to justify their decision to ban patents on higher life forms such as the mouse, when previous Canadian decisions had affirmed the grant of patents to lower life forms such as bacteria etc.

In a telling couter, dissenting judge, Justice Binnie quipped: "With respect, there seems to be as many versions of “common sense” as there are commentators"!!

Similarly, in the context of pharmaceutical patent debates, we have to appreciate that MSF's notion of "common sense" is very different from that of Roche's. In order to make for more optimal policy making, we need to be fairly skeptical of both their claims on intellectual property and begin demanding more numbers and facts.

SheCan.Net for sale. 出售域名SheCan.Net

(Donnie) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:04:08 +0800

International Domain "SheCan.Net" is suitable to the websites of Gender organization, Women's Developing Projects and Blogs on Gender or Women.

This Domain is of my beloved name. The previous version of BLAWGDOG.COM has been using it for 3 years. Now it is still working for my old website: "Minority Woman Protection". So although it is for sale, I will still choose the buyer. Please send me E-mail to the following address with your bid, your aim of using it and your current website by or before 1 June 2008.

=============Chinese================

国际域名SheCan.Net适合于女权组织、妇女发展机构、关注女性的BLOG等。SheCan.Net是法豆的心爱域名，曾经作为法豆的主站“新可能·法”，目前指向网站《SHECAN:少数民族妇女权益网》。由于精力所限，决定予以出售。鉴于此域名的目的，我会选择交易对象，而非仅仅基于出价者高的原则，请于2008年6月1日前将报价、使用此域名的目的及您目前的网站地址等发邮件至：

IPLawg Review 试刊2号

(Donnie) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:00:36 +0800

=============================================
《IPLawg Review：知识产权网络评论》
Vol. 1, Issue 2. 25 April 2008. Editor: Donnie Dong
第1卷第2期 2008年4月25日(试刊2号)
本期编辑：董皓

IPLawg Review 是专业的网络知识产权信息综述，欢迎复制转载于您的网站或BLOG，但必须完整清楚地将本贴所有内容、包括其中的链接及本段内容予以原样复制。
=============================================

明天就是世界知识产权日了，IPLawg Review 的“试刊2号”也继续出炉。目前联盟成员已有三个站点，分别是Donnie的“网络法豆”、卓敏的“生物技术知识产权C.O.M.平台”和张樊的“网络法博客”，另据小道消息，很快会有更多各有专长的IP专家加入联盟，请各位拭鼠标以待。关于IPLawg Review是什么，请点这里查看试刊1号。IPLawg Review 现在的信息来源还很有限，如果你有自己喜欢的非营利性专业IP网站或BLOG，烦请发信到Site[at]IPLawg.org（[at]=@）告诉我们，没准下期IPLawg Review 中就会出现这个网站的新消息。其实Blogger的力量很强大，最近一期WIPO杂志上就专门有一篇“一位IP网志大师一天的生活”的文章。

想考博士的朋友可以看看中国人民大学2008年知识产权博士生入学考试试题，另外中国政法大学也独立设置了知识产权学科，2009年将招收博士和硕士生。

学习是个苦差使，教书也绝不是轻松的活计。在没IP的时代，为了防止教会徒弟饿死师傅，师傅往往留一手。那么，在有IP的时代，这种情况会不会好一些？佛罗里达大学的教授Michael Moulton正在为自己学生的上课笔记被售卖而打官司。其实有时候一本好书不再版，学生也挺着急的。游走在IP边缘的生意经不分国界，代为复印绝版或稀缺图书的服务，侵权不侵权还真不能一概而论——无论有没有法律风险，我们还得承认电子商务的盈利能力，而且最近的趋势是二三线城市异军突起。还是那句老话，机会大把有，就看你抓不抓得住。

为了迎接4.26，全国销毁非法出版物4718万件，不过统计数字没告诉我们这其中有多少是真的黄赌毒。其实很多时候，内部流通的资料很有价值，比如最近刚刚问世的《互联网前沿》。特殊的管理体制带来了特殊的知识产权课题：与业已发表但绝版的作品相反，印刷、散发“内部征求意见稿”是否构成发表的问题也很值得探讨。

中德第八届法律研讨会4月21日在德国慕尼黑召开，会议的主题是知识产权法律制度。中欧知识产权互动频繁，除了学术讨论外，双方港口当局也早在今年1月开始交换有关假冒产品的信息情报，其实如果真想长期经营欧洲市场，在欧洲注册个商标是不错的主意，专注德国市场的，可以考虑德国的分割注册，此外想要到欧洲专利局申请专利的，还可以点这里参考一下收费情况。同样与商标有关，中国《商标法实施条例》第50条似乎规定了商标法上的间接侵权，但按理说间接侵权和共同侵权有不同性质，其构成要件的探索还需要进一步深入。

有人认为客体的非物质性是知识产权的本质特征，无论算不算“本质”，至少这种特点会让知识产权与很多其它权利发生冲突。例如国产软件涉及的隐私问题其实就远远超出我们的想像，信息安全条例列入今年了国务院立法计划，希望立法过程中运动员和裁判员的身份能有效区分。

