Comments for IP Osgoode

Comment on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity by James Wagner

James Wagner — Wed, 16 May 2012 18:17:04 +0000

A very interesting article Guillaume. Some of these issues seem familiar with what happened to copyright in the part of the 20th century, as it needed to adapt to the the cinema and broadcasting. It took a while to resolve these issues, (the final balance is still in dispute) but once there was enough money at stake, the litigation and lobbying followed and brought some clarity.

Comment on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms by Ken Anderson

Ken Anderson — Thu, 03 May 2012 14:10:17 +0000

Landes & Posner’s “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law” (1989) 18:2 J Legal Stud 325, argued that the law of copyright is justified only insofar as it promotes economic efficiency. Copyright law must maximize the benefits of creating additional works (encouraging wide dissemination), while minimizing the costs to society of reduced access and the costs of administration.
Mr. Ly’s point is well-taken. When laws are inconsistent with prevailing social norms, it can be expected that non-compliance will occur more frequently than against laws that meet those norms. In other words, the greater the divergence between society’s normative understanding of copyright and the law as it is written, one can expect the costs of administration to correspondingly increase. Although this administrative cost (enforcement of copyright protection) is often passed on to collective rights societies, it is ultimately born by the creators these societies represent.
At least according to Landes & Posner, these costs will create a disincentive (or at least weaken the incentive) to creators to create and disseminate works, and it is thus in conflict with the goal of economic efficiency.
Bill C-11 then, which appears to shift copyright law away from prevailing social norms (by sweeping TPM provisions) may in fact be increasing the costs not just to society, but to the very creators it is attempting to protect.

Comment on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal by Courtney Doagoo

Courtney Doagoo — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:36:02 +0000

Dear Mr. Barbosa

Thank you kindly for pointing this out.
Yes, you are correct that it was an opinion delivered by Advocate General Mengozzi and not a final judgement by the ECJ.

I have requested for an amendment to the title to reflect this.

Sincerely,
Courtney

Comment on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal by Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 25 April 2012 from IP Think Tank

Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 25 April 2012 from IP Think Tank — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:02:28 +0000

[...] Botox (Botulinum) – EU: Mengozzi AG opines evidence of parasitic intent not unfounded: L’Oreal appeal denied: C-100/11 Helena Rubinstein and L’Oreal v OHIM (IP Osgoode) [...]

Comment on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal by Denis Borges Barbosa

Denis Borges Barbosa — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:35:36 +0000

I would note that the title of the article (“Evidence of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal Appeal Denied”) does not accurately indicates what actually happened: in par. 60, the Advocate General’s opinion says “In the light of all the above considerations, I therefore propose that the Court dismiss the appeal and order the appellants to pay the costs.”

Consulting the Curia site, I did not find that the Court has already dismissed the case by accepting the opinion. Except for that, the note is important and highly informative.

Comment on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada by Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 18 April 2012 from IP Think Tank

Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 18 April 2012 from IP Think Tank — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:57:59 +0000

[...] Viagra (Sildenifil) – Canada: Disclosure front and centre as Pfizer prepares to defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada (IP Osgoode) [...]

Comment on Patenting Health: You Cannot Own the Laws of Nature by Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 18 April 2012 from IP Think Tank

Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 18 April 2012 from IP Think Tank — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:57:40 +0000

[...] US: Patenting health: You cannot own the laws of nature: Mayo v Prometheus (IP Osgoode) [...]

Comment on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada by D Vaver

D Vaver — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:53:59 +0000

The Canadian Patent Rules have the same force & effect as if they had been enacted in the Patent Act (PA, s 12(2)). Rule 79 requires, in subs. (2), that the patent’s abstract to contain “a concise summary of the matter contained in the application and, where applicable, the chemical formula that, among all the formulae included in the application, best characterizes the invention.” There is more in Rule 79 along the same lines. I wonder how it is thought that the Viagra patent’s abstract can possibly comply with this rule, and whether, if it does not, Rule 79 is a provision for which non-compliance is a “fact or default which by this Act or by law renders the patent void” (PA, s 59). Here is the abstract:

“The use of a compound of formula (I) wherein R1 is H; C1-C3 alkyl; C1-C3 perfluoroalkyl; or C3-C5 cycloalkyl; R2 is H; optionally substituted C1-C6 alkyl; C1-C3 perfluoroalkyl; or C3-C6 cycloalkyl; R3 is optionally substituted C1-C6 alkyl; C1-C6 perfluo-roalkyl; C3-C5 cycloalkyl; C3-C6 alkenyl; or C3-C6 alkynyl; R4 is optionally substituted C1-C4 alkyl, C2-
C4 alkenyl, C2-C4 alkanoyl, (hydroxy)C2-C4 alkyl or (C2-C3 alkoxy)C1-C2 alkyl; CONR5R6; CO2R7; halo; NR5R6; NHSO2NR5R6; NHSO2R8; SO2NR9R10; or phenyl, pyridyl, pyrimidinyl, imidazoyl, oxazolyl, thiazolyl, thienyl or triazolyl any of which is optionally substituted with methyl; R5 and R6 are each independently H or C1-C4 alkyl, or together with the
nitrogen atom to which they are attached form an optionally substituted pyrrolidinyl, piperidino, morpholino, 4-N(R11)-piperazinyl or imidazolyl group; R7 is H or C1-C4 alkyl; R8 is optionally substituted C1-C3 alkyl; R9 and R10 together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached form an optionally substituted pyrrolidinyl, piperidino, morpholino or 4-N(R12)-piperazinyl group; R11 is H; optionally substituted C1-C3 alkyl; (hydroxy)C2-C3 alkyl; or C1-C4 alkanoyl; R12 is H; optionally substituted C1-C6 alkyl; CONR13R14; CSNR13R14; or C(NH)NR13R14; and R?13? and R14 are each independently H; C1-C4 alkyl; or substituted C2-C4 alkyl; or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, or a pharmaceutical composition containing either entity, for the manufacture of a medicament for the curative or prophylactic
treatment of erectile dysfunction in a male animal, including man; a pharmaceutical composition for said treatment; and a method of said treatment of said male animal with said pharmaceutical composition or with said either entity.”

Comment on Copyright Reform, The Irish Way by Copyright Reform at IP Osgoode | Lex Ferenda

[...] [...]

Comment on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada by Dr. Emir Crowne

Dr. Emir Crowne — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:46:15 +0000

Indeed, I recently canvassed the importance of this case in the May issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (available here: http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/5/302.short?rss=1).