Tagged / CIPPM

CIPPM Spring Lecture Series 2013

The annual series of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management’s (CIPPM) http://www.cippm.org.uk/ Spring Lectures starts on Thursday 21 February 2013 at 6 pm.

Professor Hector MacQueen, Professor of Private Law at the University of Edinburgh will deliver the first lecture, titled “Ae fond kiss: A Private Matter?” on Thursday 21 February 2013.

Professor MacQueen has written extensively on Intellectual Property law and is author, co-author and editor of a number of books on Intellectual Property law. He was the Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh (1999-2003) and Director of the AHRC Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law (SCRIPT) (2002-2007). In 2010 Professor MacQueen took up an appointment as Scottish Law Commissioner (2010-2014).

CIPPM Spring Lectures take place at 18:00, in the Executive Business Centre, close to the Bournemouth Travel Interchange (89 Holdenhurst Road, BH8 8EB). The lectures are free to attend, but places are limited, and admission to the building closes at 18:15. If you wish to reserve a place, please contact Mandy Lenihan at ALenihan@bournemouth.ac.uk

For further information on forthcoming CIPPM Spring Lectures and for booking information see http://business.bournemouth.ac.uk/news/2013/jan/ne001-cippm-lectures-2013.html

CIPPM reports on Open Standards in Government IT Procurement

The Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) has recently completed two reports commissioned by the UK Cabinet Office to assist the Government formulate a policy on Open Standards in Government IT Procurement.  The policy was published and adopted on the 1st November 2012. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/government-bodies-must-comply-open-standards-principles

On page 8 of the Government’s document justifying its policy decision, the role of the CIPPM is explained as follows:

“The Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) at the University of Bournemouth was commissioned to undertake the analysis of the evidence submitted. Cabinet Office has published this as an independent report (see the Cabinet Office website: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-standards-consultation-documents). The methodology for the analysis is also provided.

During the course of the consultation, Cabinet Office commissioned Open Standards in Government IT: A Review of the Evidence (also available on the Cabinet Office website) by the CIPPM. The review looked at economic and legal aspects of introducing an open standards policy for government IT, including an appraisal of costs and benefits. Bournemouth University published drafts for peer review and following this it has now been published by Cabinet Office.

The independent analysis and research elements were undertaken to ensure that due consideration was given to the complex evidence base and that a neutral analysis of the consultation responses is distinguishable from the policy decisions taken by the Government in light of the consultation exercise.”

The review of the evidence on the competition and innovation effects of open standards in IT systems was led by Sally Weston, a commercial lawyer and Head of Law at Bournemouth University, and Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management. They have also drawn on the expertise of economics professor Jenifer Piesse.

Dr Marcella Favale, CIPPM research fellow, led on the analysis of responses to the consultation process (which included online responses and roundtable discussions), using a social science approach combining grounded theory for identifying patterns of argument and quantifying these by type of respondent. It is highly unusual for a public consultation exercise to be analysed in the manner, treating responses as data to be analysed under a rigorous and transparent methodology. CIPPM has developed a pioneering capacity in this field.

Professor Martin Kretschmer and Sally Weston comment on their review of the evidence:

“Although there is a lack of quantitative evidence on precise cost savings from adopting open standards there are abundant examples where an open standards policy has been adopted with consequent benefits. The literature identifies few downside risks. The challenges appear to lie in the manner of implementation so that potential pitfalls, such as adopting the wrong standard, are avoided while maximising potential gains from increased interoperability, such as more competitive procurement and benefits to SMEs and citizens. The evidence does not support the need to offer intellectual property rights to write good interfaces.” 

The government’s published response to the Consultation cites the CIPPM studies on pp. 9, 14, and 20:

Page 9: “The role of the Government in this instance is that of procurement rather than market intervention and the Bournemouth report highlights that in this case: ‘arguments suggesting that royalties on standards are essential to reward and encourage innovation are not clear cut and the balance of interests is in fact far more nuanced.’”

Page 14: “The review of evidence by Bournemouth University noted that patents are an important means of protecting the value of software and can be effective revenue sources for the patent owner. However, issues exist in industry for example with regards to patents trolls and patent thickets – in the UK these are best considered by the Intellectual Property Office (for example through its work on implementing the Hargreaves Review).”

Page 20: “However in terms of getting a picture of compatibility with European policies and legislation, the response from the consultation was inconclusive. Therefore, in drafting the policy and principles for open standards, we have drawn on legal and economic evidence presented in other sections to ensure that our approach is consistent with our European obligations. We have also considered the evidence presented in the Bournemouth review and drawn on the expertise of government officials in other departments.”

Report from the ESRC Festival of Social Science

Bournemouth University was host to an ESRC Festival of Social Science event on 8 November 2012.  The one-day conference, organized by Professor Martin Kretschmer and colleagues from the Law School, sought to explore the complexities of developing empirical research to support public policy in domains such as copyright law.   In attendance at the conference were stakeholders from the Intellectual Property Office UK, the Cabinet Office, law professionals and academics from around Europe.  The day was structured around a series of panel discussions by representatives from policy, the media industry, and law, prompting lively debate around questions such as: ‘What is the status of qualitative research in policy decision making?’ and ‘How can we reconcile the differing legal and academic standards for evidence?’.

The conference was video recorded with the help of research assistants from the Media School and will be made available in full as a series of digital conference proceedings.

The conference was also an opportunity for Professor Kretschmer, Dr. Kris Erickson and Dr. Dinusha Mendis to present the findings of research they carried out during the IPO consultation on the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property.  The research seeks to evaluate possible economic impacts of any future change to UK copyright law to permit parody, caricature and pastiche of existing works.  Currently, parody is not explicitly permitted under UK copyright law.  The authors hope that this type of empirical research will help to illuminate complex public policy questions and strengthen the role of academic research in the policy process.

