An excellent critique of the intellectual property world's equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act - an analogy that hadn't occurred to me before - from Jane Lambert on her NIPC Law blawg. The Dangerous Designs Act, perhaps.
The government, committed as it is to the audit society, claims to make policy on evidence-based grounds: at least that's what the last inexpert (non-lawyer, even) reviewer of intellectual property law recommended, and the government seems to have swallowed his line (and hook, and sinker): but just about all the evidence shows that this is as bad an idea as any government has ever had. I don't know whether even the axe-grinders at ACID think it's a good idea, but accommodating their views would be as clever as having the IP lawyers at Ford draft Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill back in 1987. I'm sure Bob Drakeford and Peter Orton would have loved to do it, but the government wouldn't even have looked at the result. Why is ultra-strong protection for designs now seen as a Good Thing?
The government, committed as it is to the audit society, claims to make policy on evidence-based grounds: at least that's what the last inexpert (non-lawyer, even) reviewer of intellectual property law recommended, and the government seems to have swallowed his line (and hook, and sinker): but just about all the evidence shows that this is as bad an idea as any government has ever had. I don't know whether even the axe-grinders at ACID think it's a good idea, but accommodating their views would be as clever as having the IP lawyers at Ford draft Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill back in 1987. I'm sure Bob Drakeford and Peter Orton would have loved to do it, but the government wouldn't even have looked at the result. Why is ultra-strong protection for designs now seen as a Good Thing?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment