Re: An IP gripe

On 8/13/99, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 1999, Carol Cricow <carol[_at_]yujean.com> wrote:
> >
> > Am I the only one who resents the term "Intellectual Property" being
> > used only for patents? I just got a flyer in the mail advertising a
> > CLE called "International Judge Conference on Intellectual Property
> > Law." A quick glance at the schedule told me that this is a
> > conference on patent law.
> >
> > Earlier this year, I was asked to be on a career panel at the
> > University of Oregon law School representing "soft" intellectual
> > property -- by which they meant "not patents" which, apparently,
> > goes as "hard" intellectual property.
> >
> > I resent that. Many of the most important, cutting edge issues in
> > IP law are in the areas of copyright and trademarks -- esp. with
> > Internet issues such as copyright infringement by posting on a web
> > site and domain names as trademark.
> >
> > The kind of IP law I practice, that is copyrights, trademarks and
> > licensing, is IP. Period. Not "hard" not "soft" -- just intellectual
> > property.
> >
> > Sorry for the slight diatribe but it really pisses me off.
>
> I second Carol's complaint. For too many years now, "IP" has been
> considered a synonym for "Patent", and when I introduce myself as
> an i.p. lawyer people immediately assume I am a patent attorney,
> which I am not.
>
> Whenever I get the opportunity, in CLEs or classes or client briefings,
> I identify six kinds of intellectual property: patents, trademarks,
> copyrights, domain names, trade secrets, and rights of publicity. I
> think each of these six things is legitimately considered a separate
> form of i.p., because the applicable law, the standards for protection,
> and the relevant licensing policies vary greatly from one to the next.
> I continue to regard trade dress as a subset of trademark, but if the
> law keeps diverging in that area, there may be an argument for
> identifying trade dress as a seventh separate form of i.p.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts on this approach, and on anything we
> can do to educate the public as to the full range of the rubric
> "intellectual property".

I strongly agree with Carol. I too have noticed that Conferences on "Intellectual Property" tend to be about 80-90% patent law, making it difficult to find good educational opportunities. I just received my latest issue of the Marquette University Intellectual Property Law Journal and noticed for the first time that copyright, trademark and trade secret are rarely covered.

Terence P. McElwee
Director
Technology Transfer and Corporate Research Marquette University
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881
414.288.5329 (fax288.1578)
mcelweet[_at_]info.orsp.mu.edu Received on Mon Aug 16 1999 - 13:41:57 GMT