Below you may view a detailed presentation of the research from the ESRC event.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWbgZ63Ug9k

 

 

 

CIPPM associate director quoted in Financial Times

Prof. Ruth SoetendorpProfessor Ruth Soetendorp, Associate Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) in the Business School has been quoted in the Financial Timeshttp://search.ft.com/search?queryText=ruth+intellectual+property The article titled ‘Students Need Better Education about Intellectual Property” (IP) goes on to reveal the recent research findings published by the National Union of Students (NUS), the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the Intellectual Property Awareness Network (IPAN).  According to the research, it has been established that “that while 80 per cent of students believe knowledge of IP is important, many students are not even aware of the potential scope of IP education. And even where it does take place, IP education is often restricted to plagiarism. Furthermore whilst 82 per cent of students feel it is important to know about IP to ensure everyone receives recognition for their work and ideas, significantly less make a connection between IP and commercial success”.

Professor Ruth Soetendorp, Head of IPAN’s Education Group is quoted as follows:

“This research highlights shortcomings in student IP understanding and its teaching in Further and Higher Education which have negative implications for the UK economy.  The UK needs to be world class in the creative arts, innovative in its product and systems designs, and pioneering in manufacturing processes.  In a global market these need to be underwritten by a proper understanding of IP embedded in an educated workforce.”

The Full Report can be found here http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/2012_NUS_IPO_IPAN_Student_Attitudes_to_Intellectectual_Property.pdf and the IPAN media release, quoted in the Financial Times can be found here http://www.ipaware.net/node/77

Bournemouth University is one of only two universities in the UK to have an innovative IP syllabus for final year law students. The Intellectual Property law unit which is offered to final year law students culminates in a collaborative project which brings together Law students and Design, Engineering and Computing (DEC) students.  The project requires the Law students to provide IP advice to DEC students on their final year ‘inventions’.  The project brings ‘IP law to Life’ and provides the type of IP understanding and commercial awareness that both parties need.

http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/newsandevents/News/2012/july/contentonly_1_7896_7896.html

The IP-DEC Project at Bournemouth University was pioneered by Professor Ruth Soetendorp in 1995.

Co-Director of CIPPM, Dr Dinusha Mendis, elected to the Executive Committee of the British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association (BILETA)

Dr Dinusha Mendis, Senior Lecturer in Law, and Co-Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management http://www.cippm.org.uk/ was elected to the Executive Committee of the long-standing British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association (BILETA) in March 2012 http://www.bileta.ac.uk/Membership/Executive%20Committee

Formed in April 1986 BILETA exists to promote the use of technology in legal education throughout the UK and Ireland.  The Association liaises with academic organisations and professional organisations such as the Higher Education Academy http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/disciplines/law and British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILI) http://www.bailii.org/ Dr. Mendis also represents Bournemouth University on the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) Council http://www1.legalscholars.ac.uk/about/council/index.cfm which was founded in 1908 and celebrates 104 years in 2012.

At the 2012 BILETA Annual Conference in Newcastle (http://www.numyspace.co.uk/~unn_mlif1/school_of_law/bileta/)  Dr. Mendis presented a paper analysing the UK Digital Economy Act 2010. This Act attempts to enforce copyright law in the online environment, for example against downloading and file-sharing. Infringing users will be given three warnings after which they can potentially be disconnected from the Internet, also known as ‘three-strikes-and-you’re-out’. The law is controversial, and still to be implemented. Dr Mendis considers the proportionality of the measure and its effectiveness in the context of fast moving technology.

Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission (Digital Agenda), reads BU research, but…

Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, made her annual set piece speech at the Media Forum in Avignon, France on 19 November: Who feeds the artist?

Speaking of economic reward: if that is the aim of our current copyright system, we’re failing here too. [then follows a paragraph summarising the BU studies in the area, but without reference] 1000 euros a month is not much to live off. Often less than the minimum wage. But most artists, and not only the young ones at the early stages of their career, have to do so. Half the fine artists in the UK, half the “professional” authors in Germany, and, I am told, an incredible 97.5% of one of the biggest collecting society’s members in Europe, receive less than that paltry payment of 1000 euros a month for their copyright works. Of course, the best-paid in this sector earn a lot, and well done to them. But at the bottom of the pyramid are a whole mass of people who need independent means or a second job just to survive.

[before indicating a change in policy direction] Let’s not wait for a financial crisis in the creative sector to happen to finally adopt the right tools to tackle it.

The data is clearly from:

AUTHORS’ EARNINGS FROM COPYRIGHT AND NON-COPYRIGHT SOURCES: A SURVEY OF 25,000 BRITISH AND GERMAN WRITERS (ALCS Study 2007) http://www.cippm.org.uk/alcs_study.html

COPYRIGHT CONTRACTS AND EARNINGS OF VISUAL CREATORS: A SURVEY OF 5,800 BRITISH DESIGNERS, FINE ARTISTS, ILLUSTRATORS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS (DACS Study 2011) http://www.cippm.org.uk/publications/dacs-report.html

A possible source is my contribution to a Hearing in the European Parliament last June. http://www.cippm.org.uk/news/2011/jun/ne001-future-of-copyright-in-the-digital-era.html

So there is a challenge… I could blog: “European Commission Vice-President reads BU research”.

But no source is cited. Did our studies matter? Is there a causal link to a change in the direction of copyright policy?

In REF terms, was there Impact of research?