Home » Posts tagged 'ACID'
Tag Archives: ACID
From Star Wars to New Order: the House of Commons discuss the IP Bill
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
The second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the Commons happened last Monday (20/1). It was disappointing that only around 25 people appeared to be present for the reading which took in the television and film watching habits of some members of the House, whether the Prime Minister can identify his Minister for Intellectual Property and plenty of discussion about the inclusion of criminal sanctions for copying of registered designs (Clause 13).
The transcript of the session can be found at the following links – (Part I [see column 38] and Part II) – and we’ve highlighted some of the more interesting parts below. (more…)
Intellectual Property Bill – 2nd Reading today (20/1/14)
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Today will see the delayed second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons. We’ve previously highlighted the main provisions of the Bill on IPcopy including our issues with Clause 13 (criminal sanctions for the copying of registered designs).
Clause 13 in its current form doesn’t appear to achieve what its supporters claim it does and I contacted my MP over the weekend in the hope that he will might help secure amendments to the wording of the Bill. A copy of my email is below. Feel free to adapt it if you wish to contact your own MP. You can find your own MP here.
The association Anti Copying in Design (ACID) are of course big supporters of Clause 13 of the IP Bill and actually are pressing for it to be extended to cover unregistered design rights. They are even quoting Churchill today on Twitter in an effort to drum up support for their position. Well, two can play that game! Here’s another Churchill quote that sums up my feelings about Clause 13: “Oh no, no, no!” (more…)
Clause 13: copying, informed users and design trolls
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Last week in the context of Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill we posted some comments on the suitability of a criminal court to hear registered design issues. I mentioned in that earlier post that there were other reasons why we thought the clause should be deleted and some more of these are discussed below.
Remember, if you feel that Clause 13 of the IP Bill should be deleted or amended to restrict its scope then you should lobby your MP. Find your MP here.
Today’s mini rant topic of discussion looks at whether the intent of the legislation has been captured in the Clause as drafted and also looks at the acts of copying and infringement. Finally there are some musings on the how the criminal provisions could be used in practice.
Criminal courts as a forum for design infringement
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
We’ve written quite a bit about Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill on IPcopy but with the IP Bill now on the verge of its second reading in the Commons the time left to change the Bill is running out. The specific clauses and their wording will be discussed in the Committee stage of the Bill which may occur before Christmas.
It would be my preference for Clause 13 to be deleted in its entirety from the Bill for a number of reasons, one of which is discussed in more detail below. The intention behind the clause is to provide stronger rights for designers which is, of course, a laudable aim. However, I question whether this clause is the correct vehicle for those improved rights. Alternatives such as extending the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to hear registered design cases would also enable registered design rights holders to bring cases more cost effectively. ACID themselves appear to have had great success with mediation which is a process that could be formalised and expanded in my view to provide another option to rights holders.
However, instead we have Clause 13 which will make it a criminal offence to copy a design. In this article we’ll look a little more at the forum that such cases will be heard in.
IP Bill & Clause 13 – an IPcopy response to an ACID response to a Katpost
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Last night IPKat posted a reply from Dids Macdonald of ACID on the recent series of posts relating to Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill. Merpel (of IPKat) interspersed some comments into Dids’ views which helped throw a light on some of the comments being made.
However, having read the post a couple of times we felt moved to write a response to the post on IPKat. Since the resultant response was so long we’ve posted it here on IPcopy and have submitted a link to this article for inclusion in the comments section of the original post on IPKat. (more…)
A not entirely serious look at Clause 13 of the IP Bill….
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill is attracting a fair amount of discussion on both sides of the argument. I thought I’d take a closer look at some of the issues around the clause and what happened before its appearance in the Bill. I must have been in a funny mood when I wrote the post below as its in the style of a totally fictional conversation between a client and his patent attorney. See if you can guess which side of the argument I come down on…… (more…)
The Intellectual Property Bill – Criminal Provisions for Registered Design Infringement
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In an earlier post we looked at the patent related provisions in the Intellectual Property Bill. Today, it is the turn of the registered design related provisions, or more accurately, one specific part of the registered design related provisions: Clause 13 – “Offence of unauthorised copying etc. of design in course of business”.
Clause 13 introduces a criminal offence with respect to registered design infringement which is punishable by imprisonment of a term “not exceeding ten years” and an unlimited fine. As we see below this provision has generated some opposing views.
IPcopy 