说起隐私又想起了似乎有点过时的“艳照门”，从版权的角度看艳照传播，也许比各种同样善良但截然相反的道德评论有价值些。但这个事情在中国内地似乎无可讨论，因为《著作权法》第四条清楚地排除了非法作品的著作权，连色戒被剪部分的版权问题都有点玄。

专业问题太伤脑筋，来点轻松的东西结尾，点这里看一组创意家居用品系列，它们可都是专利保护的产品喔。

=============================================
IPLawg Review 是专业的网络知识产权信息综述，欢迎复制转载于您的网站或BLOG，但必须完整清楚地将本贴所有内容、包括其中的链接及本段内容予以原样复制。

IPLawg Review 试刊号

(Donnie) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:38:28 +0800

===========================================
IPLawg Review

Vol. 1, Issue 1. 23 April 2008.
Editor: Donnie Dong
===========================================

一篇小小的说明文：关于《IPLawg Review》

董皓

在信息网络时代，无论是读者还是网志作者的精力都很有限——读者往往只能在网络上漫无目的地搜寻，然后碰运气看到自己感兴趣的内容；而作者又很难每天都有创新性的成果，加上兴趣的转变和网志的随意性，难以持续吸引读者，保持网站的黏性。
《IPLawg Review》是卓敏和我通过电子邮件往来凑出的主意。其目的就是解决上述读者和作者的双重尴尬，通过聚合中文互联网中的优秀知识产权网志作者，共同建立一个互联网上的专业知识产权交流平台。它的宗旨有三：

（1）聚合网志精华；
（2）挖掘纵深资源；
（3）分享专业视点。

《IPLawg Review》的运作方式是：通过“在叙述中链接”的方式，将近期出现的专业知识产权日志、重要的知识产权新闻和资讯集中聚合于一期《IPLawg Review》中，然后在所有参与者自己的网志（博客）上同时刊载该期内容。这种“集中编辑＋分散发布”的模式，可以结合“专业人肉编辑”和“网络草根媒体”的优点，让新鲜专业的资讯迅速进入读者（同时也是写者）的视线，并逐渐形成一个开放的知识产权Blogger联盟。

第八个世界知识产权日（4.26）就要到了，今年的主题是“庆祝创新”，在这个主题之下发出首期《IPLawg Review》（《知识产权网络评论》），也算是为这个小小的创新赶个喜庆。感谢互联网，它让我们低成本地实践这或许幼稚的想法；感谢《草莓》和《爱枣报》，它们给了我们灵感；感谢众多对知识产权有兴趣的写者和读者，它们是我们的源泉……这还没开始呢，就跟颁奖晚会似的，呵呵。好了，废话少说，正式开始。本期内容是个尝试，欢迎大家提意见，更欢迎真正专业的你参加我们的编辑工作，想先看看我们的编辑平台？请点这里指导和批评。

===========================================
《IPLawg Review：知识产权网络评论》
试刊号第1卷第1期 2008年4月23日
本期编辑：董皓
===========================================

四月是知识产权月，在“庆祝创新”的主题下，中国酝酿再修订专利法和商标法，中国《国家知识产权战略》也获得了原则通过。从知识产权执法体制改革方向到越来越热的普洱茶，这个白皮书的制定过程本身对知识产权就有巨大的促进作用。

四月还是奥运火炬月，围绕着这个火种，种种抗议和反抗议不绝于耳，其中发生在坦桑尼亚的借题发挥最有创意，反对的是中国的假冒产品。不但直接导致“混淆”的假冒遭人诟病，就是算不上假冒的“Li-Ning”对“Adidas”和“NIKE”的品牌模仿，也有人发表了意见。而在中国，“家乐福”这个品牌不小心成了众矢之的，如果真在劳动节杯葛了它，恐怕受害的还是劳动者。知识产权往往被作为利益较量的矛，欧盟最近也刚拿美国知识产权执法说事，要想学好知识产权，得先摒除极端的民族主义，再远离利益集团的干扰，让法律的归法律、政治的归政治。与此相关的是：北京市版权局称恶搞奥运标志属侵权，不知道出此言者是否具体分析过奥运标志上究竟有没有版权。

珊瑚虫QQ案被称为“一次深刻的网络知识产权普及教育”，其中的知识产权问题的也有了相对专业的讨论，一句“守法者强则国强，守法者弱则国弱”颇有箴言的味道，稍微赞一下。网络环境下著作权集体管理是否有效，也还需要进一步分析和实践。标准之争再起，有人认为OOXML成国际标准将不利于国产软件。

著作权意义上的“发行”一直被误解，其实问题很简单，发行是负载了作品的有形载体的所有权转移，信息网络传播（或公共传播）是固定了作品的“无形载体”的可获取。但无论是香港的陈乃明案还是内地的司法解释，都没弄清这个问题。不过这也不能怪立法和司法者，发行和复制的分离以及信息网络环境下著作权种种权能之间的区隔，本就是一个值得继续讨论的问题。

再说点专利的事，根据WIPO公布的PCT国际专利申请量的相关数据，中国继续保持国际申请量世界第七的位置，看上去不错，但比比旁边的韩国（第四），再算算人口比例，实在也算不上个值得骄傲的成绩。排在前10位的其他国家为：美利坚合众国（第1位）、日本（第2位）、德国（第3位）、法国（第5位）、联合王国（第6位）、荷兰（第8位）、瑞士（第9位）和瑞典（第10位）。值得注意的是，与电子信息行业飙升的申请量相比，有关生物技术方面的专利申请量出现了持续的疲软反应。专利与著作权的血缘关系其实远远大于与同属“工业产权”的商标。而专利文献的版权问题也值得我们认真思考，台湾司法机构的理解似乎有待澄清，小编有自己的看法以后再慢慢道来。

欢迎你将上述内容复制粘贴到你的Blog或网站上，唯一的要求是：你必须完整清楚地将本贴所有内容、包括其中的链接及本段内容予以原样复制。

Professor Susan Scafidi on Li-Ning on Nike

ipdragon — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:10:00 +0800

李宁versus 耐克

Even if you are not a victim of fashion Counterfeit Chic is the weblog to regularly frequent. Ms Susan Scafidi, visiting professor of Fordham Law School, blogged about Li-Ning versus Nike in her own funny tongue in cheek style.

Don't miss it, read here.

Slides from Copyright presentation

Kevin A. Thompson — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:49:59 +0800

Here are my slides from the presentation I gave on April 1, 2008 at the Chicago Bar Association as part of the Internet Intellectual Property Issues for Small Businesses seminar.

My presentation is entitled “Copyright Issues for Small Businesses.”

Also presenting were Gina Durham and Paul McGrady.

EU Intellectual Property Legislations

(Donnie) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:21:35 +0800

European Intellectual Property Legislations
(except, trade secret, patent and trademark)

•	Directive 2006/116/EC Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights. OJ L372/12 (27.12.2006)
•	Directive 2006/115/EC Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property OJ L376/28 (27.12.2006)
•	Corrigendum to Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Directive Corrigendum to Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights OJ L195/16 (02.06.2004)
•	Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Directive Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights OJ L 157/45 (30.04.2004)
•	Artist's Resale Rights Directive Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art OJ L 272/32 (13.10.2001)
•	Copyright Directive Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society OJ L 167/10 (22.06.2001)
•	Database Directive Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L 077/20 (27.03.1996)
•	Term Directive Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights OJ L 290/9 (24.11.1993) Directive 93/98/EEC has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2006/116/EC, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the Directives.
•	Satellite and Cable Directive Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission OJ L 248/15 (06.10.1993)
•	Rental Directive Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property OJ L 346/61 (27.11.1992) (original version; also available: consolidated version) Directive 92/100/EEC has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2006/115/EC, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the Directives.
•	Software Directive: Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs OJ L 122/42 (17.05.1991)

From:
http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/intellectual-property/europe.html

More legislations (especially that of the Nethelands) can be found at:

http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/intellectual-property/netherlands.htm

看到美国海关的统计数据，真得很震惊！

(author unknown) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:33:00 +0800

杨力：网络环境下著作权集体管理的多赢选择

(author unknown) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:14:39 +0800

网络上知识产权评估（尤其是版权）方面的资料

(法豆) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:51:36 +0800

Dealing with Intangibles: Valuing Brand Names, Flexibility and PatentsAswath Damodaran
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/papers/intangibles.pdf

知识产权审计：操作指南http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/zh/docs/ip_audit.pdf

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS AN ECONOMIC ASSET: KEY ISSUES IN VALUATION AND EXPLOITATION
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/2/35519266.pdf

The Economic Valuation of Trade Secret Assetshttp://www.thetso.com/?Info/evaluation.html

商标、厂商名称和品牌进行估价http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/22556/la_id/1.htm

评估专利的价值：应牢记的事项
http://www.wipo.int/cn/sme/documents/valuing_patents.html

DLA欧洲知识产权调查
2004年春季，DLA委托他人进行了一次对全欧洲300家最大企业的调查。调查显示，参加调查的大多数公司尚未建立知识产权管理战略，也不对其知识产权资产进行评估。这一调查也在有效利用知识产权资产方面存在多大挑战这一问题上提供了有用的信息。

版权经济学与数字议程
Hans Hegh Guldberg撰写的这篇文章重点讨论了版权在澳大利亚经济中所发挥的经济作用及其与数字革命之间的联系。虽然文章的分析依据是澳大利亚版权及版权相关产业，但作者提出的大多数观点都程度不一地与其他国家的国情有关。

许可使用与版权的价值
保留摄影作品的版权，或许在很大程度上决定了摄影者未来的谋生能力。在“使用许可与版权的价值”一文中，曾任“美洲广告摄影者协会”主席的Jeff Sedlik 强调指出，保留广告摄影者摄制的摄影作品的版权十分重要。